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
Claims 48 and 52-55 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected Groups II-III, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 05/26/2026. During a telephone conversation with Sterling Fillmore on 07/06/2026 a provisional election was made with traverse to prosecute the invention of Species A1, claim 45. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 46-47 withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention. Applicant’s traversal is on the ground(s) that Risser fails to disclose or suggest that cutting and clamping trajectories intersect, and that the clamping element in the clamping position is located within the clearance space between the blade and the conveyor. Applicant further argues “Risser discloses that the hold-down roller 362 is arranged down in front of the cutting blade 366 to serve as a guard for the cutting blade 366” and that “the hold-down roller 362 moves together with the blade 366 along the cutting trajectory 377, i.e. without intersecting the cutting trajectory … Thereafter, the hold-down roller 362 moves away from the cutting trajectory to the clamping position of figure 5C in which the hold-down roller 362 is clearly not positioned within the clearance space between the blade 366 and the conveyor 542.” This is not found persuasive because Risser discloses that the cutting and clamping trajectories do intersect, as Applicant also admits that they move together, and then the roller moves horizontal along the conveyor path while the cutting blade cuts along the cutting path, and thereby they necessarily have intersecting trajectories at least at some points of the cutting and clamping process. Additionally, the hold-down roller is positioned within the clearance space between the blade 366 and the conveyor 542 at least in Figure 5B. The examiner refers to the rejection below for more detailed discussion as to how the claim limitations are satisfied by Risser.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of implied phraseology (i.e., “A servicer and method are provided for…”). 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 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) 44, 49, and 51 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Risser et al. (US 20030070742) (of record).
Regarding claim 44, Risser discloses a servicer for supplying a tire component to a tire building drum or a transfer wheel (Figs. 3A-3C: 330; Figs. 5A-5C: 530), wherein the servicer comprises a conveyor (Figs. 3A-3C: 342; Figs. 5A-5C: 542) for supporting the tire component (Figs. 3A-3C: 325; Figs. 5A-5C: 525) at a first side of a conveyor plane (Figs. 3A-3C: 343; Figs. 5A-5C: 543) and for transporting said tire component in a transport direction parallel to said conveyor plane, wherein the servicer further comprises a cutter (Figs. 3A-3C: 366; Figs. 5A-5C: 566) for cutting through the tire component along a cutting line (Figs. 5A-5C: 577) transverse to the transport direction, wherein the cutter comprises a blade (Figs. 3A-3C: 366; Figs. 5A-5C: 566) extending at an oblique clearance angle with respect to the conveyor plane about an axis parallel to said conveyor plane and transverse to the transport direction (Figs. 3A-3C, 5A-5C) ([0060], [0062], [0068]-[0069]), wherein the blade is movable with respect to the conveyor plane between an idle position (Figs. 5A-5B), at a distance of the conveyor plane (Figs. 3A-3B, 5A-5B: 543) at the first side of said conveyor plane, and a cutting position (Figs. 3C, 5C), for cutting the tire component, in a cutting direction along a cutting trajectory (Figs. 5A-5B: 577) in a cutting plane extending at a cutting angle with respect to the conveyor about an axis parallel to the conveyor plane and transverse to the transport direction, wherein the servicer further comprises a clamping element (Figs. 3A-3C: 360, 362, 364; Figs. 5A-5C: 560, 562, 564) which is movable along a clamping trajectory between a clearance position (Figs. 3A, 5A), at a distance of the conveyor plane (Fig. 3A: 343; Fig. 5A: 543) at the first side of said conveyor plane, and a clamping position (Figs. 3B-3C, 5B-5C), closer to the conveyor plane than the clearance position, for clamping the tire component to the conveyor ([0060], [0062], [0068], [0072]), wherein the cutting trajectory (Figs. 5A-5C: 577) and the clamping trajectory intersect (Figs. 5A-5B: see how the clamping trajectory of 362 follows cutting trajectory 577 until it is rolled away along the remainder of its trajectory in Fig. 5C), wherein the clearance angle defines a clearance space extending between the blade (Figs. 3A-3B: 366; Figs. 5A-5B: 566) and the conveyor (Figs. 3A-3B: 342; Figs. 5A-5B: 542), and wherein, in the clamping position (Figs. 3C, 5C), the clamping element (Fig. 3C: 362; Fig. 5C: 562) is located within said clearance space (Fig. 5C: see how 362 is in the space between 566 and 542 along angled trajectory 577).
