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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-25 in the reply filed on 19 December 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is nothing in 35 USC 121 that requires restriction between different statutory classes of claims unless the claims cover “independent and distinction inventions” and that the unpatentability of the claims is irrelevant to a restriction requirement. This is not found persuasive because it was not a restriction requirement based on 35 USC 121 that was made; rather a Requirement for Unity of Invention based on 37 CFR 1.475 was made as the instant application represents a submission of a national stage PCT application under 35 USC 371. Applicant’s attention is drawn to MPEP 1893 and 1893.03(d). The restriction requirement has clearly established that the groups lack unity of invention as though the groups share a common technical feature, this technical feature is not considered a special technical feature and does not make a contribution over the prior art as detailed in the Restriction Requirement.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 26-32 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the lack of unity requirement in the reply filed on 19 December 2025.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” or in the instant application “Disclosed is” etc.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-7, 10, 14-166 and 24 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 L2-4: mechanically coupling [[a]] the translational movement of the first drive member with respect to the frame to [[a]] the translational movement of the second drive member with respect to the first drive member
Claim 3 L3-4: transmission is arranged to impart [[a]] the translational movement to the second drive with respect to the first drive member in response to [[a]] the translational movement of the first drive member with respect to the frame.
Claim 4 L1-6: The transfer ring according to claim 2, wherein the first transmission is arranged to impart [[a]] the translational movement to the second drive member in the contraction direction in response to [[a]] the translational movement of the first drive member in the contraction direction, and wherein the first transmission is arranged to impart [[a]] the translational movement to the second drive member in the expansion direction in response to [[a]] the translational movement of the first drive member in the expansion direction.
Claim 5 L1-4: The transfer ring according to claim 2, wherein a transmission ratio between the translational movement of the first drive member with respect to the frame and the translational movement of the second drive member with respect to the first drive member is fixed.
Claim 6 L2-3: transmission ratio between the translational movement of the first drive member with respect to the frame and [[the]] a movement of the second drive member with respect to the frame is at least 2:1.
Claim 7 L5-6: such that [[a]] the movement of the first drive member with respect to the frame
Claim 10 L2-3, 4-5: wherein the radial drive comprises an actuator for actuating the translational movement of the first drive member with respect to the frame,… to the translational movement of the first drive member with respect to the frame.
Claim 14 L2-4: comprises a first actuator for driving the translational movement of the first drive member with respect to the frame and a second actuator for driving the translational movement of the second drive member with respect to the first drive member.
Claim 15 L4-5: a movement of the first drive member with respect to the second drive member to [[a]] the translational movement of the first drive member with respect to the frame.
Claim 16 L3-4: between the translational movement of the first drive with respect to the frame and the translational movement of the second drive member with respect to the first drive member is fixed.
Claim 24 L3-4: holding members, [[a]] the first drive member and [[a]] the second drive member, supported by [[a]] the respective first drive member.
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-5, 10-12, 14, 18-22, and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by De Col et al (WO2022130235, w/ US20240017508 as English equivalent).
Regarding claim 1, De Col discloses a transfer ring (“apparatus” (1)) for transferring one or more tire components, wherein the transfer ring comprises
a frame (“annular body” (14)) that extends circumferentially about a central axis defining a central aperture for receiving a tire building drum (Fig 1, 4-6),
wherein the transfer ring comprises a plurality of holding members ("plurality of feeler pins" (22)) for holding the one or more tire components during transfer of said one or more tire components by the transfer ring (Fig 4-6, [0137]), wherein said holding members are distributed circumferentially about the central axis (Fig 1),
wherein the transfer ring further comprises a radial drive for moving the holding members with respect to the frame in a contraction direction towards the central axis and in an expansion direction away from the central axis, wherein the radial drive comprises, for at least one holding member of the plurality of holding members, a first drive member ("drive lever" (20) and "cam" (19)) that is arranged for translational movement with respect to the frame with at least a vector component in the contraction direction and the expansion direction (Fig 5, 6) and
a second drive member ("return spring" (29)), supported by the first drive member, that is arranged for translational movement with respect to the first drive member with at least a vector component in the contraction direction and the expansion direction (Fig 5-6, [0123]-[0124], [0137]).
