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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 1-2 and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (SU 994300, see machine translation) (of record) and Mancini et al. (WO 2014091387) (of record).
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses a middle drum assembly of a building drum, comprising: a drum shoulder (Figs. 1-2: 2, 3); a middle drum block (Figs. 1-2: 1, 6, 10) having a mounting groove (Fig. 2: 7); a first fastener (Figs. 1-2: 4, 5, 8) movably disposed in the drum shoulder (Figs. 1-2: 2, 3) and capable of moving along the axial direction of the building drum ([0002], [0009]), the first fastener has a step surface (Figs. 1-2: see outer surface of 4, 5, 8 in contact with 6), and the middle drum block (Figs. 1-2: 1, 6, 10) abuts the drum shoulder (Figs. 1-2: 2) in the radial direction of the building drum, the mounting groove (Fig. 2: 7) is aligned with the first fastener (Figs. 1-2: 4, 5, 8), the middle drum block (Figs. 1-2: , 1, 6, 10) presses the step surface (Figs. 1-2: see surface of 4, 5, 8 in contact with 6) and a part of the first fastener (Figs. 1-2: 4, 5, 8) stretches into the mounting groove (Fig. 2: 7) ([0009]).
However, Kim does not expressly recite the middle drum block having a fixing hole, or a second fastener, a part of the second fastener passing through the drum shoulder, wherein after the part of the first fastener stretches into the mounting groove, the fixing hole is aligned with the second fastener, the middle drum block is close to the drum shoulder along the axial direction of the building drum, and a part of the second fastener exposed out of the drum shoulder stretches into the fixing hole.
Mancini discloses a building drum comprising a middle drum block (Figs. 4a, 4b: 50) having a fixing hole (Figs. 4a, 4b: 68), and a second fastener (Figs. 2, 4a, 4b: 67), a part of the second fastener passing through a drum shoulder (Figs. 4a, 4b: 60), wherein the fixing hole is aligned with the second faster and the second fastener is used to center and calibrate the two sector faces when they are brough together (Page 24 lines 5-22; Page 27 lines 26-32). In this manner, when the middle drum block (Figs. 4a, 4b: 50) is brought close to the drum shoulder (Figs. 4a, 4b: 60) along the axial direction of the building drum, a part of the second fastener (Figs. 4a, 4b: 67) exposed out of the drum shoulder (Figs. 4a, 4b: 60) stretches into the fixing hole (Figs. 4a, 4b: 68). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Kim in order to provide second fasteners in the drum shoulder and corresponding fixing holes in the middle drum blocks so as to center and calibrate the two as they are brought together in the axial direction, as taught by Mancini. Accordingly, Kim in view of Mancini discloses that after the part of the first fastener stretches into the mounting groove (i.e., after brining the middle drum block and drum shoulder together in the axial direction), the fixing hole is aligned with the second fastener, the middle drum block is close to the drum shoulder along the axial direction of the building drum, and a part of the second fastener exposed out of the drum shoulder stretches into the fixing hole.
Regarding claim 2, Kim further discloses the middle drum block must be arc-shaped (Figs. 1-2: the fact that the sectors 1 form a toroidal tire shape necessarily requires them to be arc-shaped), and the mounting groove (Fig 2: 7) is in communication with both an inner side wall of the arc shape and an end surface of the arc shape (Figs. 1-2: see how the groove 7 is formed in the middle drum block and thereby must communicate with both the inner side wall of the arc-shaped block and an end surface of the arc-shaped block).
Regarding claim 8, Mancini discloses providing two pins (Figs. 2, 4a, 4b: 67) at the circumferential ends of the sectors (Figs. 2, 4a, 4b), wherein the number of pins and positioning of the pins can be modified as desired (Page 24 lines 5-22). Kim illustrates providing a mounting groove in the circumferential center of a sector (Figs. 1-2). Accordingly, Kim in view of Mancini discloses a plurality of fixing holes and a plurality of second fasteners are provided, and the mounting groove has two sides extending in a circumferential direction of the building drum with at least one fixing hole of the plurality of fixing holes respectively provided on one of the two sides in the axial direction of the building drum.
Regarding claim 9, Kim further discloses that the first fastener is a screw having a screw head (Figs. 1-2: 5) ([0009]). Mancini further discloses the second fastener is a pin (Figs. 4a, 4b: 67) (Page 24 lines 5-22; Page 27 lines 26-32). While Kim does not expressly recite the shape of the mounting groove, 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. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the groove shape of Kim as desired.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: claim 3 has been amended to include the subject matter of claim 1. The claimed subject matter remains allowable for the reasons of record as discussed in the 11/07/2025 Nonfinal Rejection.
