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Claim 9 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected passenger radial tire molding machine (Group II), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 08/21/2025. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the claims are linked as to form a single general inventive concept and there would be no undue burden to search on the claimed invention. Applicant further argues Yang discloses a system different from the claimed invention in that no air supply pipeline and threading pipeline are opened on the main shaft as claimed. This is not found persuasive because the matter of search burden is not germane to restriction under Unity of Invention, and because the technical features are known in the prior art as evidenced by the prior art rejection below.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of undue length (i.e., exceeds 150 words). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 1-8 are objected to because of the following informalities: the examiner suggests removing the references to figures from the claims for ease of reading. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “the air supply passage” in line 7 should be written as –the air supply pipeline— for consistency in claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “the threading passage” in line 8 should be written as –the threading pipeline— for consistency in claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “The chassis of the radial tire forming machine” in line 1 should be written as –The cabinet of the radial tire molding machine— for consistency in claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “the electric slide ring device” in line 3 should be written as –the electric slip ring device— for consistency in claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “an air passage inlet” in line 4 should be written as –the air passage inlet— for consistency in claim language relating back to the air passage inlet previously disclosed in claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “the air supply passage” in line 4 should be written as –the air supply pipeline— for consistency in claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “the radial tire forming machine” in line 1 should be written as –the radial tire molding machine— for consistency in claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “The chassis of the radial tire forming machine” in line 1 should be written as –The cabinet of the radial tire molding machine— for consistency in claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “pneumatic valve island” in line 2 should be written as –pneumatic valve— for consistency in claim language with later claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “is communicated” in line 3 should be written as –is in communication— for grammatical clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “The chassis of the radial tire forming machine” in line 1 should be written as –The cabinet of the radial tire molding machine— for consistency in claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “The chassis of the passenger radial tire molding machine” in line 1 should be written as –The cabinet of the radial tire molding machine— for consistency in claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “the pneumatic valve (7) and the power supply module” in lines 5-6 should be written as –the pneumatic valve, and the power supply module— for grammatical clarity and ease of reading the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “The chassis for riding a radial tire molding machine” in line 1 should be written as –The cabinet of the radial tire molding machine— for consistency in claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim includes periods forming multiple sentences in a single claim and should be corrected (i.e., lines 2 and 4). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “The chassis of the radial tire forming machine” in line 1 should be written as –The cabinet of the radial tire molding machine— for consistency in claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “communication connection” in lines 3 and 5 should be written as –communication— for grammatical clarity. 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 1-8 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 rotating main shaft (3) being provided with an air supply pipeline and a threading pipeline for supplying air” in lines 2-3 is unclear. The threading pipeline is later disclosed to comprise a cable electrically connected to the drum device. It is unclear if both the air supply pipeline and the threading pipeline are intended to supply air, wherein the threading pipeline supplies both air and a cable, or if the air supply pipeline supplies air and the threading pipeline supplies the cable. For the purposes of examination, the examiner assumes any of the aforementioned interpretations will satisfy the claim limitation.
Claims 2-8 are indefinite by dependence on claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, it is unclear how the air chamber is provided between the rotating main shaft and the electric slip ring device when the electric slip ring device was disclosed as being fixed to the rotating main shaft in claim 1, thereby implying nothing can be between the electric slip ring device and the rotating main shaft. For the purposes of examination, the examiner assumes that the electric slip ring device is fixed to the rotating main shaft, and the air chamber is provided along the main shaft between the electric slip ring device and the other components of the claim (i.e., drum, pipelines, etc.) as illustrated in Applicant’s Figure 2.
Claim 3 is indefinite by dependence on claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, the phrases “the two ends” in line 2, “the air supply duct” in line 3, “the air supply delivery duct” in line 3, and “the axial direction” in line 4 lack sufficient antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 4, the phrases “the air supply duct” in line 3 and “the gas flow flux” in line 4 lack sufficient antecedent basis. Moreover, the examiner assumes “the rotation spindle” in line 2 was intended to be –the rotating main shaft— from claim 1 as they both reference “(3)”.
Claims 5-8 are indefinite by dependence on claim 4.
Regarding claim 8, the phrase “the chassis frame” in line 3 lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Moreover, the examiner suggests consistency in claim language by replacing all “chassis” language with the term –cabinet— for clarity.
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) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holroyd et al. (US 5190605).
Regarding claim 1, Holroyd discloses a cabinet of a radial tire molding machine (Figs. 1-9), comprising: a rotating main shaft (Figs. 1-9: 18, 19) (Col. 1 lines 57-59; Col. 2 lines 67-68; Col. 3 lines 1-3), the rotating main shaft (Figs. 1-9: 18, 19) being provided with an air supply pipeline (Fig. 7: 48, 50; Fig. 8: 154, 155, 156, 157) and a threading pipeline (Fig. 6: 132, 133, 134, 135) for supplying air (Figs. 1-9: see how the pipelines are provided on the shaft via rings 66, 67) (Col. 3 lines 58-68; Col. 4 lines 1-2, 29-33, 43-54; Col. 5 lines 2-9); a drum device (Figs. 1-9: 10, 11), wherein the drum device (Figs. 1-9: 10, 11) is fixedly connected to the rotating main shaft (Figs. 1-9: 18, 19) (Col. 2 lines 67-68; Col. 3 lines 1-3), the air supply pipeline (Fig. 7: 48, 50; Fig. 8: 154, 155, 156, 157) is in communication with an air passage inlet (Fig. 7: 48, 50; Fig. 8: 54, 55, 56, 57) of the drum device (Figs. 1-9: 10, 11), and a cable electrically connected to the drum device is provided in the threading pipeline (Fig. 6: 132, 133, 134, 135) (Col. 3 lines 58-68; Col. 4 lines 1-2).
Holroyd further discloses an electric slip ring device provided at both ends of the rotating main shaft (Figs. 1-9: 18, 19) by end discs (Figs. 1-9: 16, 17) for connecting a gas supply device and a power supply device (Col. 3 lines 4-7, 58-68; Col. 4 lines 1-2, 29-33, 43-54; Col. 5 lines 2-9). While Holroyd does not expressly recite that the electric slip ring device is fixedly connected to the rotating main shaft, Holroyd does disclose that it is provided at the end of the shaft at the end disc (wherein the shaft 18, 19 extends further axially out than the disc 16, 17), and as it is a “ring”, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have readily recognized, or alternatively found obvious that the electric slip ring would be provided annularly around the shaft at the end. Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize, or alternatively find obvious, that the manner in which the electric slip ring is provided on the shaft at the end may be done in a limited number of ways: (1) fixed to the shaft; or (2) not fixed to the shaft. In other words, there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions that a skilled artisan may choose from with a reasonable expectation of success. Absent unexpected results, case law holds that when there is a finite number of identified and predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue known options with his or her technical grasp. See MPEP 2144.04(II)(B). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to provide the electric slip ring device is fixedly connected to the rotating main shaft because there are a limited number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success as discussed above. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious that mounting or fixing the electric slip ring to the rotating shaft would also provide a level of stability and uniformity between the moving components.
The examiner notes that the claim language merely requires “the rotating main shaft being provided with an air supply pipeline and a threading pipeline.” The claim language does not require the pipelines to be integral with and/or internal to the shaft, and thereby does not exclude the pipelines being provided on the rotating main shaft via another component, such as the ring of Holroyd.
Regarding claim 2, Holroyd further necessarily discloses an air chamber (Col. 3 lines 4-5; Col. 4 lines 43-54: wherein the pneumatic connections must necessarily be connected to a source at both ends of the former, and wherein the air is pressurized and therefore must pass through an air chamber), wherein the air chamber is in communication with the air passage inlet of the drum device through the air supply pipeline (Col. 3 lines 4-10; Col. 4 lines 29-33, 43-54; Col. 5 lines 2-9) (Fig. 7: 48, 50; Fig. 8: 54, 55, 56, 57, 154, 155, 156, 157).
While Holroyd does not expressly recite the positioning of the air chamber, Holroyd does disclose that both the air chamber and the electric slip ring are provided at the ends of the shaft at the end discs (Col. 3 lines 4-7). One of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize, or alternatively find obvious, that the manner in which the air chamber is provided may be done in a limited number of ways: (1) between the shaft and other components (i.e., pipelines, drum, etc.) and the electric ring; (2) not between the electric ring and shaft and other components (i.e., pipelines, drum, etc.); or adjacent to the electric ring and not on the shaft. In other words, there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions that a skilled artisan may choose from with a reasonable expectation of success. Absent unexpected results, case law holds that when there is a finite number of identified and predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue known options with his or her technical grasp. See MPEP 2144.04(II)(B). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to provide that the air chamber is arranged between the rotating main shaft and the electric slip ring device because there are a limited number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success as discussed above. Furthermore, case law holds that shifting the position of a component would have been obvious absent a showing that the rearrangement modified the operation of the device. See MPEP 2144.04. In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to rearrange the electric slip ring and air chamber at the end of the shaft as desired or needed.
Regarding claim 3, Holroyd further discloses the air chamber and the drum device are located at two ends of the rotating main shaft (Col. 3 lines 4-5), respectively, and an air supply duct and an air delivery duct both extend along an axial direction of the rotating main shaft (Figs. 7, 8: see any of pipelines/ducts that deliver air along an axial direction of the shaft, e.g., 154, 155, 156, 157).
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holroyd et al. (US 5190605) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of any one of Hindin et al. (US 3138510) and/or Pouilloux (US 3235435).
Regarding claim 4, Holroyd does not expressly recite a pneumatic valve fixed on the rotating main shaft, wherein the pneumatic valve is in communication with an air supply duct and is used for controlling a gas flow flux.
Nevertheless, it is generally known in the tire art to provide air supply ducts with valves for controlling gas flow flux. For instance, Hindin discloses a tire shaping machine comprising a central shaft (Fig. 3: 26) with valve means (Fig. 3: 80) for directing the flow of pressurized air to and from the tire shaping drum (Col. 8 lines 34-75; Col. 9 lines 1-10). Additionally or alternatively, Pouilloux discloses a tire building machine comprising a main shaft (Fig. 1: 14), wherein compressed air enters via a rotary joint (Fig. 1: 33) at the end of the shaft, similar to the disclosure of Holroyd, and distributor valves (Col. 5 lines 8-18). Accordingly, it is generally known in the tire art to use valves on main shafts of tire building drums to control the flow of air/gas. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Holroyd in order to provide a pneumatic valve fixed on the rotating main shaft, wherein the pneumatic valve is in communication with an air supply duct and is used for controlling a gas flow flux, as is generally known in the similar art, as taught by Hindin and Pouilloux.
Regarding claim 5, Holroyd further discloses a power supply module, wherein the power supply module is electrically connected to the drum device (Col. 3 lines 58-68; Col. 4 lines 1-2).
While Holroyd does not expressly recite that the power supply module is fixed on the rotating main shaft, Holroyd does disclose an external power source at the end discs (Figs. 1-9: 16, 17) (Col. 3 line 68; Col. 4 lines 1-2). One of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize, or alternatively find obvious, that the manner in which the power supply module is provided may be done in a limited number of ways: (1) fixed on the rotating main shaft; (2) not fixed to the main shaft, but still provided on the main shaft; or (3) not provided on the main shaft at all. In other words, there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions that a skilled artisan may choose from with a reasonable expectation of success. Absent unexpected results, case law holds that when there is a finite number of identified and predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue known options with his or her technical grasp. See MPEP 2144.04(II)(B). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to provide that the power supply module is fixed on the rotating main shaft because there are a limited number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success as discussed above. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious that mounting or fixing the power supply module to the rotating shaft would also provide a level of stability and uniformity between the moving components.
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holroyd et al. (US 5190605) and any one of Hindin et al. (US 3138510) and/or Pouilloux (US 3235435) as applied to claims 1 and 4-5 above, and further in view of Miyake (US 20210178714).
Regarding claims 6-7, Holroyd does not expressly recite an I/O module, wherein the I/O module is used for receiving and transmitting a control signal of the pneumatic valve and a signal of a detecting device in the drum device, respectively, and the I/O module is electrically connected to the detecting device in the drum device, the pneumatic valve, and the power supply module.
Miyake discloses a tire forming device comprising a rotating shaft (Fig. 1: 61), wherein a control device (Fig. 4: 80) is composed of a well-known computer including a CPU, a memory, a storage device, and an input/output device (I/O module) ([0085]). The control device, including the I/O module, controls the drum and drum detection devices (Fig. 4) ([0090]). The detection devices detect positions of the drum and rotating shaft ([0086], [0089]-[0091]). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Holroyd in order to provide an I/O modules as is conventionally known in the tire art, as taught by Miyake, so as to control the various components of modified Holroyd, such as the drum, valve, and power supply. Moreover, one of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to modify Holroyd in order to provide drum detection devices that are also connected to and controlled by the I/O module so as to detect the drum and shaft positions and control them as needed, as taught by Miyake.
Miyake further discloses that the system includes a transmission unit for transmitting signals wirelessly ([0086]). In other words, Miyake discloses a first wireless communication module. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious that the I/O module transmits and receives signals from the pneumatic valve and detection devices in the drum device via the first wireless communication module, wherein the first wireless communication module is electrically connected to both the power supply module and the I/O module.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is 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: no prior art of record is considered to teach or suggest the combination of limitations of claims 1 and 4-8. In particular, the limitations “a second wireless communication module, wherein the second wireless communication module is fixed on the cabinet frame and is in communication with a device information processing main station, and the first wireless communication module is in communication with the second wireless communication module.”
The closest prior art of record is considered to be Holroyd et al. (US 5190605), Hindin et al. (US 3138510), Pouilloux (US 3235435), and Miyake (US 20210178714).
The prior art of record discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 4-7 as discussed in the detailed rejection above. Miyake further discloses the use of wireless transmissions in the control of components. However, no prior art of record teaches both the specifically claimed and structured first wireless communication module and the specifically claimed and structured second wireless communication module in combination. While it is known to use wireless transmissions to communicate within the system as well as to outside users, as indicated by the prior art of record, no prior art is considered to teach the combination of more than one wireless communication module as claimed.
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