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Claims 43-59 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected Group I (a cutting device for cutting a tire component), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 07/03/2026. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “Downing fails to disclose or suggest a pressing device that is configured to be actively movable in the pressing direction towards the support surface from a clearance height.” This is not found persuasive because the claims have been amended to include new limitations not previously considered for the Restriction Requirement, and thereby the alleged shared technical feature argued by Applicant was also not previously considered. Furthermore, 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 legal phraseology (i.e., “said”). 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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a pressing drive for driving a movement” in claim 65, and “a lateral drive for moving the pressing device” in claim 65.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. In particular, “the pressing drive comprises a pneumatic actuator, a servomotor, a cam shaft or a cam wheel. These are examples of drives which can actively drive the pressing device in the pressing direction.” (Page 7). While there is no express disclosure for the lateral drive, one of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to use the same examples of drives disclosed above.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claim 64 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “a tire component” in line 2 should be written as –the tire component— for consistency in claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 64 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “a first lateral edge and a second lateral edge” in lines 2-3 should be written as –the first lateral edge and the second lateral edge— for consistency in claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 64 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “a support surface” in line 5 should be written as –the support surface— for consistency in claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 64 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “a support plane” in line 5 should be written as –the support plane— for consistency in claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 64 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “a cutting line” in line 6 should be written as –the cutting line— for consistency in claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 64 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “a pressing device” in line 9 should be written as –the pressing device— for consistency in claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 64 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “a pressing direction” in line 12 should be written as –the pressing direction— for consistency in claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 64 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “a clearance position” in line 13 should be written as –the clearance position— for consistency in claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 65 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “a pressure force” in line 18 should be written as –the pressing force— for consistency in claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 69 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “a pressing force” in line 3 should be written as –the pressing force— for consistency in claim language. 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 60-69 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 60, the phrases “the cutting line” in line 3 and “the clearance height” in line 7 lack sufficient antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 60, the phrase “applying a pressing force onto said pressing device in the pressing direction” in lines 11-12 is unclear. It is unclear if the pressing device itself is receiving the force, or if the pressing device is applying a pressing force onto the tire component. For the purposes of examination, the examiner assumes either interpretation will satisfy the claim limitation.
Claims 61-69 are indefinite by dependence on claim 60.
Regarding claim 64, the phrase “a pressing direction transverse or perpendicular to the support plane” in lines 12-13 is unclear. Transverse and perpendicular are synonyms, and thereby it is unclear what difference is required here with the phrase “transverse or perpendicular.”
Claims 65-69 are indefinite by dependence on claim 64.
Regarding claim 69, the phrase “a pressing force is applied to said pressing roller or pressing wheel in the pressing direction” in lines 3-4 is unclear. It is unclear if the pressing roller or pressing wheel itself is receiving the force, or if the pressing roller or pressing wheel is applying a pressing force onto the tire component. For the purposes of examination, the examiner assumes either interpretation will satisfy the claim limitation.
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) 60-61, 64, and 66-69 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Downing (US 20020178880) (of record) and Visser (RS 20210863, see machine translation).
Regarding claims 60 and 64, Downing discloses a method for cutting a tire component (Fig. 1: 1) along a cutting line Fig. 1: 3) ([0017], [0054]-[0055])), wherein the method comprises the steps of: a) providing the tire component at the cutting line on a support surface (Fig. 9: 150) extending in a support plane; b) pressing a first lateral edge of the tire component onto the support surface at the cutting line by moving a pressing device (Fig. 9: 130) from a clearance position at the clearance height towards the support surface in a pressing direction perpendicular to the support plane (Fig. 9: 150); c) moving the pressing device (Fig. 9: 130) along the cutting line from the first lateral edge to a second lateral edge of the tire component opposite to the first lateral edge while applying a pressing force onto said pressing device in the pressing direction ([0064], [0067]); and d) cutting (Fig. 9: 120) through the tire component along the cutting line ([0064]).
Downing further discloses the method comprises using a cutting device (Fig. 9: 120) for cutting a tire component having the first lateral edge and the second lateral edge opposite to said first lateral edge, the cutting device comprising: a cutter (Fig. 9: 120) which is movable in a cutting direction along the cutting line for cutting through the tire component on the support surface from the first lateral edge to the second lateral edge ([0058]).
Downing further illustrates that the pressing device (Fig. 9: 130) comprises a roller (Fig. 9: 132) provided on an arm with a point of connection to the same holder as the cutting device (Fig. 9: 120). However, Downing does not expressly recite if this is a stationary point of connection that keeps the pressing device level or pivotal point of connection that can move the pressing device up or down above the support plane.
