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
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 34-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mallory (US Pat. No. 3,031,353) in view of Gammeter (US Pat. No. 1,310,236) and Olbert (US Pat. No. 3,853,653).
Regarding claims 34 and 38, Mallory teaches a tire building machine comprising a building drum D and a stitching device 1 (taken to be the claimed stitcher), wherein the device comprises stitching discs 9 and 10 (either of which can be taken to be the disc-shaped stitching body) having a first side for pressing on the tire component during stitching and a second side opposite to the first side (column 2, line 63 – column 3, line 4; figure 3), wherein the second side is concave (see figure 3), wherein the sidewall is folded around a radially inner side of the bead (column 5, lines 23-56; figure 7), and teaches or suggests that the disc-shaped stitching body is concentric about a stitching axis (figures 3 and 7). Mallory does not specifically disclose that the second side is concave at the stitching axis. Gammeter teaches a stitching disk having a second side which is concave at the stitching axis (page 4, lines 6-70; figures 20, 22 and 25). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a stitching disk having a second side which is concave at the stitching axis as taught by Gammeter in the tire building machine of Mallory in order to provide a clearance between the surface of the disk and the fabric and to permit the working edge to operate freely and in the intended manner (see Gammeter at page 4, lines 53-59). Mallory does not specifically disclose bead lock segments which are retractable a recessed position relative to the rest of the tire building drum. Olbert teaches using bead supporting members 21 (taken to be the claimed bead-lock segments) which are retractable into a recessed position relative to the rest of the tire building drum (column 3, line 56 – column 4, line 29; figure 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use bead-lock segments as taught by Olbert in the tire building machine of Mallory as a known advantageous device for positioning of bead cores (see Olbert at column 3, lines 6-11). For such a combination, the stitcher fits between a transition of the bead area and the rest of the tire drum, such that the transition is at least partially received in a cavity defined by the second side and will provide sufficient space for folding the side wall around the bead.
Regarding claims 35-37 and 39, Mallory does not specifically disclose that the first side defining a pressing surface that is arranged at a slope that is inclined away from the second side. Gammeter teaches using a disc-shaped stitching body where the first side defining a pressing surface is arranged at a slope that is inclined away from the second side at a clearance angle in a radial direction away from the stitching axis which is depicted as being about 2 degrees (page 4, lines 1-70; figure 25). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a disc shape for the stitching body as taught by Gammeter in the tire building machine of Mallory (combined) as a preferable shape for the manufacture of a variety of types of tires (see Gammeter at page 4, lines 65-70). Regarding claim 39, Malory teaches that the stitcher is positioned at a variety of angles oblique to a vertical plane, such that at least a part of the pressing surface is tilted towards or into a horizontal plane (see figures 4-7).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 34 and 38 under Mallory in view of Olbert have been fully considered and are persuasive, because the newly amended feature is not taught or suggested by these references. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made further in view of Gammeter.
Applicant's argument that the combination of Mallory in view of Olbert being impermissible hindsight has been fully considered but is not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
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 PHILIP N SCHWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1612. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:30.
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.
/P.N.S/ Examiner, Art Unit 1749 May 28, 2026
/JUSTIN R FISCHER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights