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
The Examiner acknowledges the election of invention Group I drawn to claims 39-40.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 10/07/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the prior art of record of Kaagman in view of Conti does not teach the placement of pressure rollers within a range of one hundred and fifty millimeters from the cutting center without significant technical modifications. This is not found persuasive because while modification of the device taught by Kaagman in view of Conti would be required to increase or decrease the relative distance between the pressure rollers and the cutting line the result of such a modification, providing sufficient pressure while cutting, is known in the art.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
As the restriction requirement is maintained the Examiner confirms that the non-elected invention Groups II-V are eligible for rejoinder upon allowance and pending search, consideration, and examination.
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.
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.
Claims 35-38, 51-52, and 65 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaagman (US 2010/0077894 A1) in view of CONTI (US 2017/0334159 A1).
Regarding claim 35, Kaagman teaches a cutting device (Kaagman, Fig. 1-4B, 1) for cutting a tire component (Kaagman, Fig. 1-4B, 9, P. 0003), the cutting device comprising a conveyor (Kaagman, Fig. 1-4B, 2) that defines a conveyor plane (Kaagman, P. 0030) for conveying the tire component in a conveyance direction (Kaagman, 4A-4B, T, P. 0030) parallel to said conveyor plane (Kaagman, P. 0026),
wherein the cutting device further comprises a lifting beam (Kaagman, Fig. 1-4B, 8) for lifting the tire component up from the conveyor plane in a lift direction (Kaagman, P. 0030),
wherein the cutting device is provided with a knife (Kaagman, Fig. 1-4B, 4) for cutting the tire component along a cutting line (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 1 (Kaagman) below) intersecting with the lifting beam at a cutting center at an oblique cutting angle (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 1 (Kaagman) below),
wherein the cutting device is provided with a first hold-down unit (Kaagman, Fig. 1-4B, 10) for holding down the tire component towards the conveyor in a hold-down direction opposite to the lift direction (Kaagman, Fig. 2B and 3B-3D, 10),
wherein the first hold-down unit (Kaagman, Fig. 1-4B, 10) comprises a contact member (Kaagman, Fig. 1, 10, P. 0034) for holding down the tire component in the hold-down direction towards the conveyor at a first hold-down position adjacent to the lifting beam within a hold-down radius (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 1 (Kaagman) below).
Kaagman does not teach wherein the cutting device is for cutting a tire component and a hold-down radius of less than one-hundred-and-fifty millimeters from the cutting center.
The device taught by Kaagman teaches cutting a rubber component for a “green belt” (Kaagman, P. 0003), as evidenced by CONTI “green” refers to a rubber component before undergoing vulcanization (CONTI, P. 0117 and 0119) and that it is well known in the art for a rubber-covered belt to be used for the construction of a “green tyre” (CONTI, P. 0018). As such it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill In the art before the filing date of the instant invention to understand that the device of Kaagman would be capable of cutting a tire component.
Kaagman in view of Conti does not teach wherein the hold-down radius is less than one-hundred-and-fifty millimeters from the cutting center. However, Kaagman does teach spacing the hold-down units (Kaagman, Fig. 2A, 10) away from the lifting beam (Kaagman, Fig. 2A, 8) the center of which represents the cutting center (Kaagman, P. 0031) but does not teach a range or distance for this spacing. However, it would have been a matter of routine, ordinary and expected skill for a person of ordinary skill in the art to determine such a spacing as Kaagman shows that it is well known in the art for a worker to do so. As such it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the hold-down radius taught by Kaagman to be any distance from the cutting center as such dimensional design changes to a device are well known in the art (see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)).
PNG
media_image1.png
338
714
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 36, Kaagman in view of Conti teaches the cutting device according to claim 35.
Kaagman in view of Conti does not teach wherein the hold-down radius is less than eighty millimeters from the cutting center. However, Kaagman does teach spacing the hold-down units (Kaagman, Fig. 2A, 10) away from the lifting beam (Kaagman, Fig. 2A, 8) the center of which represents the cutting center (Kaagman, P. 0031) but does not teach a range or distance for this spacing. However, it would have been a matter of routine, ordinary and expected skill for a person of ordinary skill in the art to determine such a spacing as Kaagman shows that it is well known in the art for a worker to do so. As such it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the hold-down radius taught by Kaagman to be any distance from the cutting center as such dimensional design changes to a device are well known in the art (see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)).
Regarding claim 37, Kaagman in view of Conti teaches the cutting device according to claim 35, wherein the first hold-down position is spaced apart from the cutting line in a direction perpendicular to said cutting line (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 1 (Kaagman) above).