Regarding claim 2, De Col discloses all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, De Col discloses that the radial drive comprises a first transmission (“second plate” (24)) that is arranged for mechanically coupling the movement of the first drive member with respect to the frame to the movement of the second drive member with respect to the first drive member (Fig 5-6).
Regarding claim 3, De Col discloses all limitations of claim 2 as set forth above. Additionally, De Col discloses that the first transmission is arranged to impart the translational movement to the second drive member with respect to the first drive member in response to the translational movement of the first drive member with respect to the frame (Fig 5-6).
Regarding claim 4, De Col discloses all limitations of claim 2 as set forth above. Additionally, De Col discloses that the first transmission is arranged to impart the movement to the second drive member in the contraction direction in response to the translational movement of the first drive member in the contraction direction, and wherein the first transmission is arranged to impart the translational movement to the second drive member in the expansion direction in response to the translational movement of the first drive member in the expansion direction (Fig 5-6, in that prior to making contact with the tire, “return spring” (29) moves in a similar radial direction as “drive lever” (20)).
Regarding claim 5, De Col discloses all limitations of claim 2 as set forth above. Additionally, De Col discloses that a transmission ratio between the translational movement of the first drive member with respect to the frame and the translational movement of the second drive member with respect to the first drive member is fixed (Fig 5, 6, in that prior to making contact with the tire, “return spring” (29) moves a similar radial amount as “driver lever” (20) does). Examiner notes that the current claim does not specify the time period or state that said transmission ratio is fixed, including whether said ratio is fixed for at all times.
Regarding claim 10, De Col discloses all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, De Col discloses that the radial drive comprises an actuator (“drive actuator”, [0117]) for actuating the translational movement of the first drive member with respect to the frame, and wherein the radial drive further comprises a second transmission (“toothed ring nut” (17) and “toothed pinions” (18)) for mechanically coupling a movement of the actuator to the translational movement of the first drive member with respect to the frame ([0116]-[0117]).
Regarding claim 11, De Col discloses all limitations of claim 10 as set forth above Additionally, De Col discloses that the second transmission comprises a gear rack (“cam” (19)) that is fixedly connected to the first drive member and an associated pinion (“toothed pinion” (18)) that is mounted to the frame, wherein the pinion is mechanically coupled to the actuator (Fig 1, 4-6).
Regarding claim 12, De Col discloses all limitations of claim 11 as set forth above. Additionally, De Col discloses that the second transmission further comprises a planet gear for engaging multiple pinions in rotation simultaneously (“toothed ring nut” (17)), and wherein the actuator is arranged to drive the planet gear in rotation ([0116]-[0117]).
Regarding claim 14, De Col discloses all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, De Col discloses that the radial drive comprises a first actuator ([0117] w/ “drive actuator”) for driving the translational movement of the first drive member with respect to the frame and a second actuator for driving the translational movement of the second drive member with respect to the first drive member (“return spring” (29), [0123]-[0124]).
Regarding claim 18, De Col discloses all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, De Col discloses that the first drive member is linearly movable with respect to the frame in a radial inward direction towards and perpendicular to the central axis, and a radial outward direction opposite to said radial inward direction (Fig 4-6).
Regarding claim 19, De Col discloses all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, De Col discloses that the second drive member is linearly movable with respect to the first drive member in a radial inward direction towards and perpendicular to the central axis, and a radial outward direction opposite to said radial inward direction (Fig 4-6).
Regarding claim 20, De Col discloses all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, De Col discloses that the at least one holding member is supported by the second drive member (Fig 1, 4-6).
Regarding claim 21, De Col discloses all limitations of claim 20 as set forth above. Additionally, De Col discloses that the holding member is fixedly connected to the second drive member (Fig 1, 4-6).
Regarding claim 22, De Col discloses all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, De Col discloses that in an expanded state, the first drive member and the second drive member extend outside of the central aperture in the radial outward direction (Fig 4).