Regarding claim 49, Risser further discloses the blade (Figs. 3A-3C: 366; Figs. 5A-5C: 566) is movable between the idle position (Figs. 3A-3B, Figs. 5A-5B) and the cutting position (Figs. 3C, 5C) along the cutting trajectory (Fig. 5C: 577), when said clamping element (Fig. 3C: 360, 362, 364; Fig. 5C: 560, 562, 564) is in the clamping position (Figs. 3B-3C, 5B-5C).
Regarding claim 51, Risser further discloses the clamping element (Fig. 3C: 360, 362, 364; Fig. 5C: 560, 562, 564) is movable from the clearance position (Figs. 3A, 5A) to the clamping position (Figs. 3B-3C, 5B-5C) along the clamping trajectory, when said blade (Figs. 3A-3B: 366; Figs. 5A-5B: 566) is in the idle position (Figs. 3A-3B, 5A-5B).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 45 and 50 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 45, no prior art of record is considered to teach or suggest the combination of limitations of claims 44-45. In particular, the limitation “the clamping trajectory comprises a circular arc.”
Regarding claim 50, no prior art of record is considered to teach or suggest the combination of limitations of claims 44 and 49-50. In particular, the limitations “the clamping element, in the clamping position, is located upstream of the cutting plane in the transport direction.”
The closest prior art of record is considered to be Risser et al. (US 20030070742) (of record) and Sergel et al. (US 5273601).
Risser discloses all of the claim limitations of claims 44 and 49 as discussed in the detailed rejection above. However, Risser does not expressly recite that the clamping trajectory comprises a circular arc. Instead Risser discloses that the clamping trajectory is linear, and although Risser discloses the clamping element comprises a pivot arm, the pivot arm merely guides the clamping element from one linear movement to another linear movement (Figs. 3A-3C, 5A-5C). Moreover, Risser does not expressly recite that the clamping element, in the clamping position, is located upstream of the cutting plane in the transport direction. Instead. Risser discloses the clamping element moves along with the cutting element, and thereby will always be downstream of it. 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 of record contrary to its express disclosure, especially without a motivation or teaching to do so.
Sergel discloses a servicer for supplying a tire component to a tire building drum or a transfer wheel (Fig. 1: 1), wherein the servicer comprises a conveyor (Fig. 1: 4, 5) for supporting the tire component (Fig 1: 6) at a first side of a conveyor plane and for transporting said tire component in a transport direction parallel to said conveyor plane, wherein the servicer further comprises a cutter (Fig. 1: 11) for cutting through the tire component along a cutting line transverse to the transport direction, wherein the cutter comprises a blade (Fig. 1: 12) extending at an oblique clearance angle with respect to the conveyor plane about an axis parallel to said conveyor plane and transverse to the transport direction, wherein the blade is movable with respect to the conveyor plane between an idle position, at a distance of the conveyor plane at the first side of said conveyor plane (Col. 3 lines 51-65; Col. 4 lines 40-43), and a cutting position (Fig. 1), for cutting the tire component, in a cutting direction along a cutting trajectory in a cutting plane extending at a cutting angle with respect to the conveyor about an axis parallel to the conveyor plane and transverse to the transport direction, wherein the servicer further comprises a clamping element (Fig. 1: 2, 3) which is movable along a clamping trajectory between a clearance position, at a distance of the conveyor plane at the first side of said conveyor plane (See annotated Fig. 1 below), and a clamping position, closer to the conveyor plane than the clearance position, for clamping the tire component to the conveyor (See annotated Fig. 1 below: see how clamping position of 2, 3 holds 6 down onto conveyor 4, 5). However, Sergel does not expressly recite that the cutting trajectory and the clamping trajectory intersect, or that the clearance angle defines a clearance space extending between the blade and the conveyor, wherein, in the clamping position, the clamping element is located within said clearance space (See annotated Fig. 1 below illustrating the clamping trajectory which does not intersect the cutting trajectory, and the clearance space which does not include the clamping element in the clamping position). Thereby, even though Sergel discloses that the clamping trajectory comprises a circular arc (See annotated Fig. 1 below), Sergel does not teach or suggest the combination of limitations of claim 44, from which claim 45 depends. 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 of record contrary to its express
PNG
media_image1.png
571
1039
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 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 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
Prosecution Insights