DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12 January 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 16, 18-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Regarding claim 16, the limitation of “the at least one loader and the at least one unloader being handling devices equipped with gripper tools configured to grip and receive the tire blanks or tires” was not explicitly disclosed in the specification as being part of the claimed invention. The only mention of “gripper tools” in the specification is found on p.2 L15-17 discussing the background of the tire production art, stating that “handling devices are equipped with suitable gripper tools which can also grip and receive the delicate tires. Gripper tools of this design are complex and expensive” and p.3 L5 which states “such devices are known” with devices including “handling devices” and by extension, “gripper tools”. Based on the cited passage, the specification is discrediting the use of said gripping tools.
As claims 18-24 depend directly/indirectly on claim 16, they stand as rejected for similar reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 16 and 18-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh et al. (US20110088812) (of record) in view of Mitamura (JPH11268039A) (of record) (machine translation) and Kraft (US3310161) (of record) and alternatively in view of applicant’s specification.
Regarding claim 16, Singh (Fig 1-12) discloses a device for vulcanizing tires comprising:
at least one vulcanization chamber ("tire curing press" (16));
at least one loader for loading a tire blank into the at least one vulcanization chamber ("tire press loader" (66));
at least one unloader for unloading an at least partially vulcanized tire from the at least one vulcanization chamber ("loading arm" (40)), the at least one loader and the at least one unloader being handling devices equipped with gripper tools configured to grip and receive the tire blanks or tires ([0033], Fig 2, 6, in which both the “tire press loader” (66) and “loading arm” (40) are shown with some features allowed for gripping tires);
at least one depositing apparatus ("tire discharge station" (44));
at least one posttreatment device (“inflator station” (20, 22));
at least one sliding device ("powered mechanism" (45)); and
wherein the at least one unloader is configured to unload the at least partially vulcanized tire from the at least one vulcanization chamber and deposit the at least partially vulcanized tire on the at least one depositing apparatus ([0021]), and
wherein the at least one sliding device is configured to push the at least partially vulcanized tire deposited on the depositing apparatus away to another location (Fig 10, 11, [0035] in that “powered mechanism” (45) pushes the “tire discharge station” (44) (and indirectly the tire on it) so that the “tire discharge station” (44) is at an incline, causing the tire on it to slide downwards),
wherein the at least one unloader is configured both for unloading the vulcanization chamber and for loading the at least one post-treatment device ([0021]), where in the at least one unloader is further configured to move a center of the at least partially vulcanized tire from the at least one vulcanization chamber to the at least one post-treatment device on a track so that the at least partially vulcanized tires are movable around structural elements of the device for vulcanizing tires ([0021], Fig 3).
Examiner notes that as Singh teaches the movement of partially vulcanized tires relative to the structural elements of the device for vulcanizing tires (Fig 3, [0021]), it is also considered to teach the movement of partially vulcanized tires around the structural elements of the device for vulcanizing tires, with “movable around” interpreted as being “movable in relation to”.
While Singh does not explicitly disclose that the device further comprises a conveyor belt and that the another location the sliding device is configured to push the at least partially vulcanized tire deposited on the depositing apparatus towards is the conveyor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective priority date of the instant application to do so, given that Mitamura, which is within the tire vulcanization art, teaches that a device for vulcanizing tires that includes a depositing apparatus (“discharge conveyor” (5)) can comprise of a conveyor belt (“output conveyor” (6)) onto which a tire from the depositing apparatus can be deposited onto ([0020]) to ensure the proper transport of the vulcanized tire towards further stations, such as a tire inspection machine or to a shipping location ([0020]).
While Singh does not expressly teach the shape of the track is curved when view from above and that the track curves in two opposing directions, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective priority date of the instant application to do so, given that Kraft, which is analogous to Singh with regards to the use of devices to transport components, teaches that the use of conveyors with horizontal curves (which would include curved track shapes) for transporting products are a known means (C1 L1-21) for the desirable predictable outcome of non-linear movement (C1 L1-21). Additionally and alternatively, case law holds that changes in shape are matters of design choice that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed invention is significant (See MPEP 2144.04). In the instant case, the shape of the track is considered to be a matter of design choice.