Regarding claim 24, De Col discloses all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, De Col discloses that the radial drive comprises, for each holding member of the plurality of holding members, the first drive member ("driver lever" (20) and "cam" (19), Fig 5, 6) and the second drive member ("return spring" (29), [0123]-[0124]), supported by the respective first drive member (Fig 1, 4-6).
Regarding claim 25, De Col discloses all limitations of claim 24 as set forth above. Additionally, De Col discloses that the radial drive is arranged to drive the first drive members simultaneously or synchronously in the contraction direction and the expansion direction ([0061]).
Claim(s) 1-5, 10, 14 and 17-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zhang et al. (CN202412723U) (machine translation) (of record).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang discloses a transfer ring ("ring body" (10) or "sidewall ring" (40)) for transferring one or more tire components, wherein the transfer ring comprises
a frame that extends circumferentially about a central axis defining a central aperture for receiving a tire building drum (Fig 2 or 5-6),
wherein the transfer ring comprises a plurality of holding members ("carcass removal claws" (11) or "sidewall expanding claws" (41)) for holding the one or more tire components during transfer of said one or more tire components by the transfer ring (Fig 2 or 5-6), wherein said holding members are distributed circumferentially about the central axis (Fig 2 or 5-6),
wherein the transfer ring further comprises a radial drive for moving the holding members with respect to the frame in a contraction direction towards the central axis and in an expansion direction away from the central axis, wherein the radial drive comprises, for at least one holding member of the plurality of holding members, a first drive member ("central driving cylinder" (101) or "sidewall central driving cylinder" (401)) that is arranged for translational movement with respect to the frame with at least a vector component in the contraction direction and the expansion direction (Fig 2 or 5-6) and
a second drive member ("secondary driving cylinder" (102) or "sidewall secondary driving cylinder" (402)), supported by the first drive member, that is arranged for translational movement with respect to the first drive member with at least a vector component in the contraction direction and the expansion direction ([0058] or [0079]-[0080]).
Regarding claim 2, Zhang discloses all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, Zhang discloses that the radial drive comprises a first transmission ("booster plate" (15) or "sidewall booster plate" (45)) that is arranged for mechanically coupling the movement of the first drive member with respect to the frame to the movement of the second drive member with respect to the first drive member ([0058], Fig 2 or [0079]-[0080], Fig 5-6).
Regarding claim 3, Zhang discloses all limitations of claim 2 as set forth above. Additionally, Zhang discloses that the first transmission is arranged to impart the translational movement to the second drive member with respect to the first drive member in response to the translational movement of the first drive member with respect to the frame ([0058], Fig 2 or [0079]-[0080], Fig 5-6).
Regarding claim 4, Zhang discloses all limitations of claim 2 as set forth above. Additionally, Zhang discloses that the first transmission is arranged to impart the translational movement to the second drive member in the contraction direction in response to the translational movement of the first drive member in the contraction direction, and wherein the first transmission is arranged to impart the translational movement to the second drive member in the expansion direction in response to the translational movement of the first drive member in the expansion direction (([0058], Fig 2 or [0079]-[0080], Fig 5-6)).
Regarding claim 5, Zhang discloses all limitations of claim 2 as set forth above. Additionally, Zhang discloses that a transmission ratio between the translational movement of the first drive member with respect to the frame and the translational movement of the second drive member with respect to the first drive member is fixed ([0058], Fig 2 or [0079]-[0080], Fig 5-6).
Regarding claim 10, De Col discloses all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, De Col discloses that the radial drive comprises an actuator ("central drive cylinder" (101) or "sidewall center drive cylinder" (401)) for actuating the translational movement of the first drive member with respect to the frame, and wherein the radial drive further comprises a second transmission ("booster plate" (15) or "sidewall booster plate" (45)) for mechanically coupling a movement of the actuator to the translational movement of the first drive member with respect to the frame ([0058], Fig 2 or [0079]-[0080], Fig 5-6).
Regarding claim 14, Zhang discloses all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, Zhang discloses that the radial drive comprises a first actuator ("central driving cylinder" (101) or "sidewall central driving cylinder" (401)) for driving the translational movement of the first drive member with respect to the frame and a second actuator ("secondary driving cylinder" (102) or "sidewall secondary driving cylinder" (402)) for driving the translational movement of the second drive member with respect to the first drive member ([0058], Fig 2 or [0079]-[0080], Fig 5-6).
