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:
[0036]: such that chassis [[202]] 302 is pivotable
[0051]: “a second gear 384 is fixedly coupled to the second spindle 306 and positioned within the gearbox 340 is [[a]] second gear 384”
Appropriate correction is required.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-10, in the reply filed on 13 April 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 13 April 2026.
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(s) 1 and 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)/(2) as being anticipated by Gridley et al. (US20130106022) (of record).
Regarding claim 1, Gridley discloses a tread extractor assembly comprising:
a chassis (“frame” (302), Fig 4);
a first spindle rotatably coupled to the chassis and configured to rotate in a first direction (“first nip roller” (306)); and
a second spindle rotatably coupled to the chassis and configured to rotate in a second direction opposite to the first direction (“second nip roller” (314)), the first spindle and the second spindle being disposed to extend substantially in parallel to one another ([0031], Fig 4); and
the first spindle and the second spindle being separated by a gap, the gap being configured to receive a portion of a tire tread (“distance” (T), [0024]).
Regarding claim 5, Gridley discloses all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, Gridley discloses that the first spindle includes a first engagement portion extending axially along a length of the first spindle; and the second spindle includes a second engagement portion extending axially along a length of the second spindle such that at least a portion of the second engagement portion is offset radially from the first engagement portion (Fig 4).
Regarding claim 6, Gridley discloses all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, Gridley discloses that the chassis is configured to be pivotally coupled to a rail assembly such that the chassis is pivotable relative to the rail assembly ([0025] near “other end” (332)).
Regarding claim 7, Gridley discloses all limitations of claim 6 as set forth above. Additionally, Gridley discloses that the chassis is configured to pivot relative to the rail assembly about an axis of the first spindle ([0025], Fig 4).
Regarding claim 8, Gridley discloses all limitation of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, Gridley discloses that the chassis further comprises: a first end (right side of “frame” (302) Fig 6) and a second end opposite to the first end (left side of “frame” (302), Fig 6); a coupling body configured to be pivotally coupled to a rail assembly (“frame rails” (322) as a part of “frame” (302), Fig 6); a first flange extending between the coupling body and the second end (Fig 6); and a second flange extending from the first flange at the second end of the chassis, the second flange rotatably coupled to the first spindle and the second spindle (Fig 4).
Regarding claim 9, Gridley discloses all limitations of claim 8 as set forth above. Additionally, Gridley discloses that the first spindle extends through the coupling body (Fig 4).
Regarding claim 10, Gridley discloses all limitations of claim 9 as set forth above. Additionally, Gridley discloses that the first spindle is configured to rotate independently relative to the coupling body (Fig 4, [0031]).
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) 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gridley et al. (US20130106022) (of record) as set forth above in the rejection of claim 1 and further in view of Adams et al. (US20120146262).
Regarding claim 2, Gridley discloses all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. While Gridley does not explicitly disclose that the assembly further comprises a gearbox coupled to the chassis, wherein the first spindle includes a first spindle gear positioned within the gearbox and the second spindle includes a second spindle gear positioned within the gearbox, the second spindle gear configured to be in a meshing engagement with the first spindle gear, 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:
a) Gridley teaches that, similar to the belt-driven system explicitly taught, the spindles could also be powered by “any other known motion transfer means such as chains, gears, a gearbox” ([0031]);
b) Adams, which is within the tread demolding art, teaches how a tread demolding assembly comprises of a gearbox (box attached to “drive shaft” (190) in Fig 3), wherein spindle gears for each spindle (gears attached to “drive roller” (155, 160) in Fig 6) are located in said gearbox) and, through the use of additional gears and chains, said spindle gears are in an indirect meshing engagement with one another (Fig 6); and
c) and case law that the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is well within the ability of a person of ordinary skill in the art to be considered obvious (see MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
Regarding claim 3, Gridley discloses all limitations of claim 2 as set forth above. Additionally, Adams teaches that the assembly further comprises an actuator (“drive shaft” (190)) operably coupled to the first spindle and configured to rotate the first spindle in the first direction, wherein rotation of the first spindle in the first direction causes rotation of the second spindle in the second direction via the meshing engagement between the first spindle gear and the second spindle gear (Fig 6).
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gridley et al. (US20130106022) (of record) and Adams et al. (US20120146262) as set forth above in the rejection of claim 3 and further as evidenced by Wikipedia (NPL).
Regarding claim 4, Gridley discloses all limitations of claim 3 as set forth above. While Gridley shows the nip rollers being approximately the same size (Fig 4) and that said nip rollers rotate at the same angular speed, including with the use of known motion transfer means like gears and gearboxes ([0031]), modified Gridley does not explicitly teach that the first spindle gear and the second spindle gear include the same number of gear teeth such that the actuator causes rotation of both the first spindle and the second spindle at the same angular speed for the predictable result of effectively powering the nip rollers. However, 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
a) Wikipedia teaches that the speed ratio between meshing gears can be calculated based on the number of teeth on each gear (NPL);
b) Gridley teaches that said nip rollers are arranged to rotate at the same speed ([0031]); and
c) a person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious to make the gears that drive the spindles as taught in Adams have the same number of teeth to achieve the predictable result of ensuring the spindles rotate at the same speed (See MPEP 2143(I)(D)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Pan et al. (US20150360395) teaches a tread extractor comprising of a rotatably coupled spindle (“roller” (32)) with said spindle extending through a coupling body (“handle” (46), [0060], Fig 3).
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