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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/25/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Applicant’s originally filed specification does not provide support for the claim limitation “wherein the turn-up mechanism and the attaching mechanism simultaneously roll the first sidewall, the bead filler and the second sidewall.” Firstly, the examiner notes that it is not clear in the claim if the first and second sidewalls are provided on the same side of the tire or on opposite sides. Applicant’s figures and specification have support for providing each side wall on a respective side of the tire, rather than one side of the tire having two sidewalls and a bead filler. Secondly, while there is support in Applicant’s specification for turning up the opposite sidewalls simultaneously ([0008], [0031]), and there is support for attaching a bead filler and a sidewall simultaneously ([0006], [0020], [0027]), there is no support for rolling a first sidewall without a bead filler on with turn-up mechanism at the same time as attaching and rolling a bead filler and a second sidewall with an attaching mechanism. In other words, there is no support for the asymmetric attachment and turn-up of the first sidewall with no bead filler and the second sidewall with a bead filler using turn-up and attaching mechanisms.
Claims 9-14 are dependent upon claim 8.
Claims 8-14 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 8, the phrase “a turn-up mechanism arranged on the spindle assembly to roll a first sidewall of the tire … and an attaching mechanism movably arranged relative to the spindle assembly to attach a bead filler and a second sidewall of the tire to a carcass of the tire, wherein the turn-up mechanism and the attaching mechanism simultaneously roll the first sidewall, the bead filler and the second sidewall” in lines 4-13 is unclear. It is not clear if the first sidewall and the second sidewall are on opposite sides of the tire, or if they are on the same side of the tire such that there are two sidewalls and a bead filler applied to the same side. It is also not clear if only the second sidewall is provided with a bead filler while the first sidewall does not have one, or if a bead filler is intended to be provided with each respective sidewall, which is not currently being specifically claimed. Further clarification is requested, and the examiner suggests Applicant amend the claim language to further clarify the structure of the drum and how the sidewalls and bead filler(s) are being applied to the tire.
Claims 9-14 are indefinite by dependence on claim 8.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-14 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: no prior art of record is considered to teach or suggest the combination of limitations of claim 8. In particular, the limitations “a turn-up mechanism arranged on the spindle assembly to roll a first sidewall of the tire … and an attaching mechanism movably arranged relative to the spindle assembly to attach a bead filler and a second sidewall of the tire to a carcass of the tire, wherein the turn-up mechanism and the attaching mechanism simultaneously roll the first sidewall, the bead filler and the second sidewall.”
Claims 9-14 are dependent upon claim 8.
The closest prior art of record is considered to be Takasuka (US 20060180263) (of record), Ogawa (US 20050211366) (of record), Li et al. (CN 109572017, see machine translation) (of record), and Sumiya et al. (JP H0760867, see machine translation) (of record).
Takasuka in view of Ogawa, Li, and Sumiya disclose the limitations of claim 8 as discussed in the 02/26/2026 Final Rejection. The examiner finds Applicant’s arguments on pages 5-6 of the Remarks regarding the prior art of record to be persuasive. Accordingly, no prior art of record is considered to teach or suggest “that the three processes of the attaching mechanism rolling the bead filler, the turn-up mechanism rolling the first sidewall, and the attaching mechanism rolling the second sidewall are performed simultaneously” as argued by Applicant. However, the examiner refers to the rejection under 112(a) above as to the lack of support for said allowable subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 5 of the Remarks, Applicant argues “[t]he technical solution of amended claim 8 emphasizes that three processes can be performed simultaneously: the attaching mechanism rolls the bead filler, the turn-up mechanism rolls the first sidewall, and the attaching mechanism rolls the second sidewall.” The examiner refers to the 112(a) rejection above as to the lack of support in Applicant’s originally filed specification for this limitation.
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