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Claims 36-40, 42-43, and 46 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected Group II (claim 46) and Species A2-A5 (claims 36-40 and 42-43), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 12/29/2025. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Doppenberg discloses providing a closed or substantially closed circumferential surface which is smooth enough to receive uncured, soft rubber without leaving imprints in or damaging said rubber so as to prevent direct contact between the turn-up arms and the rubber material of the tire components, which is the problem already solved in Continental by providing a bladder, and thus there would be no reason or motivation other than hindsight for one of ordinary skill in the art to add a further sleeve. This is not found persuasive because Doppenberg explicitly discloses an annular sleeve over turn-up pressing arms to form a closed circumferential surface of a building drum, and Applicant’s narrow interpretation of one possible function of the sleeve ignores that the sleeve bridges gaps between pressing arms, provides continuous circumferential support, and cooperates with moveable drum components during operation. Thereby, Doppenberg doesn’t teach a sleeve that is merely redundant of a bladder, but instead serves a structural and functional role that is distinct from the inflation or radial expansion of a bladder. Moreover, Continental discloses an inflatable bladder that performs a fundamentally different function from an annular sleeve positioned over pressing arms. Continental only discloses an inflatable bladder, and does not teach or suggest a sleeve disposed over pressing arms, a non-inflatable underlay forming a closed circumferential surface, or bridging circumferential gaps between adjacent pressing arms. Thus, Continental alone does not render the underlay unnecessary.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of legal phraseology (“said”). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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.
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) 24-29 and 44-45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Continental (FR 1485919, see machine translation) (of record) and Doppenberg et al. (US 20210379852).
Regarding claim 24, Continental discloses a tire building drum comprising: a drum body (Figs. 1-4: 1, 3, 9) that is rotatable about a drum axis; an inflatable turn-up bladder (Figs. 1-2: 10’) extending in a circumferential direction about the drum axis around the drum body for turning-up a tire component (Figs. 1-4: 14) supported on said turn-up bladder; a plurality of pressing arms (Figs. 1-4: 13) distributed in the circumferential direction around the drum body and located between the drum body and the turn-up bladder for pressing against the turn-up bladder during the turning-up of the tire component; and a plurality of hinges for hingably connecting the pressing arms to the drum body (Figs. 1-4: see where 13 is connected at hinge point to drum), wherein the plurality of hinges is located underneath the turn-up bladder when the turn-up bladder is uninflated (Figs. 1-2).
However, Continental does not expressly recite the tire building drum is provided with an underlay sliding over the pressing arms and extending between at least one hinge of the plurality of hinges and the turn-up bladder in a radial direction perpendicular to the drum axis.
Doppenberg discloses a tire building drum that is provided with an annular sleeve (i.e., underlay) (Figs. 1-4: 6) sliding over pressing arms of a turn-up system and a plurality of hinges (Figs. 1-4: 50) for hingably connecting the pressing arms to the drum body (Figs. 1-4), wherein the sleeve can be used to create a closed or substantially closed circumferential surface of the tire building drum ([0083]), and wherein the circumferential surface is smooth enough to received uncured, soft rubber without leaving imprints in or damaging said rubber ([00083]). In other words, the sleeve provides a smooth surface upon components to rest such that the pressing turn-up arms will not cause damage. While Doppenberg does not expressly recite that a bladder is pressed upon the sleeve, it does teach the sleeve bridges gaps between pressing arms, provides continuous circumferential support, and cooperates with moveable drum components during operation, and one of ordinary skill would recognize, or alternatively find obvious, that the same advantages of a smooth circumferential surface across turn-up arms of Doppenberg would also be applicable to and advantageous for the bladder of Continental. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Continental in order to provide an underlay sliding over the pressing arms so as to form a smooth, closed or substantially closed circumferential surface of the tire building drum that will prevent damaging rubber components in direct contact with the pressing turn-up arms, as taught by Doppenberg. Thereby, Continental in view of Doppenberg discloses an underlay sliding over the pressing arms and extending between at least one hinge of the plurality of hinges and the turn-up bladder in a radial direction perpendicular to the drum axis.
Regarding claims 25-26, Continental discloses the drum body comprises a bead-lock section (Figs. 1-4: 7). Doppenberg also discloses the drum body comprises a bead-lock section (Figs. 1-4: 3, 30) ([0078]), wherein the underlay (Figs. 1-4: 6) has a first end (Figs. 1-4: 61) that is fixed to the drum body at a bead-lock section side (Figs. 1-4) ([0084]). Accordingly, Continental in view of Doppenberg discloses that the underlay has a first end that is fixed to the drum body at a side of the plurality of hinges facing the bead-lock section, and thereby also discloses the first end is fixed to the drum body at a side of the plurality of hinges facing away from the plurality of pressing arms because of the manner in which the arms and hinges are positioned in Continental.
Regarding claim 27, Doppenberg further discloses the underlay (Figs. 1-4: 6) has a second end (Figs. 1-4: 62) opposite to the first end, wherein the second end rests on at least one pressing arm of the plurality of pressing arms (Figs. 1-4: 4) ([0084]).
Regarding claim 28, Doppenberg further discloses the second end (Figs. 1-4: 62) is free, unfixed or unrestrained to slide over said at least one pressing arm in an arm direction parallel to said at least one pressing arm ([0084]).
Regarding claim 29, Doppenberg further discloses the underlay (Figs. 1-4: 6) is at least partially transformable from a cylindrical configuration into a conical configuration (Figs. 1-4).
Regarding claim 44, Doppenberg further discloses the underlay (Figs. 1-4: 6) has a first end (Figs. 1-4: 61) that is fixed to the drum body by one or more fasteners (Figs. 1-4: 8) ([0085]).
Regarding claim 45, Doppenberg further discloses the one or more fasteners comprises a ridge/clamp fastener (Figs. 1-4: see where first end 61 sits in ridged/clamped part of 8).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 30-35 and 41 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: no prior art of record is considered to teach or suggest the combination of limitations of claims 24 and 30. In particular, the limitations “the underlay comprises an underlay body that is annular at a first end and split into a plurality of arm sections at a second end opposite to the first end.”
Claims 31-35 and 41 would be allowable by dependence on claim 30.
The closest prior art of record is considered to be Continental (FR 1485919, see machine translation) (of record) and Doppenberg et al. (US 20210379852).
Continental in view of Doppenberg discloses the claim limitations as discussed in the detailed rejection above. However, modified Continental does not teach or suggest that the underlay comprises an underlay body that is annular at a first end and split into a plurality of arm sections at a second end opposite to the first end. Instead, Doppenberg discloses that the underlay is one uniform piece so as to create a closed or substantially closed circumferential surface of the tire building drum between points P1 and P2 (Figs. 1-4) ([0083]). In other words, Doppenberg teaches away from splitting the underlay body into a plurality of arm sections at a second end opposite to the first end. No other prior art of record is considered to teach or suggest providing an underlay for pressing arms of a turn-up system having slits as claimed. 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 prior art of record contrary to its express disclosure, especially without any motivation or teaching to do so.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEDEF PAQUETTE (née AYALP) 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 (née WHATLEY) 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