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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (Claims 1-7) in a reply filed 6/19/2026 is acknowledged.
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 following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Miyamoto et al. (US 2020/0101605).
Regarding Claim 1, Miyamoto et al. a dispense robot (See Abstract) comprising:
an articulating arm assembly [120] including a distal arm member (See page 1, paragraph [0019]);
a sealant nozzle [132] carried by the distal arm member and configured to dispense a bead of sealant material [30] from a nozzle tip of the sealant nozzle [132] as the sealant nozzle moves in a traversing direction (See page 2, paragraphs [0028]-[0029], wherein needle [30] ejects material [30] that can be at various viscosities and include a sealing member, i.e. sealant, as it moves along a desired track set by a control, i.e. a traversing direction); and
first [1341] and second [1342] distance sensors [134] located on opposite sides of the sealant nozzle [134] and configured to view along a length of the sealant nozzle such that a distance of the nozzle tip from the surface [S] is detected by the distance sensors (See Figs. 6, 7, and 9 and page 3, paragraphs [0037]-[0038], and page 4, paragraphs [0041] and [0045]-[0046], wherein the range sensors [134] on opposite side of nozzle [132] detect distance to the surface [S] so as to control the needle/nozzle [132] at a predetermined distance, thus clearly detecting nozzle tip distance to surface [S]).
Miyamoto et al. doesn’t specifically teach coating a rotating tire. However, a preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951). Further, while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429,1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (The absence of a disclosure in a prior art reference relating to function did not defeat the Board's finding of anticipation of claimed apparatus because the limitations at issue were found to be inherent in the prior art reference); see also In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226,228-29 (CCPA 1971); In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844,847, 120 USPQ 528,531 (CCPA 1959). "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). Further, a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
The claims are directed merely to a robot for coating sealant and the tire or any system aspects of holding the tire are not claimed. Miyamoto et al. teach a programmable bead applying robot that may coat sealant material of varied viscosity and certainly would have been capable of applying sealant to any desired surface, such as tire. Thus, the structure of the robot in Miyamoto et al. is indistinguishable from the claimed structure and thus anticipates the claimed structure.
Regarding Claims 2 and 3, there is clear upstream and downstream sensors [134] parallel to the nozzle [132] axis (See Fig. 6). Note any sensors on opposite side of the nozzle and capable of movement in that direct read on Claim 2.
Regarding Claims 4-6, the front sensor [1341] traverses the same path as the nozzle, and thus will intersect any surface along the same line (See Figs. 6, 7, and 9 and page 5, paragraphs [0047] and [0049], wherein the nozzle [132] distance is correct after the forward range sensor [1341] traverses the same path, including when it is curved, thus making it capable of doing so along the inner circumferential line of a tire if so utilized). Likewise, rear sensor [1341 traverses the same path, and controller [200] is utilize to orient the nozzle [132] perpendicular to the surface [S] (See page 4, paragraphs [0043]-[0045], wherein the sensor data to a control unit [210] incorporates the distance information from sensors [134] to calculate and control a desired angle to the surface, such as perpendicular).
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ooshima et al. (US 2019/0061295) in view of Yukawa et al. (US 2018/0200977) and Miyamoto et al.
Regarding Claims 1-6, Ooshima et al. teaches a dispense robot for applying a sealant layer on an inner surface of a tire as the tire rotates about a horizontal axis of rotation (See Abstract and page 2, paragraph [0034]), comprising:
an articulating arm assembly [54] including a distal arm member;
a sealant nozzle [51] carried by the distal arm member and configured to dispense a bead of sealant material from a nozzle tip of the sealant nozzle as the sealant nozzle moves in a traversing direction across a width of the inner surface of the rotating tire [1] (See Fig. 2 and pages 2-3, paragraphs [0034]-[0036]).
Ooshima et al. doesn’t specifically teach distance sensors as claimed. However, parallel distance sensors [40], in any desired location and number, are well-known in tire sealant application on the interior of tire so as to maintain the nozzle at a predetermined distance from the tire surface (See, for example, Yukawa et al., Fig. 2, page 9, paragraphs [0138]-[0142] and page 10, paragraph [0161]-[0162]). Further, distance sensors are well-known it be utilized on robotic dispensing robots around the nozzle on opposite sides, so as to determine changes in surface conditions while regulating nozzle angle relative to the, such as to remain perpendicular as desired, utilizing a controller (See, for example, Miyamoto et al., Figs. 6, 7, and 9 and page 5, paragraphs [0047] and [0049], and see rejection above for further structural details for sensor positioning and utilization during deposition). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to utilize distance sensors and controllers, such as situated in Miyamoto et al. relative to the nozzle during movement. Doing so would have predictably enabled both height and angle control over the nozzle relative to the surface, thus produce a more even and consistent sealant layer.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ooshima et al., Yukawa et al., and Miyamoto et al. according to Claim 1 above, and further in view of JP2020023152 (wherein all textual citations are to the English machine translation provided).
Regarding Claim 7, Ooshima et al., Yukawa et al., and Miyamoto et al. teach the method of Claim 1 as described above. Ooshima et al., Yukawa et al., and Miyamoto et al. are silent as to an air nozzle as claimed. However, in similar sealant deposition processes onto the interior of a tire, it is known to utilize an air nozzle [20] positioned behind the sealant nozzle [15] in the traversing direction so as to eject air into the sealant to aid in tacking the sealant bead onto the tire (See, for example, JP2020023152, Fig. 5, and pages 37-39, paragraphs [0062]-[0065], teaching utilizing an air nozzle [20] to compress sealant [16] against tire surface [S]). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to utilize an air nozzle in association with a nozzle such as in Ooshima et al. Doing so would have predictably improved tire sealant bead adherence by compressing the bead against the interior tire surface.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT W DODDS whose telephone number is (571)270-7653. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6pm.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at 5712705038. 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.
/SCOTT W DODDS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights