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Claims 8-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 08/28/2026. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Komoro fails to disclose the claimed four-bar linkage system. This is not found persuasive because the technical features are known in the prior art as evidenced by the prior art rejection below.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of Applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in China on 06/17/2022. It is noted, however, that Applicant has not filed a certified copy of the CN 202221537124 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-7 are objected to because of the following informalities: the examiner suggests removing all references to figures in parentheses for ease of reading the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “a support assembly (25) connected to the first drive rod (21) to support the sidewall (50) of an outer side of the roller turn-up mechanism” in lines 9-10 is unclear. The sidewall was previously discloses as a sidewall of a tire, and now the language requires a support assembly connected to the first drive rod to support the sidewall of an outer side of the roller turn-up mechanism rather than a sidewall of the tire. Is the sidewall intended to be supported on an outer side of the roller turn-up mechanism, or is this referring to a sidewall of an outer side of the roller turn-up mechanism? For the purposes of examination, the examiner assumes a support assembly connected to the first drive rod to support the sidewall on an outer side of the roller turn-up mechanism.
Claims 2-7 are indefinite by dependence on claim 1.
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 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Guan et al. (CN 113681957, see US 20240375364 as English equivalent).
Regarding claim 1, Guan discloses a roller turn-up mechanism (Figs. 1-2), which is arranged on a spindle assembly (Fig. 1: 10) and comprises a plurality of first turn-up structures (Fig. 1: 40; Figs. 1-3: 41) arranged circumferentially around the spindle assembly ([0029]), characterized in that the first turn-up structure comprises: a roller assembly configured to roll a sidewall of a tire ([0035]) (Figs. 1-4); a first drive rod (Figs. 2-3: 4111) drivingly connected to the roller assembly, a first drive assembly (Figs. 2-3: 43) connected to the first drive rod to move the roller assembly in a radial direction of the tire through the first drive rod ([0032]); a support assembly (Figs. 2-3: 42) connected to the first drive rod (Figs. 2-3: 4111) to support the sidewall of an outer side of the roller turn-up mechanism (Fig. 3) ([0032]-[0033]); and a second drive assembly (Figs. 2-3: 51) connected to (Figs. 2-3: 51 connected to 42 via 52 and 4113) the support assembly (Figs. 2-4: 42) to drive the roller assembly to press the tire through the support assembly (Figs. 2-3); wherein the roller assembly is arranged on the support assembly (Figs. 2-4: 42), the roller assembly is rotationally arranged on an end of the support assembly (Figs. 2-4: 42), wherein the end of the support assembly (Figs. 2-4: 42) close to the roller assembly is rotationally connected to the first driving rod (Figs. 2-3: 4111); the first turn-up structure further comprises: a second driving rod (Figs. 2-3: 4112) connected to (Figs. 2-3: 51 connected to 4112 via 52 and 4113) the second drive assembly (Figs. 2-3: 51) and further rotationally connected to the first driving rod (Figs. 2-3: 4112) ([0033]); a third driving rod (Figs. 2-3: 4113) ([0033]), wherein an end of the third driving rod is rotationally connected to an end of the supporting assembly (Figs. 2-3: 42) away from the roller assembly, and the other end of the third driving rod (Figs. 2-3: 4113) is rotationally connected to the second driving rod (Figs. 2-3: 4112); wherein the second driving assembly (Figs. 2-3: 51) drives the second driving rod (Figs. 2-3: 4112) to rotate the first driving rod (Figs. 2-3: 4111) and the third driving rod respectively (Figs. 2-3: 4113) ([0033]).
Applicant may rely on the exception under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(A) to overcome this rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) by a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application, and is therefore not prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1). Alternatively, Applicant may rely on the exception under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(B) by providing evidence of a prior public disclosure via an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.130(b). Furthermore, the applied reference has a common assignee and inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome this rejection because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.
Regarding claim 6, Guan further discloses the roller turn-up mechanism further comprises: a second turn-up structure (Figs. 1, 4: 20), wherein the first turn-up structure (Figs. 1, 4: 40) and the second turn-up structure (Figs. 1, 4: 20) respectively turn up and roll the sidewall (Fig. 4), wherein the first turn-up structure is arranged on the spindle assembly (Fig. 1: 10), and the second turn-up structure is arranged on a side of the spindle assembly (Figs. 1, 4) ([0029]-[0031]).
