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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 6 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6: the upper and lower forming rollers rotate even after the stop.
Claim 8: the leading portion turns into [[a]] the tapered shape accordingly.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 7-9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakatani et al. (US 20220242024).
Regarding claim 1, Nakatani discloses a rubber member molding apparatus comprising:
an extruding machine (“extruder” (11)) that extrudes a long rubber member forward;
a nozzle provided as part of the extruding machine (“ferrule” (15));
an opening end which is a front end of the nozzle and a long rubber member extruding port (“extrusion orifice” (16));
upper and lower forming rollers (“grooved roller” (21) and “grooveless roller” (22), respectively) that sandwich the long rubber member extruded from the opening end (Fig 1, 2);
a gap which is a location formed between the upper and lower forming rollers such that the long rubber member is sandwiched therebetween (“gap” (25), Fig 3); and
a molding drum to which the long rubber member moved forward after having passed through the gap and on which the long rubber member turns into a cylindrical rubber member for a tire (“molding drum” (D)), and
the opening end is in a circular shape as viewed in a front-back direction (Fig 6, [0024]).
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective priority date of the instant application to have the area of the opening end be twice or more and five times or less than an area of the gap, given that Nakatani teaches that the area of the opening end is 1.5 or more and four times or less an area of the gap ([0031], [0050]-[0051], which overlaps with the claimed range of twice or more and five times or less) for the benefit of proper accumulation without accidental unintentional tearing ([0050]-[0051]).
Regarding claim 7, Nakatani teaches all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, Nakatani teaches that the rubber member molding apparatus comprises a controller that controls the rubber member molding apparatus (“control device” (33), [0034], Fig 4). The limitation “wherein the gap between the upper and lower forming rollers is formed as a long rubber member supplier, the controller performs such control that a leading portion of the long rubber member is attached to the molding drum and the long rubber member is wound around the molding drum and turns into the cylindrical rubber member for the tire by rotating the molding drum while the supplier supplies the long rubber member, the leading portion is in a tapered shape having a tip end, the controller performs such control that the tip end of the leading portion is moved closer to an outside in a drum axial direction with respect to a center position of the long rubber member in a width direction thereof by moving at least one of the supplier or the molding drum in the drum axial direction upon attaching of the leading portion, and the controller performs such control that a portion of the long rubber member overlapping with the leading portion in the drum axial direction is formed as an inclined portion inclined with respect to a drum circumferential direction by moving at least one of the supplier or the molding drum in the drum axial direction when the long rubber member is wound around a position overlapping with the leading portion in the drum axial direction and a portion of the long rubber member other than the inclined portion is wound in parallel with the drum circumferential direction” is a recitation of intended use that does not require any additional structure to the invention that differentiates it from the apparatus taught by Nakatani. The recitation does not result in structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art because Nakatani teaches that the controller is capable of controlling the extrusion of the long rubber member, the movement of the upper and lower forming rollers and the movement of the molding drum ([0033], [0034]).
Regarding claim 8, Nakatani teaches all limitations of claim 7 as set forth above. The limitation “where in the long rubber member extruded from the extruding machine passes through the gap formed between the upper and lower forming rollers, and the leading portion turns into a tapered shape accordingly” is a recitation of intended use that does not require any additional structure to the invention that differentiates it from the apparatus taught by Nakatani. The recitation does not result in structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art because Nakatani teaches that the long rubber member passes between the upper and lower forming rollers (Fig 1-2) that can shape the long rubber member into a tapered shape (Fig 3).
Regarding claim 9, Nakatani teaches all limitations of claim 8 as set forth above. The limitation “wherein the leading portion is in an isosceles triangular shape having a tip end at a center position in a width direction, and the controller performs such control that the leading portion is deformed into a right triangular shape by moving at least one of the supplier or the molding drum in the drum axial direction and moving the tip end of the leading portion closer to the outside in the drum axial direction with respect to the center position of the long rubber member in the width direction thereof when the leading portion is attached to the molding drum” is a recitation of intended use that does not require any additional structure to the invention that differentiates it from the apparatus taught by Nakatani. The recitation does not result in structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art because Nakatani teaches that the gap between the upper and lower forming rollers can be used to shape the long rubber member to various shapes, including triangles (Fig 1-3) and that the controller controls the movement of the molding drum ([0033], [0034]).
Claim(s) 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakatani et al. (US 20220242024) in view of Baumgarten (US5167894).
Regarding claim 2, Nakatani teaches all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. While Nakatani does not explicitly teach that the opening end is disposed forward of a back end of at least one of the upper and lower forming rollers, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective priority date of the instant application to do so, given that Baumgarten, which is within the tire manufacturing art, teaches that control of the bulge of extruded material that accumulates in a gap between two forming rollers is dependent, in part, upon how the extruded material is fed to said bulge (C1 L38-47), including the proximity of the extruder nozzle relative to the forming rollers so as to keep the contact surface of the kneaded materially continuously variable, resulting in optimal production conditions (C2 L36-46, C2 L61-65), a relative positioning that includes where the opening end is disposed forward of a back end of at least one of the upper and lower forming rollers (Fig 4).
Regarding claim 3, modified Nakatani teaches all limitations of claim 2 as set forth above. Additionally, Baumgarten teaches that the opening end is disposed between the upper and lower forming rollers (Fig 4).
Claim(s) 4-6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakatani et al. (US20220242024) as evidenced by or alternatively in view of Isaka (WO2009078247) (machine translation).
Regarding claim 4, Nakatani teaches all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, Nakatani teaches that the rubber member molding apparatus comprises a controller that controls the rubber member molding apparatus (“control device” (33), [0034], Fig 4). While Nakatani does not explicitly disclose how the long rubber member is cut after it is wrapped around the molding drum, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective priority date of the instant application would have recognized that the ribbon must be cut once winding operations on the drum are completed. The examiner further notes that one of ordinary skill in the art would further recognize, or alternatively find obvious, that the cutting of the ribbon may be done in a limited number of ways: (1) at the opening end of the nozzle; (2) after leaving the rollers; or (3) after positioning on the drum. 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). Alternatively, Isaka teaches that after the completion of the application of a long rubber member (“ribbon-shaped rubber” (G)) to a molding drum (“support” (2)), through the use of manipulating a nozzle (“nozzle” (11)) and forming rollers (“roller” (21)), the long rubber member can be cut via tearing for the predictable result of ending a winding process (p.3) or for the benefit of reduced material waste (p.15, 16-17). The limitation “wherein under control of the controller, the long rubber member is extruded forward from the extruding machine, the long rubber member extruded from the extruding machine is sandwiched between the upper and lower forming rollers, and the long rubber member moved forward after having passed through the gap between the upper and lower forming rollers is attached to the molding drum and turns into the cylindrical rubber member for the tire, and the long rubber member is cut at the opening end of the nozzle provided at the extruding machine” is a recitation of intended use that does not require any additional structure to the invention that differentiates it from the apparatus taught by Nakatani. The recitation does not result in structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art because Nakatani teaches that the controller is capable of controlling the extrusion of the long rubber member, the movement of the upper and lower forming rollers and the movement of the molding drum ([0033], [0034]).
Regarding claim 5, Nakatani teaches all limitations of claim 4 as set forth above. The limitation “wherein under the long rubber member is cut in such a manner that the controller stops extrusion of the long rubber member from the extruding machine” is a recitation of intended use that does not require any additional structure to the invention that differentiates it from the apparatus taught by Nakatani. The recitation does not result in structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art because Nakatani teaches that the controller is capable of controlling the extrusion of the long rubber member ([0033], [0034])
Regarding claim 6, Nakatani teaches all limitations of claim 5 as set forth above. The limitation “wherein under the control of the controller, the upper and lower forming rollers rotate in directions of moving the long rubber member sandwiched therebetween forward, the upper and lower forming rollers rotate even after sop of extrusion of the long rubber member from the extruding machine, and the long rubber member is cut accordingly” is a recitation of intended use that does not require any additional structure to the invention that differentiates it from the apparatus taught by Nakatani. The recitation does not result in structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art because Nakatani teaches that the controller is capable of controlling the rotation of the forming rollers and the extrusion of the long rubber member ([0033], [0034]).
Conclusion
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