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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
p.9 L3-9: During tire molding, the robotic arm is controlled by means of the described control method, so that integrated control of bead placement, side rolling of a green tire, and operation of removing the green tire can be realized[[,]]. Compared with the conventional separate operation of different mechanical devices, the occupation space of the mechanical equipment is greatly reduced[[,]]. At the same time, the complexity of the control is reduced, and the possibility of interference between the actuating mechanical parts is avoided.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, L9-10: step S1: in response to a signal of installing a bead, the second claw part (22b) gripping the bead and [[the]] a spacer
Claim 1, L23: the placement of the bead[[s]] and spacer[[s]]
Claim 11, L9-10: step S1: in response to a signal of installing a bead, the second claw part (22b) gripping the bead and [[the]] a spacer
Claim 11, L22: the placement of the bead[[s]] and spacer[[s]]
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 1-13 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 amending of the control method that “comprises” steps S1-S3 to one that is “consisting of the following steps in the following order” changes the claim from open language to closed language, meaning that the claimed method excludes all other steps. This raises confusion, as the current claim limitations would not be able to adequately convey the control method for a tire building machine to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Instances of confusion include:
Step S1 discloses the gripping of and transport of the bead and spacer to a bead seat of the tire building machine; however, no relationship is made between the bead and spacer of step S1 to the components disclosed in steps S2 and S3; is the bead and spacer part of the green tire later operated on steps S2 and S3 or is it for a separate process?;
Steps S2 and S3 disclose operations performed with a green tire; however, it is unclear as to when exactly the green tire was introduced to the tire forming drum or when the product being worked on in the forming drum goes from being a collection of parts to being a green tire; and
Step S2 discloses the rolling of sidewalls and a portion of the tread of the green tire; however, the current claim does not disclose when said sidewalls and portion of the tread are placed onto the tire building machine.
As claims 3-5, 7, and 9-10 depend directly/indirectly on claim 1, they stand as rejected for similar reasons.
Regarding claim 11, the “consisting of the following steps in the following order” for steps S1-S3 is closed claim language, meaning that the claimed method excludes all other steps. This raises confusion, as the current claim limitations would not be able to adequately convey the control method for a tire building machine to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Instances include:
Step S1 discloses the gripping of and transport of the bead and spacer to a bead seat of the tire building machine; however, no relationship is made between the bead and spacer of step S1 to the components disclosed in steps S2 and S3; is the bead and spacer part of the green tire later operated on steps S2 and S3 or is it for a separate process?;
Steps S2 and S3 disclose operations performed with a green tire; however, it is unclear as to when exactly the green tire was introduced to the tire forming drum or when the product being worked on in the forming drum goes from being a collection of parts to being a green tire; and
Step S2 discloses the rolling of sidewalls and a portion of the tread of the green tire; however, the current claim does not disclose when said sidewalls and portion of the tread are placed onto the tire building machine.
As claims 12 and 13 are dependent on claim 11, they stand as rejected for similar reasons.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 1, the claim uses the closed claim language of “consisting of” on L6 with regards to the steps S1-S3 but then does not used closed claim language when disclosing “the placement of the beads and spacers is caried out according to the following procedures” with regards to steps S11-S15 on L23 and uses open claim language of “said step S1 further comprises the following sub-steps” on L37.
As claims 3-5, 7, and 9-10 are directly/indirectly dependent on claim 1, they stand as rejected for similar reasons.
Regarding claim 7, the claim uses the open language of “the step S1 further comprising the following sub-steps” on L3-4 but is directly dependent on claim 1, which uses closed-claim language.
Regarding claim 11, the claim uses the closed claim language of “consisting of” on L6 with regards to the steps S1-S3 but then does not used closed claim language when disclosing “the placement of the beads and spacers is carried out according to the following procedures” with regards to steps S11-S15 on L22 and uses open claim language of “said step S1 further comprises the following sub-steps” on L51.
As claims 12 and 13 are dependent on claim 1, they stand as rejected for similar reasons.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 9-13 comprise allowable subject matter.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1, the closest prior art of record is Siegenthaler (US4877468) in view of Janszen et al. (US20100043947), Li (CN108215261) (machine translation) and Wang et al. (CN204431260) (machine translation). The prior art of record teaches the claim limitations of amended claim 1, which now include previously dependent claims 2, 6 and 8, as set forth in the previous office action.
However, the prior art of record fails to teach that the control method consists only of steps S1-S3 and sub-steps with those steps, and instead teach that these steps and sub-steps are a portion of an overall control method for a tire building machine that comprises further steps, including placement of innerliners (Siegenthaler: “innerliner” (27)), body plies (Siegenthaler: “portion” (67)), tread (Siegenthaler: “tread plies” (93,94)) and more (Fig 1-2). Examiner notes that the newly amended language with regards to “achieving integrated control for bead placement, green tire sidewall rolling and green tire unloading operations” is not considered to further limit the claim invention as it does not further define the control method in the claim and the specification is silent on how the term “integrated” modifies the control method on p.6 L5-8 and p.9 L3-5.
As claims 3-5, 7 and 9-10 are directly/indirectly dependent on claim 1, they stand as containing allowable subject matter for similar reasons.
Regarding claim 11, the closest prior art of record is Siegenthaler (US4877468) in view of Janszen et al. (US20100043947), Li (CN108215261) (machine translation) and Wang et al. (CN204431260) (machine translation). Claim 11 has the subject matter of amended claims 1, 3-5 and 7, which the prior art teaches the claim limitations of as set forth in the previous office action.
However, the prior art of record fails to teach that the control method consists only of steps S1-S3 and sub-steps with those steps, and instead teach that these steps and sub-steps are a portion of an overall control method for a tire building machine that comprises further steps, including placement of innerliners (Siegenthaler: “innerliner” (27)), body plies (Siegenthaler: “portion” (67)), tread (Siegenthaler: “tread plies” (93,94)) and more (Siegenthaler: Fig 1-2). Examiner notes that the claim limitation of “achieving integrated control for bead placement, green tire sidewall rolling and green tire unloading operations” is not considered to further limit the claim invention as it does not further define the control method in the claim and the specification is silent on how the term “integrated” modifies the control method on p.6 L5-8 and p.9 L3-5.
As claims 12 and 13 depend on claim 11, they also are indicated as having allowable subject matter for similar reasons.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see p.13-19, filed 30 March 2026, with respect to claims 1-10 and the language “consisting of the following steps in the following order” have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 1-10 have been withdrawn. However, examiner notes applicant’s arguments on p.16-18 towards the claim language of “achieving integrated control for bead placement, green tire sidewall rolling and green tire unloading operations” are not considered persuasive, given, as set forth in the allowable subject matter section above, said limitation is not considered to further limit the claim invention as it does not further define the control method in the claim and the specification is silent on how the term “integrated” modifies the control method on p.6 L5-8 and p.9 L3-5.
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