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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claim 10 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected Group II (follow-up control system), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 12/22/2025. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the pending claims define the invention and there would not be undue burden to search on the claimed invention. This is not found persuasive because the matter of search burden is not germane to restriction under Unity of Invention. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: throughout the specification, incorrect punctuation is used and should be corrected. For example, the phrase “drum module by means of a stitching pressure roller module to move towards a lock ring workstation, Since the forming drum module and the sewing pressure roller module have a pre-set speed difference when moving towards the locking station, The stitching compression roller module can move relative to the composite joint on the molding drum module, and then can perform a stitching operation on the composite joint on the molding drum module, Since the sewing operation of the sewing roller module is carried out simultaneously with the locking process of the shaping drum module, in contrast to the conventional progressive manner, The action execution cycle during the entire control of the molding machine is greatly shortened” on page 8 of the specification. This is one such example noting that commas are used in place of periods throughout the specification, and in certain instance where a comma is warranted the subsequent wording is capitalized when it should not be. The specification is replete with such errors and should be corrected.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 use the word “means,” and are 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: “propping means” in claim 5 and “bead carrier means” in claim 6.
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. While Applicant’s specification discusses functionally “a propping component” on Page 3 of the Specification, there is no structural language or illustrative embodiments to clearly disclose the structure of the propping means beyond the functional role, or any explicit disclosure in the specification of “propping means.” Accordingly, there is no disclosed structure for the “propping means.” Furthermore, Applicant’s specification discloses “the bead bearing member may specifically be a bead suction cup, or another bead bearing member commonly used by those skilled in the art, such as a clamping claw, as long as the function of bearing the bead can be achieved, which is not specifically limited herein” (Specification Page 11). The examiner assumes this to be the structure for the “bead carrier means”, although the specification never explicitly discloses “bead carrier means.”
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 Objections
Claims 1-9 are objected to because of the following informalities: the examiner suggests removing the references to figures in parentheses throughout the claims for ease of reading the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “stitching and pressing roller module” in lines 5 and 7 should be written as –stitching pressure roller module—for consistency in claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “locking ring station” in lines 5 and 6 should be written as –ring locking station—for consistency in claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “forming drum module” in line 8 should be written as –molding drum module—for consistency in claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “a forming machine” in line 1 should be written as –the forming machine—for consistency in claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “forming drum module” in line 2 should be written as –molding drum module—for consistency in claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “a forming machine” in line 1 should be written as –the forming machine—for consistency in claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “in response to an instruction” in lines 2-3 should be written as –in response to the instruction—for consistency in claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “forming drum module” in line 3 and “shaping drum module” in line 5 should be written as –molding drum module—for consistency in claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “locking ring station” in lines 3-4 and 5-6 should be written as –ring locking station—for consistency in claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “a building machine” in line 1 should be written as –the forming machine—for consistency in claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “left bead transferring ring module” in lines 2 and 4 and “left bead transfer ring module” in line 8 should be written as –left tire bead transferring ring module—for consistency in claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “right bead transferring ring module” in lines 2 and 4 and “right bead transfer ring module” in lines 8-9 should be written as – right tire bead transferring ring module—for consistency in claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “building drum module” in lines 3, 8, and 8 and “forming drum module” in line 6 should be written as –molding drum module—for consistency in claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “central positions of the two” in line 5 should be written as –central positions of the left tire bead transferring ring module and the right tire bead transferring ring module—for clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “the three, said building drum module (1), said left bead transfer ring module (3) and said right bead transfer ring module (4), move” in lines 8-9 should be written as –said molding drum module, said left tire bead transferring ring module, and said right tire bead transferring ring module move—for clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “a forming machine” in line 1 should be written as –the forming machine—for consistency in claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “forming drum module” in lines 2-3 should be written as –molding