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Claims 38-42 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 07/21/2026. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Marchini has a fundamentally different structure, including a permanent structural passageway that is not a cleared docking space, wherein the movement of the devices occurs above the passageway so as not to interfere with each other. Applicant further argues that handling device 35 of Marchini cannot reach down into the opening 34 to interact with the transport unit or pick up materials there, and if it did so it would completely block the operator’s access which defeats Marchini’s sole stated purpose. This is not found persuasive because the “docking space” of Marchini is considered to be the space between where the operator enters into the opening 34 until the exchange station 42, wherein the handling device 35 does reach down and pick up components 6 to be delivered to and received by station 42. Furthermore, it is noted that the features upon which Applicant relies (i.e., “the docking space itself serves a dual purpose: (1) it docks the transport unit, and (2) when the transport unit is removed, the exact same space defines a clear, obstacle-free walkway for human access … [which] eliminates the need for a separate, space-consuming dedicated human access corridor”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The claim limitation for “a docking space” is merely a space wherein docking may occur, and not a particular station with a structure required for docking. Similarly, the limitation “a floor that defines a footprint of said docking space for receiving the transport unit” does not actually require the docking space or the transport unit to every make contact with the floor in the footprint. Instead, the claim merely requires that there is a floor that defines a footprint wherein a docking space receives the transport unit. As discussed in more detail in the rejection below, the docking space does not have a particular structure or boundaries, the footprint is merely an outlining of the space, and the transport unit is never required to be in contact with the floor, nor is there a structural height restriction for the docking space. Accordingly, the claim limitations are satisfied by providing a space in which tire components are exchanged within the footprint of a floor, even if floating above it, such as disclosed by Marchini.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of legal phraseology (“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 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.
Claim 37 is 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 37, the phrase “the safety standards” in line 2 lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Moreover, the limitation “meets the safety standards for human access to industrial machines” does not particularly point out and distinctly define the standard because neither the claims nor the specification identifies the safety standards to which the limitation refers to or provides objective criteria for determining if the limitation is satisfied. For instance, are the standards OSHA, ISO, some other particular machine-guarding standard, or something else entirely? Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the limitation. For the purposes of examination, the examiner assumes that any prior art where a human may have access to the machinery is also considered to satisfy “the safety standards for human access to industrial machines.”
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
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) 22-23, 31-32, 34-35, and 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Marchini et al. (US 20150321431) (of record).
Regarding claims 22-23, Marchini discloses a tire building machine for producing tire components, the tire building machine comprising a machine housing that defines a production area (Figs. 1-4: 14), wherein the tire building machine further comprises an exchange station (Figs. 2-4: 42) within said production area for exchanging production materials or tools with the tire building machine on a transport unit (Figs. 2-4: 35), wherein the exchange station comprises a docking space for docking said transport unit (Figs. 2-4) ([0106]: wherein unit 35 stops above 34 in line with 42 so that 42 may receive components 6, thereby necessarily docking 35 in order to transfer component 6 to 42), a floor that defines a footprint of said docking space for receiving the transport unit, and an access portal (Figs. 2-4: 34) in the machine housing for passing the transport unit (Figs. 2-4: 35) over the floor into and out of the docking space ([0101]-[0102]), wherein the docking space defines a walkway that is humanly (Figs. 2-4: O) accessible via the access portal (Figs. 2-4: 34) and that, at the floor, is free of obstacles related to the docking of the transport unit when the transport unit is removed from the docking space (Figs. 2-4: see how the transport unit and its docking all occur above the floor and therefore the floor is always free of obstacles at all times).
The examiner notes that the claim limitations are broad. For instance, the claim limitation for “a docking space” is merely a space wherein docking may occur, and not a particular station with a recited structure for docking or otherwise. Similarly, the limitation “a floor that defines a footprint of said docking space for receiving the transport unit” does not actually require the docking space or the transport unit to every make contact with the floor in the footprint. Instead, the claim merely requires that there is a floor that defines a footprint wherein a docking space receives the transport unit. As discussed above, the docking space does not have a particular structure or boundaries, the footprint is merely an outlining of the space, and the transport unit is never required to be in contact with the floor, nor is there a structural height restriction for the docking space. Accordingly, the claim limitations are satisfied by providing a space in which tire components are exchanged within the footprint of a floor, even if floating above it, such as disclosed by Marchini.
