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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “drive system” in claim 13.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Applicant’s specification discloses “said shared drive system 20 for this purpose comprises an actuating plate 32 which is mounted movably in axial translation along the central axis Z3 and has a series of end caps 33 distributed about the central axis Z3 and arranged to each engage the tail 13T of a punch 13 so as to be able to apply axial thrust to said punch 13. Each end cap 33 preferably contains a suspension spring 37 as described above, preferably interposed in compression between the closed end of said end cap 33 and the tail 13T of the punch. The actuating plate 32 is preferably normal to the central axis Z3, and preferably takes the form of a disc. Said actuating plate 32 is preferably associated with a poka-yoke feature 34 enabling the angular position of the actuating plate 32 and, more particularly, of the series of end caps 33 to be identified in terms of yaw about the central axis Z3, with respect to the various pressing sub-assemblies 10, so that the actuating plate 32 and the end caps 33 can be suitably positioned facing the various punches 13. The drive system 20 will preferably comprise a motor able to generate the axial movement of the actuating plate 32 and therefore of the punches 13. It will be noted that the actuating plate 32 will enable all the end caps 33 to be moved simultaneously in an axial movement of the same amplitude and therefore give each punch 13 the same potential capacity for movement. This potential capacity for movement, which is the same for all of the punches 13 and therefore perfectly controlled, will be adjusted locally and automatically on a case-by-case basis for each punch 13 through action of the suspension spring 37, according to the behaviour of the spoke 5 and of the pushers 11, 12 of the pressing sub-assembly 10 concerned. According to one embodiment possibility, the motor that provides the movement of the actuating plate 32 will be formed by a ram 35, preferably an annular ram 35, which is interposed between a portion 36' of a fixed superstructure 36 of the assembly device 1 and the mobile actuating plate 32, as visible in Figure 3 or Figure 11.” (Figs. 3, 11) ([00115]-[00121]).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim(s) 13, 15, and 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson et al. (US 20190283500) and Fusami et al. (JP 4054056, see machine translation).
Regarding claim 13, Wilson discloses an assembly device for manufacturing a tire (Fig. 1: 12) that comprises a hub (Fig. 1: 26) having a central axis (Fig. 1: 102), a peripheral annular band (Fig. 1: 62) coaxial with the hub, and a plurality of spokes (Fig. 1: 28) that connect the hub (Fig. 1: 26) to the peripheral annular band (Fig. 1: 62) ([0019]), each spoke (Fig. 1: 28) comprising a first end fastened on a radially outer face of the hub (Fig. 1: 26) forming a first receiving face and a second end fastened on a radially inner face of the peripheral annular band (Fig. 1: 62) forming a second receiving face ([0018]-[0021], [0023]).
Wilson further discloses a plurality of pressing sub-assemblies that are each assigned to fastening a separate spoke (Figs. 3-12: 28) and that each comprise at least one pusher (Fig. 5: 16) arranged to press one of the first and second ends of a given spoke against the receiving face of the hub or of the peripheral annular band, respectively, that corresponds to the one of the first and second ends of the spoke ([0018], [0021]-[0032]).
Wilson further discloses each of the pressing sub-assemblies comprises a punch (Figs. 5-6, 8-9: 38) that is mounted movably in an axial direction (Figs. 5-6, 8-9: 34) parallel to the central axis (Figs. 5-6, 8: 18), under control of a drive system (Fig. 5: 76) ([0021]-[0026]: wherein punch element 38 may be a single plate or multiple plates, i.e., a plate for each sub-assembly).
Wilson further discloses the punch (Figs. 5-6, 8-9: 38) has at least one groove (Figs. 5-6, 8-9: 80) which, in a radial plane containing the central axis, diverges progressively from the axial direction (Figs. 5-6, 8-9: 34) and collaborates with a bearing member (Figs. 5-6, 8-9: 78) secured to the pusher (Figs. 5-6, 8-9: 16).