drum module—for consistency in claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “building drum” in lines 3 and 4 and “molding drum” in line 6 should be written as –forming drum—for consistency in claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “a forming machine” in line 1 should be written as –the forming machine—for consistency in claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “left bead transferring ring module” in lines 3-4 and 6-7 should be written as –left tire bead transferring ring module—for consistency in claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “right bead transferring ring module” in lines 4 and 7 should be written as –right tire bead transferring ring module—for consistency in claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “the propped up instruction” in lines 2-3 and 5 should be written as –the propping command—for consistency in claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “positions, The bead bearing member” in line 8 should be written as –positions, the bead bearing component—for consistency in claim language and grammatical clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “a building machine” in line 1 should be written as –the forming machine—for consistency in claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “building drum module” in lines 2-3 and 4 should be written as –molding drum module—for consistency in claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “left bead transferring ring module” in lines 5-6 should be written as –left tire bead transferring ring module—for consistency in claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “right bead transferring ring module” in line 6 should be written as –right tire bead transferring ring module—for consistency in claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “a forming machine” in line 1 should be written as –the forming machine—for consistency in claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “locking ring station” in lines 3-4 should be written as –ring locking station—for consistency in claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “molding station” in lines 4 and 5 and “forming station” in line 9 should be written as –building station—for consistency in claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “left bead transferring ring module” in lines 5-6 and “left bead transfer ring module” in line 13 should be written as –left tire bead transferring ring module—for consistency in claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “right bead transferring ring module” in line 6 and “right bead transfer ring module” in lines 13-14 should be written as –right tire bead transferring ring module—for consistency in claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “composite pressure roller module” in lines 11 and 12 should be written as –composite pressing roller module—for consistency in claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “specified position” in line 9 should be written as –designated position—for consistency in claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “belt transfer ring module” in line 12 should be written as –belt layer transfer ring module—for consistency in claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “a forming machine” in line 1 should be written as –the forming machine—for consistency in claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “forming drum” in line 5 should be written as –building drum—for consistency in claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-9 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.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “the molding drum module” in line 2, “the fitting station” in line 2, “the ring locking station” in line 3, “the stitching pressure roller module” in lines 3-4, “the speed” in line 4, “the speed” in line 5, and “the composite joint” in lines 7-8 lack sufficient antecedent basis.
Claims 2-9 are indefinite by dependence on claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, the phrases “the loop lock position” in lines 2-3, “the loop lock station” in line 3, and “the stitching operation” in line 4 lack sufficient antecedent basis.
Claims 3-9 are indefinite by dependence on claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, the phrases “the left tire bead transferring ring module” in line 4, “the right tire bead transferring ring module” in lines 4-5, “the shaping drum module” in line 5, and “their respective upper ring positions” in line 7 lack sufficient antecedent basis.
Claims 4-9 are indefinite by dependence on claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, the phrases “the spacing” in lines 3-4, “the spacing” in line 5, “the upper ring” in line 5, “the central positions” in line 5, “the central position” in line 6, “the forming drum” in line 6, “said buckle position” in line 7, and “the same speed” in line 9 lack sufficient antecedent basis.
Claims 5-9 are indefinite by dependence on claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, the phrases “the propping means” in line 4 and “the lock ring position” in line 5 lack sufficient antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 5, the claim recites “propping means”, which is a means-plus-function limitation invoking 35 USC 112(f), as discussed above. However, the specification fails to disclose a corresponding structure for performing the recited propping function. The specification merely describes “a propping component” and “propping action” in functional terms without identifying any definite mechanical structure for performing the claimed propping action.
Claims 6-9 are indefinite by dependence on claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, the phrases “the bead bearing components” in line 3, “the sending time” in line 5, “the bead carrier means” in line 5, “the beads” in line 6, “their respective upper loop positions” in lines 7-8, and “the bead movement” in line 8 lack sufficient antecedent basis.
Claims 7-9 are indefinite by dependence on claim 6.
Regarding claim 8, the phrases “the belt layer transfer ring module” in line 8, “the composite pressing roller module” in lines 8-9, and “the same speed” in line 14 lack sufficient antecedent basis.
