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 Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “amounting to at least 2 degrees, and less than 30 degrees” in lines 3-4 should be written as –amounting to at least 2 degrees and less than 30 degrees— for grammatical clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 1-6 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Auclair (US 20060027310) (of record).
Regarding claim 1, Auclair discloses a device for shaping a tire (Figs. 1-4, 11) ([0020], [0026], [0055]-[0064]), comprising a first flange (Fig. 1: 4, 6) intended to receive a first bead of a tire (Figs. 2-4) ([0037], [0053]-[0054], [0057]); a second flange (Fig. 1: 4’, 6’) intended to receive a second bead of said tire (Figs. 2-4) ([0037], [0053]-[0054], [0057]); a translation mechanism (Figs. 1-4: 3, 3’, 5) allowing movement of at least one of the first flange and the second flange in translation along a common central axis (Fig. 1: XX’) in order to modify a center distance which axially separates the first flange from the second flange (Figs. 3-4) ([0035]-[0036], [0042]), so that the flanges can be brought axially closer together and hence the beads closer together (Fig. 4: see arrows indicating movement towards each other), to accompany a radial expansion of the tire (Fig. 4: see expansion of C radially outward); a rotation mechanism (Figs. 1-4: 7, 7’) which allows rotation of at least one of the first flange and the second flange around the central axis so as to allow modification of an angular difference which is the relative azimuthal angular position of the first flange relative to the second flange (Figs. 4, 7: see arrows indicating rotation of each side in opposite directions which will cause angular difference between the flanges) ([0036], [0043], [0045], [0048]-[0049]); said device comprises a motor-driven drive system (i.e., control system) (Figs. 1-4: 7, 7’) ([0036], [0043], [0045]).
Auclair further discloses the device performs a shaping operation wherein the rotation of the flanges may be free and resulting solely from the circumferential movement of the heels during shaping (Fig. 3), or controlled so as to improve reproducibility of the process (Fig. 4) ([0021]-[0025], [0041]-[0043], [0048]-[0050]). Moreover, during shaping, the flanges are displaced axially relative to each other and at least one of the flanges is driven in rotation around the axis relative to the other flange so as to make it possible for the beads of the tire to rotate relative to one another freely or by a predetermined angle about the axis ([0019], [0050]). Auclair also discloses that the control of the flanges in rotation proves particularly useful at the end of shaping so as to adjust the respective positions of the plies, but that it is also possible to allow the flanges to turn practically freely as a function of the circumferential stresses transmitted to the bead heels during the first phase of the shaping operation ([0050]). Accordingly, Auclair discloses that when the flanges move axially toward each other while the tire expands radially, the rotation of the flanges may occur freely or controlled by mechanical means, thus permitting either passive or active rotation ([0019], [0050]). Moreover, the relative angular displacement between the flanges is defined as a function of the center distance, which is coordinated by the control system and motors and optionally managed by indexers that determine angular position limits ([0021]-[0025]). Furthermore, the control system coordinates movement of the flanges to reproduce desired angular and axial positions, wherein a control system executes predetermined movements to achieve a target triangulation curve ([0041]-[0043], [0050]). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would readily recognize, or at the very least find obvious, that the control system of Auclair is configured to apply a control law that defines relationships between center distance and angular differences, which includes both a passive mode (i.e., free rotation within a permissible range resulting from the natural reaction of the tire) and an active mode (i.e., motor-driven assistance when limits are reached to maintain or restore angular positioning). Thereby, the control system disclosed by Auclair is capable of performing the claimed “conditional assistance mode,” which satisfies the claim limitation “configured to apply a control law which comprises a conditional assistance mode.”
The examiner notes that apparatus claims must be distinguished from the prior art based on structural limitations and what a device is, not what a devices does. See MPEP 2114. Where the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed function, the limitations are met even if the prior art does not expressly describe that function being performed. Because Auclair discloses a control system structurally capable of applying the claimed control law, the limitation is satisfied.
Regarding claims 2-6 and 9, the claims further recite additional features and steps of the control law. However, these limitations merely specify further functional capabilities of the control system discussed above in claim 1. As discussed above, Auclair discloses a control system for managing flange rotation and distance, which would necessarily be capable of performing the additional control law operations recited in claims 2-6 and 9.
The examiner notes that the dependent claims that elaborate on the control law are interpreted as functional descriptions of the control system’s capabilities and are considered to be met by Auclair’s control system that is capable of executing equivalent control law.