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) 4 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guan et al. (CN 113681957, see US 20240375364 as English equivalent) as applied to claims 1 and 6 above.
Regarding claim 4, Guan further discloses the support assembly (Figs. 2-3: 42) comprises a plurality of support plates, and the plurality of support plates are arranged at intervals in a direction perpendicular to the sidewall to support the sidewall ([0029]).
While Guan discloses support plates instead of support rods, 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. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the support plates in Guan to be support rods as it is a simple change in design shape.
Regarding claim 7, Guan further discloses the second turn-up structure comprises: two suspension arms (Fig. 4: 21) symmetrically arranged at intervals and configured to form a turn-up space between the two suspension arms (Figs. 1, 4) ([0029]-[0030]).
Guan further discloses the suspension arms are driven to move to roll the sidewalls on both sides of the tire (Fig. 4) ([0029]). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious that the suspension arms being driven would require a drive assembly, and as the suspension arms are not arranged on the spindle with the first and second drive assemblies, they would require a third drive assembly.
Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize, or alternatively find obvious, that moving the suspension arms to roll the sidewalls on both sides of the tire may be done in a limited number of ways: (1) simultaneously; or (2) not simultaneously. In other words, there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions that a skilled artisan may choose from with a reasonable expectation of success. Absent unexpected results, case law holds that when there is a finite number of identified and predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue known options with his or her technical grasp. See MPEP 2144.04(II)(B). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify Guan such that the two suspension arms move simultaneously to roll the sidewalls on both sides of the tire.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3 and 5 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 2, no prior art of record is considered to teach or suggest the combination of limitations of claims 1-2. In particular, the limitations “a fourth driving rod connected to the first driving assembly and further rotationally connected to the first driving rod, wherein the first driving assembly drives the first driving rod to rotate through the fourth driving rod.”
Claims 3 would be allowable by dependence on claim 2.
Regarding claim 5, no prior art of record is considered to teach or suggest the combination of limitations of claims 1 and 4-5. In particular, the limitations “a plurality of cylinders arranged on each of the supporting rods in a one-to-one correspondence, wherein the cylinders are rotationally sleeved on the supporting rods.”
The closest prior art of record is considered to be Guan et al. (CN 113681957, see US 20240375364 as English equivalent).
Guan discloses the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Guan further discloses a fourth driving rod (Figs. 2-3: 52). However, the fourth driving rod is not connected to the first driving assembly and further rotationally connected to the first driving rod, wherein the first driving assembly drives the first driving rod to rotate through the fourth driving rod. Instead the fourth driving rod (Figs. 2-3: 52) is connected to the second driving assembly (Figs. 2-3: 51) and further rotationally connected to the third driving rod (Figs. 2-3: 4113). Moreover, Guan may be interpreted such that there is a fourth driving rod (Figs. 2-3: 4112) connected to the first driving assembly (Figs. 2-3: 43) and further rotationally connected to the first driving rod (Figs. 2-3: 4111), wherein the first driving assembly drives the first driving rod to rotate through the fourth driving rod (Figs. 2-3). However, then the second driving rod (Figs. 2-3: 52) would be connected to the second drive assembly (Figs. 2-3: 51) and further rotationally connected to the third driving rod (Figs. 2-3: 4113) and not the first driving rod (Figs. 2-3: 4111). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would not have found it obvious to modify the specifically disclosed structure and connections of the driving rods and driving assemblies contrary to the teachings of Guan to obtain the claimed structure, especially without a teaching or motivation to do so.
Furthermore, as discussed above in claim 4, Guan discloses that the support assembly is comprised of support plates. While it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the shape of the support plates to be support rods, it would not have been obvious to further modify Guan with the specifically claimed structure of a plurality of cylinders arranged on each of the supporting rods in a one-to-one correspondence, wherein the cylinders are rotationally sleeved on the supporting rods. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would not have found it obvious to modify the specifically disclosed structure contrary to the teachings of Guan to obtain the claimed structure, especially without a teaching or motivation to do so.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEDEF PAQUETTE whose telephone number is (571) 272-5031. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 8:00 AM EST - 4:00 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, KATELYN SMITH can be reached on (571) 270-5545. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300. The fax phone number for the examiner is (571) 273-5031.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SEDEF E PAQUETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749