Alternatively, with regards to the limitation of “the at least one loader and the at least one unloader being handling devices equipped with gripper tools configured to grip and receive the tire blanks or tires”, if Singh’s disclosure is considered insufficient, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective priority date of the instant application to do so, as applicant’s own specification discloses the use of gripper tools in devices used to handle tires and how such devices are known in the art (p.2 L15-22, p.3 L5) and “where the specification identifies work done by another as "prior art," the subject matter so identified is treated as admitted prior art” (See MPEP 2129).
Regarding claim 18, modified Singh teaches all limitations of claim 16 as set forth above. Additionally, Singh teaches that the device is a double heating press (Fig 2) comprising a first vulcanization chamber and a second vulcanization chamber (“tire curing press cavities” (16A, 16B)).
Regarding claim 19, modified Singh teaches all limitations of claim 18 as set forth above. Additionally, Singh teaches that the device further comprises a first post-treatment device assigned to the first vulcanization chamber (“inflator station” (20, 22)) and a first depositing apparatus assigned to the first post-treatment device (“tire discharge station” (44)), and a second post-treatment device assigned to the second vulcanization chamber and a second depositing apparatus assigned to the second post-treatment device ([0017], Fig 1, 2).
Regarding claim 20, modified Singh teaches all limitations of claim 19 as set forth above. Additionally, Singh teaches that the at least one sliding device includes an individual sliding device assigned to each depositing apparatus (Fig 2, 10, 11, “powered mechanism” (45), [0028]).
Regarding claim 21, modified Singh teaches all limitations of claim 18 as set forth above. While Singh does not explicitly disclose that the double heating press is configured for truck tires, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective priority date of the instant application to do so, given that Singh teaches that tires of a wide variety of sizes can be worked upon ([0019]) and does not teach away from using the device for any particular tire as it does not explicitly “criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed” (See MPEP 2141.02(VI)). One would have been motivated to have the double heating press configured for truck tires as the double heating press is recognized for use with tires, which includes truck tires. Examiner notes that “truck tires” are considered to be an article worked upon by the claimed device and as such, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims" (See MPEP 2115).
Regarding claim 22, modified Singh teaches all limitations of claim 16. While Singh does not explicitly disclose that the device for vulcanizing tires has a width of approximately 3.0 m to 3.1 m, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective priority date of the instant application to do so, given that since such a modification would involve only a mere change in size of a component. Scaling up or down of an element which merely requires a change in size is generally considered as being within the ordinary skill in the art (See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)). One would have been motivated to scale the width of the device for vulcanizing tires to be 3.0 to 3.1 m in order to ensure that there is enough space for all the necessary equipment to be setup and operated.
Regarding claim 23, modified Singh teaches all limitations of claim 18 as set forth above. Additionally, Singh teaches that the device further comprises a first loader assigned to the first vulcanization chamber (“tire press loader” (66)), and a second loader assigned to the second vulcanization chamber (Fig 2, unlabeled component with similar design to “tire press loader” (66)).
Regarding claim 24, modified Singh teaches all limitations of claim 23 as set forth above. Additionally, Singh teaches that the first loader and the second loader are configured to be actuatable in parallel so that the vulcanization chambers are loaded in parallel (Fig 1, 2, [0017], in that there are at least two “tire curing press cavities” that can be operated independently of one another).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On p.8-11 of applicant’s remarks, applicant argues that the conveyor belt taught in Kraft is not comparable to the loader/unloader of a curing press and that such a conveyor belt could not be incorporated into Kraft. Examiner disagrees, first noting that Kraft is not relied upon for the teaching of specific conveyor belts or their integration into tire vulcanization systems; rather, it is being relied upon to teach that the use of horizontal curvature for non-linear tracks (that is, the “movement of the center of a tire [[or an object]]” p.17 L19-21 of applicant’s specification, along a path) would be known to one of ordinary skill in the art and that applying non-linear tracks to other handling devices, including a loader/unloader of a curing press, would have been obvious.
On p.10 of applicant’s remarks, applicant argues that the curve track in two opposing direction is not a matter of design but instead “enables the manufacturing of curing presses with a smaller width, which is a beneficial technical feature of the curing press and allows more curing presses to be installed inside a production site with a given space”. Absent a showing of explicit evidence supporting this, applicant’s statement amounts to applicant’s own opinion not supported by explicit evidence found in the instant application’s specification and are not considered persuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER D BOOTH whose telephone number is 571-272-6704. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00-4:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Katelyn Smith can be reached at 571-270-5545. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALEXANDER D BOOTH/Examiner, Art Unit 1749
/SEDEF E PAQUETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749