Kaagman in view of Conti does not teach a hold-down distance of less than eighty millimeters. However, Kaagman does teach spacing the hold-down units (Kaagman, Fig. 2A, 10) away from the lifting beam (Kaagman, Fig. 2A, 8) the center of which represents the cutting center (Kaagman, P. 0031, also see annotated image 1 of Fig. 1 (Kaagman) above) but does not teach a range or distance for this spacing. However, it would have been a matter of routine, ordinary and expected skill for a person of ordinary skill in the art to determine such a spacing as Kaagman shows that it is well known in the art for a worker to do so. As such it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the hold-down radius taught by Kaagman to be any distance from the cutting center as such dimensional design changes to a device are well known in the art (see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)).
Regarding claim 38, Kaagman in view of Conti teaches the cutting device according to claim 35, wherein the cutting device (Kaagman, Fig. 1-4B, 1) comprises a knife holder (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 1 (Kaagman) above) for moving the knife along the cutting line, wherein the contact member (Kaagman, Fig. 1-4B, 10) extends at least partially between the knife holder and conveyor for at least one value of the oblique cutting angle and in at least one position of the knife along the cutting line (Kaagman, Fig. 1-4B, 2, 4, and 10).
Regarding claim 51, The cutting device according to claim 35, wherein the contact member (Kaagman, Fig. 1, 2A-2B and 3B-3C, 10) comprises a beveled, chamfered or rounded edge, the contact member taught by Kaagman in view of Conti is a cylindrical roller with curved or rounded edges.
Regarding claim 52, The cutting device according to claim 35, wherein the contact member (Kaagman, Fig. 1, 2A-2B and 3B-3C, 10) has an outer dimension.
Kaagman in view of Conti does not teach wherein the contact member has an outer dimension in the hold-down direction of less than thirty millimeters. However, Kaagman does teach that the contact member has some dimension (Kaagman, Fig. 1, 2A-2B and 3B-3C, 10) but does not teach what the dimension of the contact member is. As such, it would have been a matter of routine, ordinary and expected skill for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the contact member to be any desirable dimension as Kaagman shows that it is well known in the art for a worker to do so (see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)).
Regarding claim 65, Kaagman teaches a method for cutting a tire component (Kaagman, Fig. 1-5B, 1, P. 0003), the method comprising the steps of:
providing a conveyor (Kaagman, Fig. 1-5B, 1) that defines a conveyor plane (Kaagman, P. 0030);
providing the component (Kaagman, Fig. 2A-2B, 9) on the conveyor (Kaagman, Fig. 1-5B, 1) in said conveyor plane (Kaagman, P. 0030);
lifting the component up from the conveyor plane in a lift direction (Kaagman, Fig. 2B, 2BA, 3B-3F, 3CA-3DA, and 4B, 9, P. 0030) using a lifting beam (Kaagman, Fig. 1-4B, 8);
cutting the component along a cutting line intersecting with the lifting beam at a cutting center (Kaagman, Fig. 4A, 9, P. 0031) at an oblique cutting angle (Kaagman, P. 0027); and
holding down the component towards the conveyor at a first hold-down position adjacent to the lifting beam within a hold-down radius (Kaagman, Fig. 2B and 3B-3D, 8 and 10).
Kaagman does not teach wherein the cutting device is for cutting a tire component.
The device taught by Kaagman teaches cutting a rubber component for a “green belt” (Kaagman, P. 0003), as evidenced by CONTI “green” refers to a rubber component before undergoing vulcanization (CONTI, P. 0117 and 0119) and that it is well known in the art for a rubber-covered belt to be used for the construction of a “green tyre” (CONTI, P. 0018). As such it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill In the art before the filing date of the instant invention to understand that the device of Kaagman would be capable of cutting a tire component.
Kaagman further does not specifically teach wherein the hold-down radius is less than one-hundred-and-fifty millimeters from the cutting center.
Kaagman does teach spacing the hold-down units (Kaagman, Fig. 2A, 10) away from the lifting beam (Kaagman, Fig. 2A, 8) the center of which represents the cutting center (Kaagman, P. 0031) but does not teach a range or distance for this spacing. However, it would have been a matter of routine, ordinary and expected skill for a person of ordinary skill in the art to determine such a spacing as Kaagman shows that it is well known in the art for a worker to do so. As such it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the hold-down radius taught by Kaagman to be any distance from the cutting center as such dimensional design changes to a device are well known in the art (see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)).
Claims 39-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaagman (US 2010/0077894 A1) in view of CONTI (US 2017/0334159 A1) as applied to claim 35 above, and further in view of Narowski (WO 2018/118008 A1).
Regarding claim 39, Kaagman in view of Conti teach the cutting device according to claim 35.
Kaagman in view of Conti does not teach wherein the first hold-down unit comprises a base for holding the contact member in the first hold-down position and a support member for interconnecting the contact member with the base.
Narowski teaches a first hold-down unit (Narowski, Fig. 8, 34) comprising a base (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 8 (Narowski) below) for holding the contact member (Narowski, Fig. 8, 48) in the first hold-down position (Narowski, Fig. 5-6, 46) and a support member (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 8 (Narowski) below) for interconnecting the contact member with the base. Providing such a base with a support member allows for the contact member to be moved and allows for the movement of the contact member to be independent of the cutting member (Narowski, P. 0029).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modifying the contact member taught by Kaagman in view of Conti to provide a base with a support member to intercouple the contact member to the base as taught by Narowski as doing so allows for the contact member to be movable and for such movement to be independent of the cutting member.
PNG
media_image2.png
409
511
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 40, Kaagman in view of Conti and Narowski teaches the cutting device according to claim 39, wherein the support member spaces the contact member apart from the base over a spacing distance (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 8 (Narowski) above).
Kaagman in view of Conti and Narowski does not teach a spacing distance of at least fifty millimeters. However, it would have been a matter of routine, ordinary and expected skill for a person of ordinary skill in the art to determine such a spacing as Narowski shows that it is well known in the art for a worker to do so. As such it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the spacing distance taught by Kaagman in view of Conti and Narowski such that the support member provided any desirable distance between the base and the contact member as such dimensional design changes to a device are well known in the art (see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)).
Claim 50 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaagman (US 2010/0077894 A1) in view of CONTI (US 2017/0334159 A1) as applied to claim 35 above, and further in view of Batchelor et al. (US 4,080,230 A), hereafter known as Batchelor.
Regarding claim 50, Kaagman in view of Conti teaches the cutting device according to claim 35, wherein the contact member is cylindrical (Kaagman, Fig. 1, 2A-2B and 3B-3C, 10)
Kaagman in view of Conti does not teach wherein the contact member is at least partially spherical.
Batchelor teaches a device (Batchelor, Fig. 1-7) for retreading tires (Batchelor, Col. 1 line 63 – Col. 2 line 5) that features a contact member (Batchelor, Fig. 2 and 7, 106) for applying pressure to a rubber sheet being applied to a tire (Batchelor, Col. 8, lines 57-61) that is partially spherical (Batchelor, Col. 8, lines 30-35). While the device taught by Batchelor is different than the instant invention the problem solved by the contact member of Batchelor solves a similar problem to that of the instant invention, it allows pressure to be applied to a rubber sheet to hold it while another process is performed. As the device of Batchelor is related to the instant invention in that it conveys a rubber material and uses a contact member to apply pressure to the material it would be reasonable for a person of ordinary skill in the art of tire manufacture to look to the device of Batchelor as a related art.
As such, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the contact member taught by Kaagman in view of Conti such that the contact member was at least partially spherical as taught by Batchelor as such changes in shape of a known component are a matter of routine, ordinary and expected skill for a person of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B)). As the change in shape of the contact member from a cylindrical roller to a partially spherical roller would not alter the function of the contact member such a modification is obvious absent any evidence of significance.
Claim 66 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaagman (US 2010/0077894 A1) in view of CONTI (US 2017/0334159 A1) as applied to claim 65 above, and further in view of Druet et al. (US 2012/0067516 A1), hereafter known as Druet.
Regarding claim 66, Kaagman in view of Conti teaches the method according to claim 65, wherein the tire component has a component width (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 1 (Kaagman) above) in a lateral direction perpendicular to a conveyance direction (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 1 (Kaagman) above).
Kaagman in view of Conti does not teach a component width of less than one-hundred millimeters. Kaagman in view of Conti does teach that it is well known in the art to have various widths for tire components (Kaagman, P. 0009).
Druet teaches a tire component width between 10 and 25 mm (Druet, P. 0006).
The combination of Kaagman in view of Conti further in view of Druet teaches that it is well known in the art of tire component cutting to have tire components of various sizes and to specifically have tire components within the claimed range as evidenced by Druet. As such, it would have been a matter of routine, ordinary and expected skill for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the width of the tire component to be any desirable width as it is well known in the art for the width of tire components to vary (see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)).
Claim 67 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaagman (US 2010/0077894 A1) in view of CONTI (US 2017/0334159 A1) as applied to claim 65 above, and further in view of Oldeman (US 4,922,774 A).
Regarding claim 67, Kaagman in view of Conti teaches the method according to claim 65, wherein the tire component is a rubber strip (Kaagman, Fig. 4A, 9 and 14).
Kaagman in view of Conti does not teach wherein the tire component is a breaker ply or a chafer.
Oldeman teaches a method for cutting a tire component wherein the tire component (Oldeman, Fig. 1-2, 5) is a chafer (Oldeman, Col. 1, lines 13-16). Specifically, Oldeman teaches cutting strips into different lengths for use as different tire components including chafers (Oldeman, Col. 1, lines 13-37).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the method taught by Kaagman in view of Conti such that the tire component is a chafer as taught by Oldeman as it is well known in the art to cut tire components to different lengths to provide different rubber components of a tire.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Robert D Cornett whose telephone number is (571) 270-0182. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 am-5:30 pm.
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, Boyer Ashley can be reached at (571) 272-4502. 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.
/ROBERT D CORNETT/Examiner, Art Unit 3724
/BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3799