Regarding claims 31-32, Marchini further discloses the walkway has a width (Fig. 4: L) of between about 1500 and about 2500 mm ([0056]), which falls within the claimed ranges of at least five-hundred millimeters (i.e., 500 mm) and at least eight-hundred millimeters (i.e., 800 mm). Case law holds that where prior art teaches a specific example falling within the claimed range, the claimed range is anticipated. See MPEP 2131.03. Alternatively, case law holds that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05. Applicant's original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for a width of the walkway.
Regarding claims 34-35, Marchini further discloses the walkway is free of obstacles related to the docking of the transport unit up to a height (Fig. 4: H) of between about 2200 and about 2500 mm above the floor when the transport unit is removed from the docking space ([0056]), which falls within the claimed range of at least one-thousand-and-eight-hundred millimeters (i.e., 1800 mm). Case law holds that where prior art teaches a specific example falling within the claimed range, the claimed range is anticipated. See MPEP 2131.03. Alternatively, case law holds that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05. Applicant's original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for a height of the walkway.
Regarding claim 37, because Marchini discloses that humans (Figs. 2-4: O) may enter the area in safe conditions ([0054]), the walkway meets the safety standards for human access to industrial machines.
Claim(s) 28 and 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marchini et al. (US 20150321431) (of record) as applied to claim 22 above.
Regarding claims 28 and 33, while Marchini does not expressly recite the shape or length of the walkway, Marchini does disclose that the walkway is formed so as to allow the movement and/or stopping of the operator possibly provided with work tools ([0098]). Case law holds that changes in shape are matters of design choice that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed invention is significant. See MPEP 2144.04. Moreover, while Marchini does not explicitly disclose the value for a length of the walkway from the access portal into the production area, it is considered within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to rely on routine experimentation to arrive at suitable optimum operating parameters for said length. Absent unexpected results, case law holds that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 (II)(B). In the present invention one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to optimize the length of the walkway from the access portal into the production area in order to allow the movement and/or stopping of the operator with work tools. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Marchini in order to provide the exchange station is configured for receiving the transport unit in a receiving direction into the docking space, wherein the walkway extends parallel to said receiving direction, and the walkway extends from the access portal into the production area over a length of at least one-thousand millimeters.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 24-27, 29-30, and 36 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 24, no prior art of record is considered to teach or suggest the combination of limitations of claims 22 and 24. In particular, the limitations “the walkway extends from the access portal up to the handling station.”
Claims 25-27 are dependent upon claim 24.
Regarding claim 29, no prior art of record is considered to teach or suggest the combination of limitations of claims 22 and 29. In particular, the limitations “the exchange station comprises one or more guides for guiding the transport unit in a receiving direction into the docking space, wherein said one or more guides are located alongside the walkway.”
Regarding claim 30, no prior art of record is considered to teach or suggest the combination of limitations of claims 22 and 30. In particular, the limitations “the exchange station comprises one or more locking members for locking the transport unit against removal from the docking space, wherein the one or more locking members are located alongside the walkway.”
Regarding claim 36, no prior art of record is considered to teach or suggest the combination of limitations of claims 22 and 36. In particular, the limitations “the exchange station is configured for docking the transport unit in a docking area in which the transport unit blocks human access to the walkway via the access portal.”
The closest prior art of record is considered to be Marchini et al. (US 20150321431) (of record).
Marchini discloses the limitations of claim 22 as discussed above. Marchini further discloses the tire building machine further comprises a handling station (Figs. 2-4: 49) with a handling device for handling the tire components in the tire building machine, wherein the exchange station (Figs. 2-4: 42) is located between the access portal (Figs. 2-4: 34) and the handling station (Figs. 2-4: 49). However, Marchini does not expressly recite that “the walkway extends from the access portal up to the handling station.” Instead, Marchini discloses that the walkway remains within the access portal area and does not extend to the handling station which is on the other side of the exchange station (Fig. 2). Furthermore, Marchini does not recite the expressly claimed exchange station structure comprising one or more guides for guiding the transport unit in a receiving direction into the docking space, wherein said one or more guides are located alongside the walkway, one or more locking members for locking the transport unit against removal from the docking space, wherein the one or more locking members are located alongside the walkway, and/or the exchange structure being configured for docking the transport unit in a docking area in which the transport unit blocks human access to the walkway via the access portal. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would not have found it obvious to modify Marchini contrary to its express disclosure to arrive at the claimed layout, especially without a motivation or teaching to do so, and especially when there is no conceivable way to arrive at the claimed layout given Marchini’s disclosed existing layout.
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