Regarding claim 17, Zhang discloses all limitations of claim 14 as set forth above. Additionally, Zhang discloses that at least one of the first actuator and the second actuator is a linear drive or a servomotor ([0058], Fig 2 or [0077], Fig 5-6).
Regarding claim 18, Zhang discloses all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, Zhang discloses that the first drive member is linearly movable with respect to the frame in a radial inward direction towards and perpendicular to the central axis, and a radial outward direction opposite to said radial inward direction (Fig 2 or 5-6).
Regarding claim 19, Zhang discloses all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, Zhang discloses that the second drive member is linearly movable with respect to the first drive member in a radial inward direction towards and perpendicular to the central axis, and a radial outward direction opposite to said radial inward direction (Fig 2 or 5-6).
Regarding claim 20, Zhang discloses all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, Zhang discloses that the at least one holding member is supported by the second drive member (Fig 2 or 5-6)).
Regarding claim 21, Zhang discloses all limitations of claim 20 as set forth above. Additionally, Zhang discloses that the holding member is fixedly connected to the second drive member (Fig 2 or 5-6).
Regarding claim 22, Zhang discloses all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, Zhang discloses that in an expanded state, the first drive member and the second drive member extend outside of the central aperture in the radial outward direction (Fig 2 or 5-6).
Regarding claim 23, Zhang discloses all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, Zhang discloses that the holding member comprises a fork, a scoop or a lifter ("carcass removal claws" (11) [0059] or "sidewall expansion claw" (41)) that is arranged to be inserted between a circumferential surface of the tire building drum and the one or more tire components ([0057] or [0079]).
Regarding claim 24, Zhang discloses all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, Zhang discloses that the radial drive comprises, for each holding member of the plurality of holding members, the first drive member ("central driving cylinder" (101) or "sidewall central driving cylinder" (401)) and the second drive member ("secondary driving cylinder" (102) or "sidewall secondary driving cylinder" (402)), supported by the respective first drive member (Fig 2 or 5-6).
Regarding claim 25, Zhang discloses all limitations of claim 24 as set forth above. Additionally, Zhang discloses that the radial drive is arranged to drive the first drive members simultaneously or synchronously in the contraction direction and the expansion direction ([0018]).
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) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (CN20020170652) (machine translation) (of record).
Regarding claim 6, Zhang discloses all limitations of claim 5 as set forth above. While Zhang does not explicitly disclose that the transmission ratio between the translational movement of the first drive member with respect to the frame and a movement of the second drive member with respect to the frame is at least 2:1, 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 Zhang teaches that “the control of multiple driving strokes can be recognized” ([0058]), said multiple driving strokes of the various driving cylinders having transmission ratios relative to one another and the setting and determination of a specific transmission ratio value represents an optimization within prior art conditions, which has been found to be “not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (see MPEP 2144.05(II)(A)). While not relied upon in the rejection, examiner notes that the current written specification does not support criticality of the claimed specific transmission ratio with sufficient specificity as to render the claimed range non-obvious over the prior art (see MPEP 2131.03(II)).
Claim(s) 13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Col et al (WO2022130235, w/ US20240017508 as English equivalent).
Regarding claim 13, De Col discloses all limitations of claim 10 as set forth above. While De Col does not explicitly disclose what type of actuator the “drive actuator” mentioned in [0117] is, 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 have the actuator be a linear drive or servo controlled spindle, given that De Col, in addition to not explicitly restricting what type of actuator the “drive actuator” in [0117] is, teaches a linear drive as a mean of actuating components of a transfer ring (“thrust actuator” (41), [0132]). One would have been motivated to use the thrust actuator taught in [0132] as the drive actuator in [0117] for the predictable result of actuating the components of the transfer ring.
Regarding claim 17, De Col discloses all limitations of claim 14 as set forth above. While De Col does not explicitly disclose what type of actuator the “drive actuator” mentioned in [0117] is for the first actuator, 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 have at least one of the first actuator and the second actuator be a linear drive or a servomotor, given that De Col, in addition to not explicitly restricting what type of actuator the “drive actuator” in [0117] is, teaches a linear drive as a mean of actuating components of a transfer ring (“thrust actuator” (41), [0132]). One would have been motivated to use the thrust actuator taught in [0132] as the drive actuator in [0117] for the predictable result of actuating the components of the transfer ring.
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Col et al. (WO2022130235, w/ US20240017508 as English equivalent) as set forth in claim 14 above, and in further view of Parrish et al. (US20020170652) and/or Araki (US20130139957).
Regarding claim 15, De Col teaches all limitations of claim 14 as set forth above. While De Col does not explicitly teach that the radial drive further comprises a control unit that is electronically or functionally connected to the first actuator and the second actuator, wherein the control unit is arranged for electronically coupling the translational movement of the first drive member with respect to the second drive member to the movement of the first drive member with respect to the frame, 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 as the use of control units as a means of controlling the actuators of a transfer ring is a known component, as shown by Parrish’s use of a control unit (“computer”/”systems included in the cabinet structure (400)”, [0032], [0037]) for the movement of a transfer ring’s (“tread expander assembly” (200)) plurality of holding members (“fingers” (202), Fig 15) and/or Araki’s use of a control unit (“control unit” (7)) for controlling the operations of a transfer ring (“tread holding unit” (3), [0034], Fig 5) which includes the actuators (“solenoids” (75),[0066]). One would have been motivated to include a control unit for the predictable result of controlling the operation of the transfer ring.
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (CN20020170652) (machine translation) (of record) as set forth in claim 14 above, and in further view of Parrish et al. (US20020170652) and/or Araki (US20130139957).
Regarding claim 15, Zhang teaches all limitations of claim 14 as set forth above. Additionally, Zhang teaches that the drive cylinders are controlled in some way ([0058]). While Zhang does not explicitly teach that the radial drive further comprises a control unit that is electronically or functionally connected to the first actuator and the second actuator, wherein the control unit is arranged for electronically coupling the translational movement of the first drive member with respect to the second drive member to the translational movement of the first drive member with respect to the frame, 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 as the use of control units as a means of controlling the actuators of a transfer ring is a known component, as shown by Parrish’s use of a control unit (“computer”/”systems included in the cabinet structure (400)”, [0032], [0037]) for the movement of a transfer ring’s (“tread expander assembly” (200)) plurality of holding members (“finger” (202), Fig 15) and/or Araki’s use of a control unit (“control unit” (7)) for controlling the operations of a transfer ring (“tread holding unit” (3), [0034], Fig 5) which includes the actuators (“solenoids” (75),[0066]). One would have been motivated to include a control unit in Zhang for the predictable result of controlling the operation of the transfer ring.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-9 and 16 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.
Regarding claim 7, the closest prior art of record is either De Col et al. (WO2022130235, w/ US20240017508 as English equivalent) or Zhang et al. (CN202412723) (machine translation), both of which teach all limitations of claim 2 as set forth above. However, the prior art of record does not teach that the first transmission comprises a belt that is freely rotatable with respect to the first drive member, wherein the belt is, at a first side of the first drive member, fixedly connected to the frame, and wherein the belt is, at a second side of the first drive member opposite to the first side, fixedly connected to the second drive member, such that the translational movement of the first drive member with respect to the frame causes the second drive member to move with respect to the first drive member in the same direction.
As claims 8 and 9 depend on claim 7, they stand as objected to for similar reasons.
Regarding claim 16, the closest prior art of record is either Zhang et al. (CN20020170652) (machine translation) (of record) in view of Parrish et al. (US20020170652) and/or Araki (US20130139957) or De Col et al. (WO2022130235, w/ US20240017508 as English equivalent) in view of Parrish et al. (US20020170652) and/or Araki (US20130139957), both of which teach all limitations of claim 15 as set forth above. However, the prior art of record does not teach that the control unit is arranged to control the first actuator and the second actuator such that a ratio between the movement of the first drive member with respect to the frame and the movement of the second drive member with respect to the first drive member is fixed.
Conclusion
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