Additionally, Auclair discloses that the range of allowed rotation (i.e., permitted region) varies as the flanges move axially during shaping (i.e., center distance variation) ([0043], [0050]).
Additionally, Auclair discloses that the control law or mechanical guidance is operative during axial convergence of the flanges, which corresponds to the first application region ([0019], [0021]-[0025], [0041]-[0043], [0050]). Moreover, the axial approach of the flanges continue over a substantial portion of the total flange axial travel (Figs. 3-4) ([0042]-[0043]), which one of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize is at least 50% of the total distance.
Additionally, Auclair discloses the angular range in which the flanges rotate freely and where active rotation is applied at the boundaries ([0021]-[0025], [0041]-[0043], [0050]), which directly corresponds to the permitted region defined by the control law.
Additionally, Auclair discloses that rotation of the flanges is passive within a permitted region and active assistance occurs at the boundaries ([0021]-[0025], [0041]-[0043], [0050]). Moreover, mechanical means may be implemented for the rotation ([0025], [0045]), which would necessarily block rotation outside the permitted range.
Additionally, Auclair discloses that the axial and rotational control of the flanges can be implemented via motors and an indexer ([0041]-[0043]). One of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize that the same functional control is capable of being realized in electronic form.
Additionally, while Auclair does not expressly recite the specifically claimed range of a possible angular difference, the disclosed functional behavior as discussed above allows for selection of this range through routine optimization. Thus, the range necessarily falls within the permitted region disclosed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-8 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: no prior art of record is considered to teach or suggest the combination of limitations of claims 1 and 7, as discussed in the 10/24/2025 Nonfinal Rejection. The claimed subject matter remains allowable for the reasons of record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 8 of the Remarks, Applicant argues “Auclair fails to recite or suggest switching from a passive, non-assisted, free-rotating mode to an active motor-assisted controlled mode, let alone in response to behavior of the flanges as detected in response to shaping the tire. Accordingly, Auclair suffers from the drawbacks discussed in paragraphs [0006] and [0007] of Applicant's application and does not provide the advantages discussed in paragraphs [0010] - [0012] of Applicant's application.”
As discussed in the detailed rejection above, Auclair discloses a device having all of the structural features as claimed, including a control system, as well as the ability to rotate the flanges so as to allow modification of an angular difference either passively or actively. In other words, the device is structured so as to operate in active or passive mode and is thereby capable of switching between the two modes. Moreover, Auclair discloses “that this [(active mode)] control of the side plates in rotation proves particularly useful at the end of shaping so as to adjust the respective positions of the plies, but that it is possible to allow the side plates to turn practically freely [(passive mode)] as a function of the circumferential stresses transmitted to the heels during the first phase of said shaping operation” ([0050]). Accordingly, Auclair does disclose switching between active and passive mode at various points of the process, and thus the control system of Auclair would further be capable of performing the claimed control law.
The examiner further notes that it is not necessary that the prior art suggest to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by Applicant. In this case, the prior art of record discloses all of the current claim limitations as discussed in the detailed rejection above. The reasoning 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 pages 8-9 of the Remarks, Applicant argues Auclair merely considers two separate and distinct possible ways for rotating the flanges: an active control mode, wherein the motor-driven systems cause the flanges to rotate "by a predetermined angle”; or a passive free rotation mode, wherein rotation of the flanges occurs merely by natural rotation of the flanges due to the circumferential stresses transmitted to the heels of the carcass due to radialization of the cords when shaping the carcass. Applicant further argues that Auclair teaches using, exclusively from one another, either a passive, non-assisted, totally free-rotating mode, relying only on the natural, free behavior of the flanges and sidewalls of the tire when the carcass is shaped into a C shape by making the flanges axially closer one to the other, or an active, fully-assisted, motor-driven and controlled rotating mode, wherein motor-driven drive systems force the flanges to rotate by a predetermined angle, by a predetermined value, by the determination of the angle.
As discussed in the detailed discussion above, Auclair does disclose switching between active and passive mode at various points of the process, and not merely having either passive or active mode.
