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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means,” and are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “control means” in claim 12.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Applicant’s specification discloses “[t]he implementation of the consistently joint mode of operation is effected by the joint use of the control means of the pneumatic system by the respective associated stations, so that all the associated stations are activated identically. In particular, in one embodiment of the invention, the pneumatic lines for the introduction of support gas into the tires in the respective stations and for removing air from the tires in the respective stations are connected together, so that the admission of the support gas to all the associated stations takes place simultaneously by way of a centrally controlled valve. In one embodiment of the invention, the pneumatic drives of the displaceable rim plates of the associated stations are connected together, so that an approximately synchronous displacement of the rim plates of the associated stations takes place. In one embodiment of the invention, the pneumatic lines of the push-off devices of the associated stations are connected together, so that they can be actuated simultaneously by way of a centrally controlled valve.” (Pages 7-8).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “the consistently joint mode of operation” in lines 13-14 should be written as –the consistent joint mode of operation— for consistency in claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “consistently joint mode of operation” in line 3 should be written as –consistent joint mode of operation— for consistency in claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
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 following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 12, 15-17, and 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (CN 110733193, see updated machine translation provided) (of record), Qiu et al. (CN 106273558, see machine translation) (of record), and optionally Fujieda et al. (US 20110189324) (of record).
Regarding claim 12, Liu discloses a post-treatment device for at least partially vulcanized tires (Figs. 1-6), comprising: at least two stations (Figs. 1-6: 2) for post-treatment of tires (Figs. 1-6) ([0009], [0024], [0038]); wherein the post-treatment device has exactly one supporting column (Figs. 1-6: 1), wherein each of the stations has an air cylinder (i.e., pneumatic drive) (Fig. 1: 24) for driving at least one displaceable rim plate (Fig. 4: 100, 200) ([0044]); and a mechanical locking system (Fig. 1: 23, 231, 232, 2321) that interlocks the stations ([0040]-[0041]).
Liu further discloses that the post-treatment device has the stations in order to clamp respective vulcanized tires and perform inflation, cooling, and shaping ([0009], [0013], [0017], [0024], [0039]-[0040], [0042], [0045]). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would readily recognize, or alternatively find obvious, that there must be at least one support gas feed arranged in the at least two stations to apply a pressure from inside to a tire so as to inflate the respective tires.
Optionally, Fujieda discloses a post cure inflator for inflating and cooling a vulcanized tire by sealing high pressure air into the vulcanized tire ([0002], [0010], [0068]). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious that the inflation of the vulcanized tire in the post-treatment device of Liu would also be obtained by sealing high pressure air into the tire as is generally known in the vulcanized tire post-treatment device, as taught by Fujieda.
However, Liu does not expressly recite that the at least two stations are pneumatically connected so as to provide a consistent joint mode of operation of the at least two stations.
Qiu also discloses a post-treatment device of a tire vulcanizer with a tire unloading device having good mechanical stability, capability of completing complex arc motion, and having a multi-station post-inflation device ([0008]), wherein the device realizes fully automated and controllable production that can meet the production needs of tires of different specifications through electrical control that integrates electricity, gas (i.e., pneumatic), and liquid, which is safe and reliable ([0026]), and wherein the stations may work simultaneously or independently ([0027]-[0028], [0066]), which is flexible, convenient, and efficient ([0027]). In other words, the at least two stations may be pneumatically connected so as to provide a consistent joint mode of operation of the at least two stations. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Liu in order to provide that the stations are pneumatically connected so as to provide a consistent joint mode of operation of the at least two stations as taught by Qiu for the advantages as discussed above.
Qiu further discloses that there is an inflation and deflation pipe connected to the internal closed space of the inflation disks of the stations ([0023], [0068]). The rear inflation device can inflate four tires at the same time, or each station can work separately ([0066]). In other words, Qiu discloses a pneumatic system having control means, whereby implementation of the consistent joint mode of operation is effected by joint use of the control means of the pneumatic system by the connected stations, so that all the connected stations may be activated identically, wherein the control means has pneumatic lines for the introduction of support gas into the tires (i.e., inflation) in the respective stations and for removing air from the tires (i.e., deflation) in the respective stations that are connected together, so that the admission of the support gas to all the associated stations takes place simultaneously. Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the gas pipelines used for inflation and deflation must necessarily have at least one valve to control the gas flow. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement the simultaneous inflation taught by Qiu using a centrally controlled valve to supply gas to multiple stations at once as such a configuration represents a predictable design choice that simplifies pneumatic control, reduces component count, and improves synchronization of station operation. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would further recognize, or alternatively find obvious, that providing at least one valve may be done in a limited number of ways: (1) a single central valve for all stations; (2) two valves for each pair of the four stations; (3) three valves; or (4) four valves such that each station has a valve. In other words, there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions that a skilled artisan may choose from with a reasonable expectation of success. Absent unexpected results, case law holds that when there is a finite number of identified and predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue known options with his or her technical grasp. See MPEP 2144.04(II)(B).
Regarding claim 15, Liu further discloses the mechanical locking system is a hammer-head locking system (Fig. 1: see how locking protrusion 2321 on locking rod 232 fits into piece 231) ([0040]-[0041]).
Regarding claim 16, Liu further discloses the supporting column (Figs. 1-6: 1) is configured to be mountable directly on a floor of a production site without a sub-frame (Figs. 1, 4).
Regarding claim 17, Liu further discloses the stations (Figs. 4-6: 2) are connected to the supporting column (Figs. 4-6: 1) at substantially an equal height and are arranged at an angle of less than 180o relative to one another at the supporting column (Figs. 4-6).
Regarding claim 19, Liu further discloses the at least two stations (Fig. 4: 2) are arranged above one another on the supporting column (Fig. 4: 1) ([0038]).
Regarding claim 20, Liu further discloses the at least two stations include four stations (Figs. 4-6: 2), wherein, in each case, two of the stations are arranged above one another (Figs. 4-6) ([0038]).
Regarding claim 21, as discussed above in claim 12, Qiu discloses that the stations may work simultaneously or independently ([0027]-[0028], [0057]), which is flexible, convenient, and efficient ([0027]). As discussed above in claim 20, Liu discloses that there are four stations (Figs. 4-6: 2). Accordingly, if the stations all function simultaneously, then the stations may be associated in pairs having a consistent joint mode of operation, wherein the pairs also function simultaneously with each other.
Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize, or alternatively find obvious, that the mode of operation of the stations of Liu in view of Qiu may be done in a limited number of ways: (1) wherein each station functions independently; (2) wherein one station functions independently while the remaining three stations function simultaneously with each other; (3) wherein two stations (i.e., a pair) function independently while the remaining two stations (i.e., a pair) function simultaneously with each other; (4) wherein all stations function simultaneously with each other; or (5) wherein two stations (i.e., a pair) function simultaneously with each other and the remaining two stations (i.e., a pair) function simultaneously with each other and independently of the first pair. In other words, there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions that a skilled artisan may choose from with a reasonable expectation of success. Absent unexpected results, case law holds that when there is a finite number of identified and predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue known options with his or her technical grasp. See MPEP 2144.04(II)(B). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious for the stations to be associated in pairs having a consistently joint mode of operation in each pair because there are only five identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success as discussed above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/31/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 7 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that Liu and Qiu “do not disclose a pneumatic drive for driving at least one displaceable rim plate” and that Liu “only disclose[s] a pressing member 24 referred to as a cylinder and Qui … disclose[s] a pinch cylinder 21.” Applicant further argues “[a]t the date of filing of the present patent application, it was state of the art to use hydraulic cylinders to move the rim plates of post-treatment devices, therefore a person skilled in the art would have understood Liu … and Qui … to teach the use of hydraulic cylinders, wherein the present invention works without hydraulic cylinders.”
The examiner notes that the original translation of Liu discloses “pressure cylinders” ([0017]), and the updated machine translation that has been provided discloses that said cylinders are “air cylinders” ([0044]). In other words, Liu discloses pneumatic cylinders. The examiner further notes that Qiu was not relied upon for a teaching of cylinders.
Moreover, Applicant has not provided any factual support for stating that it was state of the art to use hydraulic cylinders to move the rim plates of post-treatment devices, and thus it is counselor’s opinion. See MPEP 716.01(c)(II), 2145(I). Applicant has not provided any evidence, affidavit, or references to support this statement.
On page 7 of the Remarks, Applicant argues Qiu does “not disclose the claimed consistent joint mode of operation of the at least two stations. The cited passage in par. 27 of Qiu … describes the operation of the unloader (manipulator) and not the stations of the post-treatment device.”
The examiner notes that paragraph 28 of Qiu was also referenced on page 5 of the 08/04/2025 Nonfinal Rejection for teaching the stations may work simultaneously or independently. For the sake of convenience, paragraph 28 of Qiu discloses “[t]he rear inflation device has four inflation stations with a simple structure and high working stability. It can work simultaneously or independently, and is flexible, convenient and efficient.” Furthermore, as discussed in the detailed rejection above, Qiu discloses that the rear inflation device can inflate four tires at the same time, or each station can work separately ([0066]). In other words, Qiu discloses that both the unloader/manipulator and inflation stations may work either simultaneously or independently.
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