Fusami discloses a non-pneumatic tire comprising a slide body having a head and shaft (Fig. 19: 22), similar to the pin of Wilson, that fits into a slide guide groove (Fig. 19: 30), wherein the slide guide has tapered ramp edges (Fig. 19, 30b, 30d). In this manner, the slide body (Fig. 19: 22) is inserted without a gap, thereby unnecessary rocking and fluctuation within the slide guide (Fig. 19: 30) of the slide body (Fig. 19: 22) can be prevented (Page 24 lines 3-5). Moreover, the slide body can be finally positioned in the slide guide (Page 24 lines 5-6). Although Fusami discloses a pin having a head and shaft in a groove for an intended function different from Wilson, Fusami also discloses that when providing a pin with a head and shaft in a groove, it is advantageous to provide the groove with a tapered (i.e., ramp) shape so as to insert the pin without a gap to prevent unnecessary rocking and fluctuation within the groove of the pin, as well as to finally position the pin in place. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the groove of Wilson in order to have a ramp shape for the advantages discussed above as taught by Fusami.
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize, or alternatively find obvious, that when the punch (Figs. 5-6, 8-9: 38) of modified Wilson is moved axially against the pin (Figs. 5-6, 8-9: 78), the groove of ramp shape will necessarily cause the pin to move radially until it is finally positioned without a gap generating its clamping retaining force to hold everything in place. Accordingly, modified Wilson discloses when the drive system (Figs. 5-6: 76) moves the punch (Figs. 5-6, 8-9: 38) axially against the bearing member (Figs. 5-6, 8-9: 78), the groove (Figs. 5-6, 8-9: 80) causes the bearing member (Figs. 5-6, 8-9: 78) and, therefore, the pusher (Figs. 5-6, 8-9: 16) to move radially and thus, via the bearing member, generates a clamping force that presses the pusher and, therefore, the one of the first and second ends of the spoke radially against the receiving face ([0023]-[0027], [0030]: wherein the grooves 80 are axially moved so that the pins 78 are received within the grooves, and the grooves have features that block the head of the pins 78 from moving outward radially and hold the spokes from springing back outwards in the radial direction, i.e., the grooves provide a clamping force that presses the pusher and spokes against the receiving face).
Regarding claim 15, modified Wilson further discloses the bearing member (Figs. 5-6, 8-9: 78) is arranged in such a way that a contact area of contact between the ramp (Figs. 5-6, 8-9: 80) and the bearing member is situated on a back of the pusher (Figs. 5-6, 8-9: 16) radially opposite the one of the first and second ends (Figs. 5-6, 8-9: 28) and the receiving face (Figs. 1, 5-6, 9: 26, 62) and contained in an axial range that the one of the first and second ends is to occupy along the central axis.
Regarding claim 22, Wilson further discloses the assembly device comprises a shared drive system (Figs. 5-6: 76), common to several of the pressing sub-assemblies, the shared drive system comprising an actuating plate (Figs. 5-6: 76) which is mounted movably in axial translation along the central axis and has a series of end caps (Figs. 5-6: see bolted end caps that connect 76 to 38 in order to move it axially) distributed about the central axis (Figs. 5-6: 18) and arranged to engage a tail of a punch (Figs. 5-6: 38) so as to be able to apply axial thrust to the punch ([0023]-[0026]).
Regarding claim 23, Wilson further discloses a number of pressing sub-assemblies (Figs. 5-10: 16) distributed about the central axis is equal to a number of spokes in the tire (Figs. 5-10: 28) ([0018]-[0019]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14, 16-21, and 24 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:
Regarding claim 14, no prior art of record is considered to teach or suggest the combination of limitations of claims 13-14. In particular, the limitations “a suspension spring is interposed axially between each punch and the drive system so as to give the punch a predetermined resilience to resistance offered by the pusher to the punch in reaction to the clamping force.”
Regarding claim 16, no prior art of record is considered to teach or suggest the combination of limitations of claims 13 and 16. In particular, the limitations “the bearing member is formed by a roller which is rotatably mounted on an axle borne by the pusher and orthoradial with respect to the central axis, so that the roller rolls along the ramp as the punch moves axially.”