Claim 4 is allowable by dependence on claim 3.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claims 5-7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the claimed subject matter remains allowable for the reasons of record as discussed in the 11/07/2025 Nonfinal Rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/07/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 10 of the Remarks, Applicant argues “that Kim is not directed to a middle drum assembly of a building drum. The structure of Kim is significantly different from the present invention as defined. Because Kim and Mancini did not face the technical problem of the present invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to combine Kim and Mancini to arrive at the present invention as defined.” Applicant further argues “that the central drum in the present application differs from that described in Kim and Mancini. The central drum in the present application constitutes a component of a tire-building drum (tire-building drums are typically divided into three sections-left, center, and right-and the present application pertains specifically to the rapid removal and installation of the segments within the central section…).” Applicant further argues “the utility and technical effects of the structure disclosed herein differ from those of Kim and Mancini … the length of the central drum segments must be adjusted according to the specifications of the tires being produced; consequently, segments of varying lengths must be interchanged. The structure disclosed in the present application as defined enables the rapid removal and installation of these segments.” Applicant argues “in prior art such as Kim and Mancini, ‘[c]onventionally, the toothed blocks are connected to the toothed block connecting seat via screws. In this way, when the toothed blocks are changed, the screws need to be removed, which takes a lot of time and affects efficiency.’ To the contrary, ‘the present invention provides a middle drum assembly of a building drum, and a replacement method for a middle drum block of the middle drum assembly and the building drum, so as to solve the problem in the prior art that the replacement of a toothed block at a drum shoulder consumes time and effort.’”
Applicant alleges Kim is not directed to a middle drum assembly of a building drum. However, Kim discloses a drum shoulder and a middle drum block having a mounting groove, as discussed above. Accordingly, Kim discloses a middle drum assembly of a building drum as claimed. Furthermore, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). Kim in view of Mancini does not need to address the same technical problem of the present invention. Kim in view of Mancini discloses the claim limitations as discussed in the detailed rejection above. Moreover, there is a teaching and motivation provided for combining the two references (i.e., modifying Kim in order to provide second fasteners in the drum shoulder and corresponding fixing holes in the middle drum blocks so as to center and calibrate the two as they are brought together in the axial direction, as taught by Mancini). It is also noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., central drum features, adjusting lengths and specifications, non-toothed blocks, etc.) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Moreover, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). The examiner additionally notes that the claim language merely requires “a first fastener movably disposed in the drum shoulder and capable of moving along the axial direction of the building drum.” A screw is considered to be a fastener that is movably disposed and capable of moving along the axial direction as it may be removed as needed.
On pages 11-12, Applicant further describes the arrangement method in the specification of the claimed invention and argues said “arrangement method enables the dismounting and mounting of the middle drum block to be carried out quickly without the need of a dismounting screw, thus greatly improving the replacement efficiency; in addition, the dismounting and mounting process only needs to be carried out by one-step pressing and one-step pushing and one-step pulling and one-step lifting, so that the dismounting and mounting are convenient and time-saving and labor-saving.”
As noted above, the prior art of record discloses all of the current claim limitations as discussed in the detailed rejection above. The reasoning or use in the prior art references does not need to be the same or identical to those discovered by Applicant so long as there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to make the combination, which the prior art references provide.
On page 12 of the Remarks, Applicant argues “Kim's structure uses screw structure (4,5,8), which is not operable, when combined with or modified by Mancini. The Examiner alleges that the combination is ‘to center and calibrate the two as they are brought together in the axial direction.’ However, Kim's structure uses screw structure (4,5,8). The [screw fixes] the position of the parts. There is no need ‘to center and calibrate the two.’”
Kim discloses the use of fasteners (i.e., screws) to secure the components. However, the presence of screws as a final securing mechanism does not preclude the use of auxiliary alignment or calibration features during assembly. It is well understood, as demonstrated by the prior art in the rejection above, that in mechanical assembly of components the components may be initially aligned using dedicated positioning aids (as in Mancini) prior to fixation by fasteners, such as screws (as in Kim). The use of screws in Kim is thus a final fixation, not necessarily precise initial positioning or calibration during assembly. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the alignment mechanism of Mancini could be readily incorporated into the assembly of the drum of Kim to improve positional accuracy of the components prior to fixation by screws. The mere presence of screws in Kim does not negate the applicability of auxiliary alignment structures. Therefore, the combination of Kim and Mancini is not rendered inoperable by the use of screws in Kim. Instead, Kim and Mancini are complementary. Moreover, the examiner notes that Applicant has not provided any factual support regarding the statement “Kim's structure uses screw structure (4,5,8), which is not operable, when combined with or modified by Mancini,” and thus it is counselor’s opinion. See MPEP 716.01(c)(II), 2145(I).
On page 12 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that “[a]ccording to MPEP 2143.01, the mere fact that references can be combined or modified does not render the resultant combination obvious unless the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.”
The examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, there is a teaching and motivation provided for combining the two references (i.e., modifying Kim in order to provide second fasteners in the drum shoulder and corresponding fixing holes in the middle drum blocks so as to center and calibrate the two as they are brought together in the axial direction, as taught by Mancini), as discussed above.
On page 13 of the Remarks, Applicant cites In re Patel, 566 F. App'x 1005 (Fed Cir 2014). The examiner notes that the MPEP, as well as additional USPTO guidance memoranda, are the guidance that are followed by the USPTO. Examiners are not expected to do additional legal research beyond the MPEP and guidance memoranda. The examiner has not found In re Patel to be available in the MPEP or in USPTO guidance memoranda, and therefore the examiner must rely upon the guidance currently available in the MPEP and said memoranda and not upon additionally cited case law outside said sources.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEDEF PAQUETTE (née AYALP) whose telephone number is (571) 272-5031. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 8:00 AM EST - 4:00 PM EST.
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 (née WHATLEY) can be reached on (571) 270-5545. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300. The fax phone number for the examiner is (571) 273-5031.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SEDEF E PAQUETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights