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 § 102
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) 1-5, 9-11 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yamamoto (US20140318681) (of record)
Regarding claim 1, Yamamoto discloses a method for splicing a leading end and a trailing end of a tire component together, wherein the tire component has a strip body with longitudinal sides ([0001], [0002], “tire constituent member” (70)), wherein the method comprises the steps of:
a) splicing the leading end and the trailing end together along a splice path extending across the tire component, in a splice direction from a first longitudinal side of the strip body (left half of “tire constituent member” (70)) towards a second longitudinal side of the strip body (right half of “tire constituent member” (70)) opposite to the first longitudinal side, by initiating the splicing along the splice path at the first longitudinal side ([0069] with regards to “right-side joining unit” (30), in that similar to the left-side joining unit (30) shown in Modified Yamamoto Fig 3 below, the “right-side joining unit” (30) would start at a position beyond the centerline and at the left side of the “tire constituent member” (70)); and
b) prior to the splicing, forming a preliminary joint between the leading end and the trailing end at a preparatory splice position along the splice path ([0065]-[0067] with regards to “left-side joining unit” (30), see Modified Yamamoto Fig 3 below);
PNG
media_image1.png
506
513
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
768
776
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
746
776
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Modified Yamamoto Fig 3, in which the left -side joining unit (30) is shown at various positions with the centerline marked. From left to right, first the joining unit is shown at a start position, then when it is moved to the right (towards the second side) to a centerline position just prior to initiating the preparatory splicing, and finally as the joining unit continues the preparatory splicing moving to the left (towards the first side).
The Figures have been modified to remove the right-side joining unit (30) along with its supporting equipment and maintain the proportions and positioning regarding components including the screw shaft (12) and guide rail (11).)]wherein the preparatory splice position is spaced apart from the first longitudinal side ([0065]).
Regarding claim 2, Yamamoto discloses all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, given that Yamamoto discloses that the left-side joining unit (30) is moved to a center portion ([0065], see Modified Yamamoto Fig 3 Above), Yamamoto discloses that the preparatory splice position is closer to the second longitudinal side than the first longitudinal side.
While not relied upon for the rejection as set forth above, examiner notes that applicant's original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for having the preparatory splice position being closer to the second longitudinal side than the first longitudinal side.
Regarding claim 3, Yamamoto discloses all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, Yamamoto discloses that the leading end and the trailing end are spliced between the first longitudinal side and the preparatory splice position by the splicing of step a) only ([0069]).
Regarding claim 4, Yamamoto discloses all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, given that Yamamoto discloses that the “right-side joining unit” (30) is “set to a position where the joining by the left-side joining unit 30 has already been completed” ([0069]), which would include at the first side, Yamamoto discloses that the splicing of step a) is performed continuously from the first longitudinal side up to the second longitudinal side.
Regarding claim 5, Yamamoto discloses all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, Yamamoto discloses that the leading end and the trailing end are pressed in step b) in a pressing direction transverse or perpendicular to the splice direction ([0065]).
Regarding claim 9, Yamamoto discloses all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, Yamamoto discloses that a first splice member (“right-side joining unit” (30)) is used for the splicing in step a) and a second splice member (“left-side joining unit” (30)) is used for the forming of the preliminary joint in step b) ([0065]-[0067], [0069]).
Regarding claim 10, Yamamoto discloses all limitations of claim 9 as set forth above. Additionally, Yamamoto discloses that the first splice member trails the second splice member in the splice direction ([[0069], in that the “right-side joining unit” (30) moves towards the “left-side joining unit” (30) just prior to performing its joining operation).
Regarding claim 11, Yamamoto discloses all limitations of claim 9 as set forth above. Additionally, Yamamoto discloses that the first splice member is a first splice roller that is rotatable about a first roller axis (“disk-shaped roll” (45)), wherein the splicing in step a) is achieved by rolling the first splice roller along the splice path in the splice direction ([0066]).
Regarding claim 14, Yamamoto discloses all limitations of claim 10 as set forth above. Additionally, Yamamoto discloses that the second splice member comprises at least one second splice roller (“disk-shaped roll” (45)), wherein the method further comprises the step of rolling the at least one second splice roller along the splice path in the splice direction away from the preparatory splice position after the forming the preliminary joint in step b) ([0069]).
Regarding claim 15, Yamamoto discloses all limitations of claim 10 as set forth above. Additionally, Yamamoto discloses that the second splice member comprises a non-circular pressing member (“disk-shaped roll” (45)), wherein the pressing in step b) is achieved by pressing the non-circular pressing member onto the leading end and the trailing end at the preparatory splice position ([0067]).
Regarding claim 16, Yamamoto discloses all limitations of claim 10 as set forth above. Additionally, Yamamoto discloses that the first splice member and the second splice member are independently movable relative to each other ([0064]-[0067], [0069]).
Regarding claim 17, Yamamoto discloses all limitations of claim 10 as set forth above. Additionally, Yamamoto discloses that the leading end and the trailing end are supported on a splice support extending at a support height (“molding drum” (2)), wherein the second splice member is movable in a pressing direction transverse or perpendicular to the splice direction towards said splice support up to a floating height short of said support height (Fig 3, [0065]).
Regarding claim 18, Yamamoto discloses all limitations of claim 17 as set forth above. Additionally, given that Yamamoto discloses that the perpendicular pressing movement of the splice members is achieved through the use of “piston/cylinder mechanisms” (18) ([0065]) and [0069] discloses that the right-side jointing unit (30) is moved into “a descent position” ([0069]), which implies it was at the floating position prior to the descent position, Yamamoto discloses that the floating height is adjustable, wherein the floating height is set prior to the forming of the preliminary joint of step b).
Regarding claim 19, Yamamoto discloses all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, given that Yamamoto discloses that the piston/cylinder mechanism (18) can apply “a predetermined pressure” to the tire component ([0043]) and the applied pressure on the tire component would start from zero prior to the jointing unit making contacting with the tire component and then increasing the pressure until reaching the “predetermined pressure”, Yamamoto discloses that the leading end and the trailing end are pressed in step b) with a pressing force that is variable, wherein the pressing force is varied during or set prior to the pressing of step b).
Regarding claim 20, Yamamoto discloses all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, given that Yamamoto discloses that the piston/cylinder mechanism (18) can apply “a predetermined pressure” to the tire component ([0043]) and the applied pressure on the tire component would start from zero prior to the jointing unit making contacting with the tire component and then increasing pressure until reaching the “predetermined pressure”, Yamamoto discloses that the leading end and the trailing end are pressed in step a) with a pressing force that is variable, wherein the pressing force is varied during or set prior to the pressing of step a).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto (US20140318681) (of record) in view of Tsuge (WO2018016182) (machine translation) (of record).
Regarding claim 6, Yamamoto discloses all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. While Yamamoto does not explicitly disclose that the tire component is an apex, 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:
a) Yamamoto does not limit the “tire constituent member” (70) to a specific tire component, with the only requirement being said member is made of rubber ([0008]);
b) Tsuge, which is within the tire manufacturing art, teaches that it is conventional for tires to have bead portions (p.1), and in Tsuge, said bead portions comprising of a bead core (“bead core” (5)) and a bead filler (“bead filler” (7)) both made at least partially of a rubber material for the benefit of effective bonding with one another (p.6-7).
Regarding claim 7, modified Yamamoto teaches all limitations of claim 6 as set forth above. Additionally, Tsuge teaches that the apex has a triangular cross section with a base and a tip (Fig. 4). While modified Yamamoto does not explicitly teach that the first side is the tip and the second side is the base, it would have been well within a person of ordinary skill’s ability to do so. The limited number of orientations of the tip and base with regards to the first and second side (either tip is the first side and the base is the second side or the tip is the second side and the base is the first side) presents a finite number of option that are immediately recognizable to a person having ordinary skill in the art, and the options do not produce new or unexpected results. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the earliest effective priority date to try the options presented to obtain the expected result of positioning the bead apex for splicing with a reasonable expectation of success (see MPEP 2143(I)(E)).
Regarding claim 8, modified Yamamoto teaches all limitations of claim 6 as set forth above. Additionally, Tsuge teaches that the apex has a triangular cross section with a base and a tip (Fig. 4). While modified Yamamoto does not explicitly teach that the first side is the base and the second side is the tip, it would have been well within a person of ordinary skill’s ability to do so. The limited number of orientations of the tip and base with regards to the first and second side (either tip is the first side and the base is the second side or the tip is the second side and the base is the first side) presents a finite number of option that are immediately recognizable to a person having ordinary skill in the art, and the options do not produce new or unexpected results. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the earliest effective priority date to try the options presented to obtain the expected result of positioning the bead apex for splicing with a reasonable expectation of success (see MPEP 2143(I)(E)).
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto (US20140318681) (of record) in view of Lippa et al. (US4892608) (of record).
Regarding claim 12, Yamamoto discloses all limitations of claim 11 as set forth above. While Yamamoto does not explicitly disclose that the first splice member is moved along the splice path as part of a rocking motion about a rocking axis that is parallel to and spaced apart from the first roller axis, 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 Lippa, which is within the tire manufacturing art, teaches that the movement of a splicer member (“splicing roller” (51)) for splicing at a predetermined pressure can be achieved with a “first actuating means” (C1 L56-61), said actuating means being the use of a rocker arm (41) for moving the splicing roller (51) in a rocking motion (C2 L66-C3 L14). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out the substitution of Yamamoto’s “piston/cylinder mechanism” (18) with Lippa’s rocker arm (41) to achieve the predictable result of controlling the movement of the splicer member (see MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13 is 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:
Regarding claim 13, the closest prior art of record is Yamamoto (US20140318681) (of record) and Lippa et al. (US4892608) (of record), which teaches all limitations of claim 12 as set forth above. However, the prior art of record fails to teach that the first splice member and the second splice member are moved together in the rocking motion about the rocking axis.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 16 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s remarks on p.9, applicant argues that as Yamamoto teaches that the trailing end and the leading end are initiated near the center portion, Yamamoto does not teach that splicing is performed “by initiating the splicing along the splice path at the first longitudinal side”. Examiner disagrees, noting that Yamamoto does disclose that the splicing occurs where splicing has already been completed ([0069] and given that the “first longitudinal side” includes the interpretation of a longitudinal half of the tire component (and not just explicitly at a first longitudinal edge), Yamamoto is considered to teach the limitation.
Regarding p.10 of applicant’s remarks, applicant argues that no preliminary joint is formed at a distance spaced apart from the first longitudinal side. Examiner disagrees, noting that given that the “first longitudinal side” includes the interpretation of a longitudinal half of the tire component (and not just explicitly at a first longitudinal edge) and as shown in Modified Yamamoto Fig 3 above, the “left-side joining unit” (30) is positioned to be near the center portion, including slightly beyond the center portion and therefore spaced apart from the first longitudinal half, and therefore meets the claim limitation of a preliminary joint.
In response to applicant's argument that Yamamoto does not explicitly address the problem of the ends splitting as a result of waving or bulging ahead of the splice, 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).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Katagiri (JP2011218739A) discloses a method for splicing a tire component comprising first splicing a preliminary joint at a preparatory splice position space apart from a first longitudinal side (Fig 5A, 5B) and then splicing from the first longitudinal side to the second longitudinal side initiating at the first longitudinal side (Fig 5C, 5D).
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.
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
Prosecution Insights