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 .
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 3-9 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.
Claims 3-9 improperly depend directly/indirectly on cancelled claim 2. For purposes of examination, claims 3-5 and 7 (which depend directly on claim 2) will be interpreted to be dependent on claim 1.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 3-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claims 3-9 improperly depend directly/indirectly on cancelled claim 2. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 10-12, 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) (of record).
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]), wherein 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 translational 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 1 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 1 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 1 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 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, 3-5, 10 and 18-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) 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]), wherein 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 1 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 1 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 1 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 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
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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Col et al (WO2022130235, w/ US20240017508 as English equivalent) (of record).
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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-9 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) (of record) or Zhang et al. (CN202412723) (machine translation) (of record), both of which teach all limitations of claim 1 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.
Claim 33 is allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 33 (comprising all limitations found in the recently cancelled claims 1 and 14-16), the closest prior art of record is either Zhang et al. (CN20020170652) (machine translation) (of record) in view of Parrish et al. (US20020170652) (of record) and/or Araki (US20130139957) (of record) or De Col et al. (WO2022130235, w/ US20240017508 as English equivalent) (of record) in view of Parrish et al. (US20020170652) (of record) and/or Araki (US20130139957) (of record), both of which teach all limitations of claims 1, 14 and 15 as set forth in the previous office action with a filing date of 11 February 2026. 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.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the reference Zhang fails to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., specifically that the transmission makes it so “the actuation of the first cylinder…mechanically cause[s] the actuation of the second cylinder”) 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). Examiner notes that the current claim limitation with regards to the first transmission is that said first transmission is “arranged for mechanically coupling the translational movement of the first drive member with respect to the frame to the translational movement of the second drive member with respect to the first drive member”, which includes any translational movement the actuators that make up the drive members undergo.
In response to applicant's argument that the reference De Col fails to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., that the “drive lever” (20) is “not an active transmission element that transfers motion from one component to another in a coupled manner”) 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). Examiner notes that the current claim limitation with regards to the first transmission is that said first transmission is “arranged for mechanically coupling the translational movement of the first drive member with respect to the frame to the translational movement of the second drive member with respect to the first drive member”, which includes any translational movement the actuators that make up the drive members undergo.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights