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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 50-57, 59 and 61-71 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 50 was recently amended on L-9-10 to read “wherein the expanded forming drum carries a stratiform coating comprising an abutment surface”. While the originally submitted specification supports the presence of the stratiform coating itself and its inclusion as part of the expanded forming drum’s “abutment surface”, the current limitations restrict the abutment surface to being only contained on the stratiform coating, excluding the sectors of the forming drum itself. This is not supported by the original specification as seen in, but not limited to, p.9 L21-24, p.10 L20-23, p.12 L9-16, p.13 L3-4, p.15 L9-14, p.26 L3-15 and Figures 2-5, 7, 10 and 11, wherein the abutment surface (S) is considered a part of the forming drum (23) with the forming drum’s abutment surface comprising of the stratiform coating/elastic membrane (35) making up at least part of said abutment surface, designated as “S1” in Fig 7 with “S2” being the other portion of the abutment surface comprising portions of the sectors (24) that support the carcass sleeve (12) in Fig 7.
Furthermore, even if the stratiform coating was disclosed to make up the entirety of the abutment surface, the specification does not disclose how the sectors (24) themselves would have to be modified to both not be considered part of the abutment surface (S) AND constrain radially inner circumferential flaps of the stratiform coating (35a) at the radially inner circumferential edges of the abutment surface, as all figures show a portion of the sectors (24) making up the abutment surface with the carcass sleeve (12) and constraining the radially inner circumferential flaps of the stratiform coating (35a).
As claims 51-57, 59, 61-69 and 71 are directly/indirectly dependent on claim 50, they stand as rejected for similar reasons.
Amendments to claim 70 are similar to those made to claim 50 as set forth above and therefore share the same deficiencies and are similarly rejected.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 50-57, 59 and 61-71 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The most recently submitted amendments to claim 50 include “wherein the expanded forming drum carries a stratiform coating comprising an abutment surface” on L9-10, along with later amendments limiting said abutment surface of the stratiform coating on L23-31, including “wherein the second, radially expanded, operating condition, the abutment surface the stratiform coating comprises radially inner circumferential flaps, and the radially inner circumferential flaps are constrained to the sectors at the radially inner circumferential edges of the abutment surface; and wherein each radially inner circumferential edge of the abutment surface is attached to a surface of the sector extending in an axial direction.” Such amendments create a number of contradictions that render the claim indefinite, specifically how the limitations with regards to the radially inner circumferential edges of the abutment surface have a smaller diameter than a radially inner diameter of the beads and with regards to the stratiform coating (and by extension the abutment surface) can have radially inner circumferential flaps constrained to the sectors of the forming drum at the same time. To clarify, two possible interpretations of the claims and the specification will be presented. Given the importance of properly supporting the entire carcass, including the bead areas, along the entirety of the abutment surface as described in the specification on p.8 L20-p.9 L9, both interpretations will consider that the abutment surface must cover the entirety of the inner surface of the carcass sleeve, including the bead area.
In the first interpretation, the claimed invention is represented as shown in Figures 2-5, 7 and 10-11. In the figures, the stratiform coating/elastic membrane (35) is shown to extend across most (but not all of) the surface of the forming drums (23). While the figures do show that the stratiform coating/elastic member (35), currently claimed as being the abutment surface, is constrained to the sectors (24) at the radially inner circumferential edges of the abutment surface/stratiform coating (S2), said figures show that the beads (6) are positioned radially below that of the radially inner circumferential edge (S2), which would result in the diameter of the radially inner circumferential edge of the abutment surface being greater than that of the radially inner diameter of the beads, which would contradict the limitation of “the abutment surface has radially inner circumferential edges that have a smaller diameter than a radially inner diameter of the beads”.
In a second interpretation, we consider the stratiform coating/elastic membrane (35) to extend over all of the surface of the forming drums (23), as represented by Modified Fig 5 from Applicant’s Drawings below. In this interpretation, the stratiform coating/elastic membrane (35) would have an “abutment surface having a toroidal shape corresponding to an inner shape of the shaped carcass sleeve” and “the abutment surface has radially inner circumferential edges that have a smaller diameter than a radially inner diameter of the beads”. However, in this interpretation, it is unclear how the sectors (24) would be designed in such a way as to both not come into contact with the carcass sleeve (and therefore not be considered part of the abutment surface) and constrain the radially inner circumferential flaps of the stratiform coating/elastic membrane without further disclosure, given that the stratiform coating/elastic membrane would extend to the edge of the sectors to fully correspond to the shaped carcass sleeve’s inner shape, as shown in Modified Fig 5 from Applicant’s Drawings below.
PNG
media_image1.png
795
898
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Modified Fig 5 of Applicant’s Drawings, wherein the stratiform coating (35) has been extended to cover the entirety of the shaped carcass)]
Given that neither interpretation of the claims based on evidence found in the specification or the drawings would result in an apparatus that would meet all the limitations of the claimed invention, claim 50 is considered to be indefinite. As it is unclear as to how exactly the claim should be interpreted, no proper prior art comparison can be made at this time.
As claims 51-57, 59, 61-69 and 71 are directly/indirectly dependent on claim 50, they stand as rejected for similar reasons.
Amendments to claim 70 are similar to those made to claim 50 as set forth above and therefore share the same deficiencies and are similarly rejected.
While a full prior art search and analysis (along with response to applicant’s arguments with regards to the amendments) cannot be done in view of the 35 USC 112a and 112b rejections as set forth above, in the interest of advancing prosecution, examiner will note that prior art of the record, specifically Nebout (US3607558) comprises of a means of constraining radially inner circumferential edges of the stratiform coating (“annular diaphragm” (14)) via the tire drum sectors (“clamping plates” (21) in combination with “lateral segments” (11)), in that the radially inner circumferential edge of “annular diaphragm” (14) is held in place via sandwiching the end of “annular diaphragm” (14) between “lateral segment” (11) and “clamping plate” (21), preventing the diaphragm from moving (Fig 6), and that “clamping plate” (21) is in contact with both the radially inner surface of the diaphragm’s (“annular T-shaped head” (20)) and the radially inner surface of the portion of “annular diaphragm” (14) immediately before the T-shaped head (20).
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.
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