Regarding claim 17, no prior art of record is considered to teach or suggest the combination of limitations of claims 13 and 17. In particular, the limitations “the pusher has a guide barrel which delimits a through-slot into which the punch is pushed as it moves axially and an inner wall of which has the bearing member.”
Claim 20 would be allowable by dependence on claim 17.
Regarding claim 18, no prior art of record is considered to teach or suggest the combination of limitations of claims 13 and 18. In particular, the limitations “the pusher is radially guided by a first guide situated at a first axial end of the pusher and by a second guide separate from the first guide and situated at a second axial end of the pusher opposite the first end, so that a contact area of contact between the ramp of the punch and the bearing member of the pusher is situated between the first and second guides, at a distance from the first and second guides.”
Regarding claim 19, no prior art of record is considered to teach or suggest the combination of limitations of claims 13 and 19. In particular, the limitations “at least some of the pressing sub-assemblies each comprise a punch which is provided with a first ramp designed to engage with a first bearing member borne by a first pusher designed to press the first end of the given spoke against the hub, and with a second ramp designed to engage with a second bearing member borne by a second pusher designed to press the second end of the given spoke against the peripheral annular band.”
Claim 21 would be allowable by dependence on claim 21.
Regarding claim 24, no prior art of record is considered to teach or suggest the combination of limitations of claims 13 and 24. In particular, the limitations “the assembly device comprises one or more latches arranged in such a way as to passively keep the punches in a pushed-in position after the drive system has moved the punches axially, so as to keep the ends of the spokes pressed against respective receiving faces.”
The closest prior art of record is considered to be Wilson et al. (US 20190283500) and Fusami et al. (JP 4054056, see machine translation).
Wilson in view of Fusami discloses the claim limitations as discussed in the detailed rejection above. However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would not have found it obvious to interpose a suspension spring between each punch and the drive system so as to give the punch a predetermined resilience to resistance offered by the pusher to the punch in reaction to the clamping force because Wilson discloses that the punch (Figs. 5-6, 8-9: 38) and drive system (Figs. 5-6: 76) are secured to the frame (Figs. 5-6: 14) and each other via columns and/or bolts (Figs. 5-6, 8-9) ([0024]-[0026]), which function very differently from suspension springs. Additionally, Wilson discloses that the bearing member is a pin, which is very different from a roller which is rotatably mounted on an axle borne by the pusher and orthoradial with respect to the central axis. Additionally, Wilson discloses that the pusher has pins secured to it as bearing members which then sit in slots of grooves of the punch. Accordingly, the pusher cannot have a guide barrel which delimits a through-slot into which the punch is pushed as it moves axially and an inner wall of which has the bearing member as that is an entirely different structure from the one expressly disclosed. Additionally, modified Wilson in view of Fusami does not disclose any guides for the pusher, let alone the claimed structure of a first guide situated at a first axial end of the pusher and by a second guide separate from the first guide and situated at a second axial end of the pusher opposite the first end, so that a contact area of contact between the ramp of the punch and the bearing member of the pusher is situated between the first and second guides, at a distance from the first and second guides. Additionally, Wilson only discloses one set of spokes with receiving ends at the hub and annular band (Figs. 1-3, 5-6, 8-9). Thereby, at least some of the pressing sub-assemblies cannot comprise a punch which is provided with a first ramp designed to engage with a first bearing member borne by a first pusher designed to press the first end of the given spoke against the hub, and with a second ramp designed to engage with a second bearing member borne by a second pusher designed to press the second end of the given spoke against the peripheral annular band, because that would require the punch and pusher to be radially centered between two sets of spokes, one radially inward of the punch and pusher and one radially outward of them, which is an entirely different structure from the one disclosed by Wilson. Additionally, Wilson discloses that columns and bolts (Figs. 5-6, 8-9) passively keep the punches in a pushed-in position after the drive system has moved the punches axially, so as to keep the ends of the spokes pressed against respective receiving faces, which is an entirely different structure and functionality from latches. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would not have found it obvious to modify the prior art of record contrary to its express disclosure, especially without any motivation or teaching to do so.
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