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
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) 1-7, 9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McClenathen (US1451837) (of record) in view of Sata (US20070215265) (of record).
Regarding claim 1, McClenathen discloses a bead-forming system for forming a tire bead, the bead-forming system comprising:
a housing ("housing" (3)) having a first side and a second side (Fig 1, 9);
a base that is positioned in the housing (“column” (2)) and that comprises a first former positioned in a first position on the first side (p.2 L11-36, bottom “forming drum” (9) in Fig 1 as “first position”) and a second former positioned in a second position on the second side (p.2 L11-36, top “forming drum” (9) in Fig 1 as “third position”), wherein:
the first former comprises a first groove around an outer periphery (Fig 1, with regards to “forming drum” (9)) and the second former comprises a second groove around an outer periphery (Fig 1, with regards to “forming drum” (9));
the base is rotatable to simultaneously move the first former to the second position on the second side and the second former to the first position on the first side (C2 L11-36);
the first former comprises a first diameter and the second former comprises a second diameter (Fig 1)
bead-winding equipment that is positioned on the first side, wherein the bead winding equipment is operational to form a first tire bead by continuously feeding wire into the first groove while the first former rotates relative to the base in order to wind wire around the first former when the first former is positioned in the first position on the first side (p.2 L11-36, p.5 L74-p.6 L11, Fig 12), and to form a second bead by continuously feeding wire into the second groove while the second former rotates relative to the base in order to wind wire around the second former when the second former is positioned in the first position on the first side (p.2 L11-36, p.5 L74-p6 L11, Fig 12).
While McClenathen does not explicitly disclose that the second former diameter is different than that of the first former, 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, as Sata, which is within the tire bead manufacturing art, teaches that for a system with multiple bead formers (“disks” (8)), the formers can be set to comprise of different sizes ([0028], in that the portions that hold the bead can be radially modified) for the benefit of enabling a mixed-flow production of various bead sizes ([0028]).
Regarding claim 2, modified McClenathen teaches all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, McClenathen teaches that the bead-winding machinery is configured to form a complete tire bead on the first side of the housing when any former is in the first position (p.2 L11-15).
Regarding claim 3, modified McClenathen teaches all limitations of claim 2 as set forth above. Furthermore, examiner notes that the limitation of “the complete tire bead is ready to be combined with an apex” is a recitation of intended use that does not require any additional structure to the claimed apparatus or additional steps that differentiate them from the steps disclosed by modified McClenathen. The recitation does not result in structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art because McClenathen teaches that the bead is wrapped around the bottom “forming drum” (9) in Fig 1 (p.2 L11-15) which is capable of creating a complete tire bead.
Regarding claim 4, modified McClenathen teaches all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, McClenathen teaches that equipment configured to wind wire around any former is omitted from the second side of the housing (Fig 1).
Regarding claim 5, modified McClenathen teaches all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, McClenathen teaches that the first former is in the first position, the first former is configured to rotate independently of the second former as part of a bead-forming operation (p.8 L36-39).
Regarding claim 6, modified McClenathen teaches all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, given that Sata teaches that each “disk” (8) comprises of radially adjustable “centering devices” (12) ([0031]), modified McClenathen teaches that when the second former is in the second position, the second former is configured to be re-tooled simultaneously with the first former rotating as part of a bead-forming operation.
Regarding claim 7, modified McClenathen teaches all limitations of claim 6 as set forth above. While modified McClenathen does not explicitly teach that the re-tooling of the second former is manual, 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 one of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize that there is a finite number of alternatives to choose from for metals that may be used in the plating. 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 2143(I)(E)). Given that any operation, including changing the size of a former by retooling it, can either be performed automatically or manually, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have the former be manually re-toolable.
Furthermore, examiner notes that the limitation of “re-tooling the second former is manual “ is a recitation of intended use that does not require any additional structure to the claimed apparatus or additional steps that differentiate them from the steps disclosed by modified McClenathen. The recitation does not result in structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art because Sata teaches that the disks are capable of being radially adjusted ([0028]) and as set forth above, there are only two options for how an operation can be done; manually or automatically.
Regarding claim 9, modified McClenathen teaches all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, McClenathen teaches that a motion path, which is associated with moving the first former to the second position on the second side and the second former to the first position on the first side, passes directly below at least a portion of the bead-winding equipment (p.2 L11-35, Fig 1, 12).
Regarding claim 12, modified McClenathen teaches all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, McClenathen teaches that the system further comprises a first actuator configured to rotate the first bead former relative to the base and about a first bead former axis when the first bead former is in the first position (“cylinder” (80), p.5 L74-83); and a second actuator configured to rotate the second bead former relative to the base and about a second bead former axis when the second bead former is in the first position (“cylinder” (80), p.5 L74-83)
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McClenathen (US1451837) (of record) and Sata (US20070215265) (of record) in further view of Nishida (US20150083271).
Regarding claim 13, modified McClenathen teaches all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. While modified McClenathen does not explicitly teach that the first former comprises a first plurality of grooves around the outer periphery and the first groove is included among the first plurality of grooves and wherein the second former comprises a second plurality of grooves around the outer periphery and the second groove is included among the second plurality of grooves, 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 Nishida, which is within the tire bead manufacturing art, teaches that for winding a wire around a former (“winding unit” (23)) multiple times so as to form a bead core, said former can comprise of a plurality of grooves (“alignment grooves” (25), Fig 3) for the benefit of ensuring high-speed winding without causing irregular winding ([0007]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 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 8, the closest prior art of record is McClenathen (US1451837) in view of Sata (US20070215265), which teaches the limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. However, the prior art does not teach that the housing includes a first opening on the first side of the housing and for accommodating the first bead former when the first bead former is in the first position, as in McClenathen (Fig 1), the housing is sized and/or located so as to not accommodate the bead former.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see p.1-2, filed 19 September 2025, with respect to the 35 USC 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) rejection of claim 1 in view of Sata have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) rejection of claims 1-6 with regards to Sata has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 19 September 2025 on p.3-5 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding p.3 of applicant’s remarks, applicant argues that the apparatuses of McClenathen and Sata “are used to make entirely different parts of the tire bead” and therefore it would not be obvious to use the teachings of varying-sized formers from Sata with McClenathen. Examiner disagrees, noting that the taught benefit of “enabling mixed-flow production in various sizes” of beads is not explicitly taught to be limited only to its use in applying bead fillers and a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that if the radial movement taught in Sata is useful for handling bead cores of different sizes in part of the bead manufacturing process (applying bead fillers to bead cores), said movement may also be useful in other parts of the bead manufacturing (creating bead cores).
Regarding p.3-4 of applicant’s remarks, applicant argues that the implementation of varying size drums would render McClenathen unsuitable for its intended purpose. Examiner disagrees, noting that the arguments amount to applicant’s own opinion not supported by explicit evidence found in McClenathen. More specifically, McClenathen does not explicitly discredit/criticize/teach away from using drums of varying sizes or that the use of said drums would interfere with the various components of the apparatus such as the roller (149) or the forming roller (140).
Regarding p.5 of applicant’s remarks, applicant argues that McClenathen does not teach a first or second actuator. Examiner disagrees, noting that, as set forth in the 103 rejection of claim 12 above, McClenathen explicitly teaches the use of “cylinder” (80) for the purposes of rotating the forming drums (p.5 L74-p.6 L11).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Johnson et al. (US20170106617) teaches the use of a plurality of grooves (“grooves” (152, 154)) on a bead former (“former” (110)) for the benefit of forming multiple beads of similar (or different) sizes simultaneously ([0035]).
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
/John J DeRusso/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1744