Visser discloses a pressing device (Figs. 1-3: 1) for pressing a tire component prior to cutting with a cutting device (Figs. 1-3: K), wherein the pressing device comprises a roller (Figs. 1-3: 2) on a lever (Figs. 1-3: 3) that has a pivotal point of connection (Figs. 1-3: 52) such that the pressing device may move from a clearance position above a support plane (Fig. 2) to one that is touching it (Fig. 3) ([0043]). In this manner, the pressing device is able to come into contact with the tire component to pull it in the pressing direction and thus tension it to reduce or prevent creases or other irregularities, and thereby increase the cutting precision and improve the quality of the tire component ([0046]). Accordingly, Visser discloses providing a pressing roller from above a tire component so as to move downward into contact with it and pull out any creases or irregularities ahead of the cutter so improve cutting precision and quality, which would be just as advantageous for the pressing device moving ahead of the cutting device of Downing. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the pressing device of Downing in order to provide the pressing roller and lever pivotally such that it may be moved from above the support plane to being in contact with the tire component for the advantages discussed above as taught by Visser.
Regarding claims 61 and 66, Downing further discloses the support surface comprises one or more retaining members (Fig. 9: 110) at the cutting line for retaining the tire component, wherein step b) comprises pressing with the pressing device (Fig. 9: 130) the tire component on the one or more retaining members along the cutting line ([0064], [0067]).
Regarding claim 67, Downing further discloses the one or more retaining members (Fig. 9: 110) are arranged to retain a preselection of one or more regions (Fig. 9: see portions of tire component that will be aligned with vacuum holes 116 and thereby will be preselected based on locations of 116 already provided) of the tire component which are distributed in the cutting direction along the cutting line.
Regarding claim 68, Downing further discloses the pressing device (Fig. 9: 130) comprises a pressing roller or pressing wheel (Fig. 1: 132) which is rotatable about a rotation axis that extends transverse to the cutting line and parallel to the support plane (Fig. 9: 150), wherein the pressing roller or pressing wheel is arranged to roll over the tire component in the cutting direction (Fig. 9) ([0064], [0067]).
Regarding claim 69, Downing further discloses the pressing roller or pressing wheel (Fig. 9: 132) is arranged to roll over the tire component in the cutting direction while a pressing force is applied to said pressing roller or pressing wheel in the pressing direction ([0064], [0067]).
Claim(s) 62-63 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Downing (US 20020178880) (of record) and Visser (RS 20210863, see machine translation) as applied to claim 60 above, and further in view of Kolker et al. (US 20030066610).
Regarding claims 62-63, modified Downing does not expressly recite aligning the first lateral edge along a lateral reference line and detecting the first lateral edge.
Kolker discloses a method for cutting a tire component, wherein a first lateral edge (Figs. 2a-2i: 37) of the tire component prior to a pressing device (Fig. 2h: 43, 44) and cutting the component at a cutting line (Figs. 2a-2i: 22) coming into contact with the tire component is detected and aligned ([0040]). In this manner, a precise determination of an actual position of the side edge sections located in the detection region during the entire feed and a comparison, with set point values, for the position of the section of the belt construction strip, in terms of the feed direction, located in the detection region of the sensors is obtained ([0021]). It may also permit a reliable, simple alignment of the belt construction strip in the feed region ([0022]). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to further modify Downing in order to provide the method comprises step a) including aligning the first lateral edge along a lateral reference line and, prior to step b), comprises the step of detecting the first lateral edge for the advantages of precision during conveying and cutting of the tire component, as taught by Kolker.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 65 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 60 and 64-65. In particular, the limitations “a control unit which is operationally connected to the pressing drive and the lateral drive, wherein the control unit is arranged to control the pressing drive and the lateral drive to subsequently: a) position the pressing device into the clearance position at the clearance height upstream of the tire component relative to the cutting direction; b) move the pressing device in the cutting direction up to the first lateral edge; c) move the pressing device from the clearance position in the pressing direction to press the first lateral edge onto the support surface; and d) move the pressing device in the cutting direction from the first lateral edge towards the second lateral edge while applying a pressure force to the tire component in the pressing direction.”
The closest prior art of record is considered to be Downing (US 20020178880) (of record) and Visser (RS 20210863, see machine translation).
Downing in view of Visser discloses the claim limitations of claims 60 and 64 as discussed in the detailed rejection above. Downing further discloses a lateral drive (Fig. 9: 140) for moving the pressing device (Fig. 9: 130) in the cutting direction along the cutting line ([0067]). Visser further discloses a pressing drive (Figs. 1-3: 5) for driving a movement of the pressing device in the pressing direction. However, modified Downing does not expressly recite the remaining specifically recited claimed structure or steps of 65, nor would one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention found it obvious to modify the prior art with such specific structure and steps, 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