On pages 9-10 of the Remarks, Applicant argues Auclair fails to disclose a control system arranged to: apply a control law that associates with each center distance value separating the flanges a range of permitted angular differences; perform axial convergence of the flanges, thus gradually reducing the actual center distance value, without activating motorized assistance in rotation so as to allow the flanges rotate freely one with respect to the other, and while monitoring/measuring the actual angular difference that occurs between the flanges due to the free reaction of the tire carcass carried by said flanges; compare the actual measured angular difference with the upper and lower limits of the permitted region that are allowed pursuant to the control law; and depending on whether the angular difference lies within the limits, and consequently lies within the permitted range defined by the control law, or falls beyond the limits and thus out of the permitted region, then selectively: keep the passive mode, in the first case, without triggering a motorized assistance of the flanges in rotation, or, on condition that the actual detected angular difference value falls out of the allowed range, switch from the passive mode to an active mode, by triggering a motorized assistance in rotation that helps the flanges to rotate in view of making the actual angular difference return within the allowed range.
The examiner notes that the features upon which Applicant relies (i.e., numbered bullets 1-4) 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). Applicant has provided a list of very narrow and specific method steps for the control law that are not present in the claims. Furthermore, as discussed in the detailed rejection above, Auclair discloses a device having the claimed structural features, wherein the flanges are controlled to rotate freely relative to each other during a first phase of shaping and triggered to rotate with assistance during an end phase of shaping relying on predetermined values ([0019], [0043], [0049]-[0050]). Accordingly, Auclair is capable of applying a control law comprising a conditional assistance mode: in which there is a first application region having permitted angular differences and predetermined values; and in which, in the first application region, the rotation mechanism is in passive mode for a portion of the shaping process, and is switched to active mode in order to actively manage the relative rotation of the flanges so as to force the angular difference to remain within predetermined values. The examiner notes that the claim does not expressly require monitoring/measuring or comparing measured data. Moreover, the examiner notes that the claims do not require that both the conditions for passive and active mode must be met, only that either the rotation mechanism is in passive mode or in active mode, wherein active mode may selectively be triggered in order to actively manage the relative rotation of the flanges so as to force the angular difference to remain in or return within said permitted region. Auclair discloses that the rotation mechanism may start in passive mode and that towards the end of shaping active mode may be used so as to more accurately control the shaping process, wherein the active mode relies on predetermined values. The first phase of shaping is capable of providing the angular difference lies inside the permitted region, and the end phase of shaping is capable of providing the angular difference reaches one of the boundaries of the permitted region or leaves said permitted region for active mode.
On page 10 of the Remarks, Applicant argues “Auclair fails to disclose, or even to suggest, the required units that make the claimed system capable of achieving the claimed tasks, i.e. setting/storing the control law, and thus setting a range of admissible angular differences (permitted region) for each value of the center distance, monitoring the actual angular difference, comparing said actual angular difference with the permitted range, and selectively deciding to activate a motor-assisted mode or not, depending on whether the measured angular difference lies within the permitted region or not.”
As discussed in the detailed discussion above, the features upon which Applicant relies (i.e., setting/storing the control law, setting a range of admissible angular differences for each value of the center distance, monitoring the actual angular difference, comparing said actual angular difference with the permitted range, and selectively deciding to activate a motor-assisted mode or not, depending on whether the measured angular difference lies within the permitted region or not) 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). Furthermore, the examiner notes that the only structural units for the device in the list cited by Applicant would be a component to set/store the control law (i.e., controller, indexer, etc.), a component to monitor the angular difference (i.e., sensor, human user, etc.), a component to compare the differences to permitted range (i.e., controller, indexer, etc.), and a component to decide to activate a different mode (i.e., controller, human user, etc.). The examiner again notes that none of these structural components were claimed in claim 1. Moreover, Auclair discloses units that would be capable of performing the claimed tasks in Applicant’s list. For instance, Auclair discloses an indexer making it possible to control the rotation movement accurately ([0043]), controlling the flanges in rotation to adjust components as needed ([0017]-[0018], [0050]), adjusting accurately components and angles based on predetermined values ([0049]), and switching between active and passive modes ([0050]). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize, or find obvious, that Auclair’s disclosure of an indexer, controlling the flanges, setting predetermined values, switching between modes, etc. would necessarily satisfy the aforementioned units.
Additionally, Applicant has argued that the claimed method for the control is different from the Auclair reference and that Auclair would not be capable of performing the claimed control law. However, Applicant has provided not explanation or evidence as to how and why Auclair would not be capable of performing the claimed method steps of the control law. The examiner maintains that because Auclair discloses a device with all of the claimed structural features that may perform both passive and active rotation of the flanges during various parts of the shaping process, Auclair is capable of also performing the claimed control law. If Applicant believes differently, a declaration stating as such may be filed.
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