Claim 9 is indefinite by dependence on claim 8.
Regarding claim 9, the phrase “the green tire” in line 5 lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
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) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benjamin (US 5354404).
Regarding claim 1, Benjamin discloses a follow-up control method for a forming machine (Figs. 1, 14A-14C), comprising: in response to an instruction for a molding drum module (Fig. 1: 60) to move from a fitting station to a ring locking station (Col. 12 lines 47-60; Col. 13 lines 17-21: wherein carriage 55 with drum 60 and stitcher 195 is moved from station to station for various components, i.e., fitting station, including folding carcass ply ends over the beads, i.e., ring locking), controlling the molding drum module and a stitching pressure roller module (Fig. 2: 195) to move towards the ring locking station (Figs. 1-2: moving the drum 60 and stitcher 195 via carriage 55) (Col. 9 lines 42-50; Col. 12 lines 47-60).
Benjamin further discloses that the stitching pressure roller module (Fig. 2: 195) and the molding drum module (Fig. 1: 60) are provided on the same carriage (Figs. 1-2: 55), and thereby they move together at a speed of movement towards the ring locking station. Accordingly, because they move together, they have a pre-set speed difference of zero every time they move. Furthermore, the stitching pressure roller module stitches a composite joint on the molding drum module (Col. 12 lines 60-68; Col. 13 lines 1-16).
The examiner notes that “a pre-set speed difference” is broad and does not expressly define the boundaries of what the difference is. For example, the pre-set difference may be 0 or more and satisfy the claim limitation. Moreover, the limitations “fitting station” and “ring locking station” are broad and do not expressly require what is required to be “fitted” or “locked” at the respective stations or how.
Regarding claim 2, Benjamin further discloses when the molding drum module reaches a pre-set position before a loop lock position of a loop lock station, the stitching pressure roller module completes a stitching operation (Col. 12 lines 61-68; Col. 13 lines 1-15: wherein the stitcher completes stitching operations between stations, wherein the drum is stopped at pre-set positions before each station, and wherein “loops” of plies are applied at stations A, B, C, and D onto the drum).
The examiner notes that the limitations “loop lock position” and “loop lock station” are broad and do not expressly require what a “loop” or “loop lock station” are or what is accomplished at it.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-9 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. Moreover, as allowable subject matter has been indicated, Applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a). Additionally, the claims should be rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: no prior art of record is considered to teach or suggest the combination of limitations of claims 1-3. In particular, the limitation “in response to the instruction for the molding drum module to move from the fitting station to the ring locking station, controlling a left tire bead transferring ring module and a right tire bead transferring ring module to move so that the molding drum module arrives at the ring locking station, the left tire bead transferring ring module and the right tire bead transferring ring module reach respective upper ring positions.”
Claims 4-9 would be allowable by dependence on claim 3.
The closest prior art of record is considered to be Benjamin (US 5354404).
Benjamin discloses the claim limitations of claims 1-2, as discussed in the detailed rejection above. However, Benjamin does not expressly recite a left tire bead transferring ring module and a right tire bead transferring ring module that are moved in response to the instruction for the molding drum module to move from the fitting station to the ring locking station. Instead, Benjamin discloses that the beads are supplied onto respective tire bead transferring ring modules before a carcass ply is provided and the operation has begun, such as after the sidewall has been added to the carcass and the formed carcass is removed and transferred, then new beads for the next supply are positioned while the carriage is moved back to the first workstation for a new carcass ply, and then the carriage is moved again from fitting station to ring locking station, as discussed above in claim 1 (Col. 11 lines 46-68; Col. 12 lines 1-28; Col. 13 lines 39-64). Accordingly, the left tire bead transferring ring module and right tire bead transferring ring module are not moved in response to the instruction for the molding drum module to move from the fitting station to the ring locking station, but rather are moved into position before any of the operations of fitting or ring locking even take place. 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 contrary to its express disclosure, especially without a 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