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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
PNG
media_image1.png
749
1175
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Image of submitted file for JP2018-158458, where the description is left blank, for example, on p.2-3 )]The information disclosure statement filed 17 December 2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. In particular, examiner notes that, as brought up but not rectified in the parent application of 18/024,724 and the previous office action of the instant application, the copies of JP2018-158458 and JP2019-503899 submitted were either illegible or blank as shown in example pages below. They have been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. Examiner recommends resubmitting said documents in a legible form.
PNG
media_image3.png
756
1172
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Image of submitted file for JP2019-503899, where the description is unintelligible, for example, on p.2-3 )]
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dijkstra et al. (US20160151990) (of record) in view of Tünkers (US4240620) (of record), Byerley (EP0700774) (of record) and AW-Lake (NPL) (of record).
Regarding claim 1, Dijkstra discloses a drum for tire building (“drum” (1)) comprising a pneumatic actuator (“actuators” (42, 52)) for controlling a radial movement of an actuated drum part with respect to a surface of said drum (Fig 1B, 1C). While Dijkstra teaches use of the pneumatic actuators, Dijkstra is silent on the contents of the pneumatic actuator itself, more specifically that the pneumatic actuator comprises a cylinder with a first flow channel at a first end of the cylinder and a second flow channel at a second end of the cylinder opposite to the first end of the cylinder, wherein the pneumatic actuator further comprises a piston which is movable back and forth within the cylinder between a first position at the first end of the cylinder and a second position at the second end of the cylinder, wherein the piston comprises a piston aperture extending through said piston, wherein the pneumatic actuator is arranged to allow a fluid to flow between the first flow channel and the second flow channel when the piston is in the first position or between the first position and the second position, and wherein the pneumatic actuator is arranged to block a fluid flow between the first flow channel and the second flow channel when the piston is in the second position, and wherein the drum further comprises a control unit having a flow meter which is in fluid communication with the first flow channel for measuring a flow in said first flow channel. However, 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:
a) the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results is considered to be part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art (see MPEP 2143(I)(D)); and
b) Tünkers, which is within the pneumatic cylinder art, teaches that “it is known in the prior art of pressure medium operated gripping devices to provide a cylinder with a piston which is movable longitudinally within the cylinder” (C1 L9-12) and that such a pneumatic cylinder can comprise a cylinder (“cylinder” (1)) with a first flow channel (“passage” (8)) at a first end of the cylinder and a second flow channel (“passage” (9)) at a second end of the cylinder opposite to the first end of the cylinder (Fig 1, 2), wherein the pneumatic actuator further comprises a piston (“piston” (2)) which is movable back and forth within the cylinder between a first position at the first end of the cylinder (Fig 1) and a second position at the second end of the cylinder (Fig 2), wherein the piston comprises a piston aperture extending through said piston (“throughgoing passage” (10)), wherein the pneumatic actuator is arranged to allow a fluid to flow between the first flow channel and the second flow channel when the piston is in the first position or between the first position and the second position (Fig 1), and wherein the pneumatic actuator is arranged to block a fluid flow between the first flow channel and the second flow channel when the piston is in the second position (Fig 2) for the benefit of safe operation without possibly injuring operators via a two step pressure differential (C1 L39-50); and
c) given that Dijkstra is silent as to the explicit structure of its actuators (42, 52), the implementation of the pneumatic actuator taught in Tünkers for the predictable result of acting as the pneumatic actuator along with the benefit of safe operation is considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art;
d) Byerley, which is within the tire manufacturing arts, teaches that for the use of a pneumatic actuator (“piston-cylinder” (76)) in a tire manufacturing process, “selective control of the flow of the pressurized hydraulic fluid is provided for by conventional control means 144 including motion sensors, solenoid-operated valves, etc.” ([0025]); and
e) AW-Lake teaches that it is known in the art of pneumatic tools to use pneumatic flow meters for monitoring said tools (NPL), said measurements would allow a person of ordinary skill in the art to exercise better “selective control of the flow of the pressurized hydraulic fluid” of Byerley; and
f) the implementation of conventional control means as taught in the pneumatic actuator system of Byerley and AW-Lake’s flow meters to the pneumatic actuator system of modified Dijkstra, including a flow meter in fluid communication with the first flow channel, for the predictable result of regulating the pneumatic actuator system is the application of a known technique to a known device read for improvement to yield predictable results and is considered to be part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art (see MPEP 2143(I)(D)).
Regarding claim 9, modified Dijkstra teaches all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. While Tünkers does not explicitly teach that the first flow channel is arranged to be in line with the piston aperture when the piston is in the first position, 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 case law holds that shifting the position of a component (such as the relative alignment of the first flow channel to the piston aperture) would have been obvious absent a showing that the rearrangement modified the operation of the device (see MPEP 2144.04). In the instant case, the alignment of the piston aperture is considered to be a matter of design choice.
Claim(s) 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dijkstra et al. (US20160151990) (of record), Tünkers (US4240620) (of record), Byerley (EP0700774) (of record) and AW-Lake (NPL) (of record) as set forth above in the rejection of claim 1, and further as evidenced by Industrial Quick Search Directory (NPL) (of record).
Regarding claim 3, modified Dijkstra teaches all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. While Byerley does not explicitly teach that the control unit is arranged to give a signal indicative of the piston not being in the second position, when said piston is moved towards the second position and a flow is measured by the flow meter, 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:
a) Byerley teaches that the flow of pressurized hydraulic fluid is controlled in part “by conventional control means 144 including motion sensors, solenoid-operated valves, etc.” ([0025]);
b) AW-Lake teaches that it is known in the art of pneumatic tools to use pneumatic flow meters for monitoring said tools (NPL), said measurements would allow a person of ordinary skill in the art to exercise better “selective control of the flow of the pressurized hydraulic fluid” of Byerley;
c) Industrial Quick Search Directory teaches that pneumatic cylinders comprise of sensors, in particular, sensors that “are used to detect the linear position of the piston inside the cylinder” and that “they are important for positioning applications” (NPL), evidence of the common usage of piston positioning sensors to indicate to the control system the location of a piston via a signal; and
d) the combination of Byerley’s solenoid-operated valves for flow, AW-Lake’s flow meters and Industrial Quick Search Directory’s sensor for linear position detection represents the combination of known prior art elements to yield the predictable result of controlling a pneumatic actuator (see MPEP 2143(I)(A)).
Regarding claim 4, modified Dijkstra teaches all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. While Byerley does not explicitly teach that the control unit is arranged to give a signal indicative of the piston being in the second position when said piston has been moved into the second position and no flow is measured by the flow meter, 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:
a) Byerley teaches that the flow of pressurized hydraulic fluid is controlled in part “by conventional control means 144 including motion sensors, solenoid-operated valves, etc.” ([0025]);
b) AW-Lake teaches that it is known in the art of pneumatic tools to use pneumatic flow meters for monitoring said tools (NPL), said measurements would allow a person of ordinary skill in the art to exercise better “selective control of the flow of the pressurized hydraulic fluid” of Byerley;
c) Industrial Quick Search Directory teaches that pneumatic cylinders comprise of sensors, in particular, sensors that “are used to detect the linear position of the piston inside the cylinder” and that “they are important for positioning applications” (NPL), evidence of the common usage of piston positioning sensors to indicate to the control system the location of a piston via a signal;
d) the combination of Byerley’s solenoid-operated valves for flow, AW-Lake for flowmeters and Industrial Quick Search Directory’s sensor for linear position detection represents the combination of known prior art elements to yield the predictable result of controlling a pneumatic actuator (see MPEP 2143(I)(A)).
Regarding claim 5, modified Dijkstra teaches all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. While Byerley does not explicitly disclose that the control unit is arranged to give a signal indicative of a normal functioning of the pneumatic actuator when the piston is moved into the first position and a flow is measured by the flow meter; and/or wherein the control unit is arranged to give a signal indicative of a contamination of the piston aperture when the piston is moved into the first position and no flow is measured by the flow meter, 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:
a) Byerley teaches that the flow of pressurized hydraulic fluid is controlled in part “by conventional control means 144 including motion sensors, solenoid-operated valves, etc.” ([0025]);
b) AW-Lake teaches that it is known in the art of pneumatic tools to use pneumatic flow meters for monitoring said tools (NPL), said measurements would allow a person of ordinary skill in the art to exercise better “selective control of the flow of the pressurized hydraulic fluid” of Byerley; and
c) Industrial Quick Search Directory teaches that pneumatic cylinders comprise of sensors, in particular, sensors that “are used to detect the linear position of the piston inside the cylinder” and that “they are important for positioning applications” (NPL), evidence of the common usage of piston positioning sensors to indicate to the control system the location of a piston via a signal;
d) the combination of Byerley’s solenoid-operated valves for flow, AW-Lake for flow meters and Industrial Quick Search Directory’s sensor for linear position detection represents the combination of known prior art elements to yield the predictable result of controlling a pneumatic actuator (see MPEP 2143(I)(A)).
Claim(s) 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dijkstra et al. (US20160151990) (of record), Tünkers (US4240620) (of record), Byerley (EP0700774) (of record) and AW-Lake (NPL) (of record) as set forth above in the rejection of claim 1, and further in view of Ikari (US20080173169) (of record).
Regarding claim 6, modified Dijkstra teaches all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. While Dijkstra does not explicitly teach that the pneumatic actuator comprises a spacer for, when the piston is in the first position, spacing apart the piston and the first end of the cylinder such that the first flow channel and the piston aperture are in fluid communication, 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 Ikari, which is within the pneumatic actuator art, teaches that a pneumatic actuator (“fluid pressure cylinder” (10)) can comprise of a spacer (“cushion ring” (62,64)) at either side of a piston (“piston” (18), Fig 1) as for fluid pressure cylinders, “it is known to provide a cushioning mechanism for buffering and absorbing shocks occurring at the displacement terminal end positions of the piston” ([0004]) and Ikari’s cushion rings (62,64) can accomplish said benefits with reduced weight ([0045]).
Regarding claim 7, modified Dijkstra teaches all limitations of claim 6 as set forth above. Additionally, Ikari teaches that the spacer is arranged on the piston (Fig 1).
Claim(s) 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dijkstra et al. (US20160151990) (of record), Tünkers (US4240620) (of record), Byerley (EP0700774) (of record) and AW-Lake (NPL) (of record) as set forth above in the rejection of claim 1, and further in view of Roh Byoung et al. (KR20150055215) (machine translation) (of record).
Regarding claim 6, modified Dijkstra teaches all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. While Dijkstra does not explicitly teach that the pneumatic actuator comprises a spacer for, when the piston is in the first position, spacing apart the piston and the first end of the cylinder such that the first flow channel and the piston aperture are in fluid communication, 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 Roh Byoung, which is within the pneumatic actuator art, teaches that a pneumatic actuator (“hydraulic cylinder” (110)) can comprise of a spacer (“stroke limiter” (120)) at either side of a piston (“piston” (114), Fig 1) for the benefit of easy adjustment and installation ([0014]).
Regarding claim 8, modified Dijkstra teaches all limitations of claim 6 as set forth above. Additionally, Roh Byoung teaches that the spacer is arranged at the first end of the cylinder (Fig 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 26 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments on p.8-9 against the references individually (specifically with Tünkers not teaching a flow meter, control unit or electronic monitoring for fluid flow and Byerley with regards to a bypass flow), one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Moreover, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the measuring of bypass flow) (bolded for emphasis) 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). It is also noted that the current specification does not explicitly disclose the presence of bypass flow.
In response to applicant's arguments on p.9 that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In the present application, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1, one would have been motivated to use the pneumatic actuators of Tünkers with the apparatus of Dijkstra for the benefit of safe operation.
The statement on p.9 that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have default-selected external limit sensors (as in IQSD) and would have no motivation to design a bypass piston aperture and monitor it with a flow meter to achieve ‘virtual’ position sensing, thus teaching away from the solution according to the present invention” is counselor’s opinion. Applicant has not provided any factual support or evidence for this statement, and thus it is attorney argument. Attorney arguments cannot take the place of evidence where the asserted relationship involves technical properties of materials. See MPEP 716.01(c)(II), 2145(I).
Moreover, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., achieving “virtual” position sensing) 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). It is also noted that the current specification does not explicitly disclose achieving virtual position sensing.
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