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Claims 5, 17, 22, and 33-34 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected Groups II-III and Species, A1, B1, C2, D2, E2, and F2, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 03/20/2026. The traversal is on the ground(s) that: “[a] requirement for restriction has nothing to do with unpatentability of claims for any of the inventions being claimed. It is argued that a rejection of any claim cannot be based on unpatentability implied to such a claim due to unpatentability of another claim. The sole basis for unpatentability resides in the statutes. The statutes do not authorize unpatentability to be implied from other claims of the same application. Nothing in the statutes permits unpatentability of claims to be based on unpatentability being implied from unpatentable other claims. A restriction requirement has nothing to do with patentability or unpatentability;” ‘’the core of the invention in the subject application is the management of the continuous strip during a line stoppage or ‘interruption mode’ to prevent material deformation. The claimed solution is a repeated back-and-forth movement specifically for this purpose. In contrast, the movement described in Hayashi is an integral part of its normal cutting cycle. It is not a procedure for handling a line stoppage. The cited paragraphs of Hayashi clearly state that the purpose of the backward-then-forward movement is to ensure an accurate cut by unsticking the material from the cutter before measurement … This process in Hayashi is part of the ‘tire manufacturing mode’ (step a/b) of claim 1), where material is actively being processed and cut to length. It is not an "interruption mode" (step c) where the line is down. Hayashi does not disclose switching to a separate mode in response to a line stoppage. Moreover, claim 1 of the subject application requires "repeatedly" moving the continuous strip back-and-forth. This is depicted as a continuous or periodic rocking motion (M) in FIG. 3 and FIG. 4 of the subject application. Hayashi does not teach or suggest such a repeated movement. It describes a single, discrete sequence for each cut;” and “there is nothing in 35 USC§ 121 that gives the Patent Office the authority to require restriction between different statutory classes of claims unless the claims cover ‘independent and distinct inventions.’ It is respectfully submitted that the statutory requirements, not having been met here vis-a-vis Groups I, II and III respectively.” This is not found persuasive because as discussed in the previous Restriction Requirement, Groups I-III lack unity of invention because the shared technical features of the groups do not make a contribution over the prior art of record, as required for Restriction for Unity of Invention. Thereby, the Restriction is directed to the shared technical feature and whether it makes a contribution over the prior art, and not to the patentability of the claims. Moreover, the examiner notes that the reference cited and discussed in the 02/04/2026 Restriction Requirement was relied upon to show how the shared technical features of Groups I-III were not special technical features as they did not make a contribution over the prior art of record cited. Thus, while the reference also disclosed the claimed limitations, and thereby touched on the unpatentability of the claims, the main discussion in the Restriction Requirement of the reference in relation to the claims was to illustrate that the special technical features did not make a contribution over the prior art. Additionally, the argument between different statutory classes of claims needing to be “independent and distinct inventions” is not found persuasive because such a matter is not germane to restriction under Unity of Invention. As to the Hayashi reference, this is not found persuasive because the technical features are known in the prior art as evidenced by the prior art rejection below.
However, upon further consideration, the election requirement between Species B1-B2, C1-C2, and F1-F2 has been withdrawn.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “conveying unit for conveying the continuous strip” in claim 1 and “tensioning device for tensioning the continuous strip” in claim 23.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Regarding “conveying unit for conveying the continuous strip”, Applicant’s specification discloses the structure of the conveying unit (Figs. 1-3: 1, 2) to be: “selected from a group comprising, but not limited to: a roller conveyor, a belt conveyor, a cooling drum and a festooner.” (Page 11).
Regarding “tensioning device for tensioning the continuous strip”, Applicant’s specification discloses the structure of the tensioning device (Figs. 1-3: 22) to be: “the tensioning device 22 comprises a tension roller 23 and a tension arm 24 for carrying the tension roller 23 relative to a hinge point. The tension roller 23 is allowed to passively rest on the continuous strip 9 in the second loop 32 directly upstream of the cooling drum 20 and the tension arm 24 passively adapts its orientation in accordance with the rest position of the tension roller 23 on the continuous strip 9 between a high tension state, as shown in figure 1 and a low tension state, as shown in figure 2. The reaction force of the continuous strip 9 supporting the weight of the tension roller 23, depending on the orientation of the tension arm 24 relative to the hinge point, can be resolved into components, including a tension component in the direction of the continuous strip 9 that is automatically varied depending on the orientation of the tension arm 24 about the hinge point. It will be appreciated that different tensioning devices can be used to generate or control tension in the continuous strip 9, such as a conventional dancer roller or the like.” (Pages 12-13).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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) 1-2, 7, 20, 25-26, 28-29, and 31-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Schouten et al. (US 20190270266) (of record).
Regarding claim 1, Schouten discloses a method for manufacturing a continuous strip in a tire manufacturing line, wherein the tire manufacturing line comprises at least one conveying unit (Figs. 1-4: 30, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46) for conveying the continuous strip (Figs. 1-4: 9) along a conveyance path through the tire manufacturing line, wherein the method comprises the steps of: a) operating the tire manufacturing line in a tire manufacturing mode (Figs. 1-4) ([0057]); b) controlling the at least one conveying unit to convey the continuous strip in a conveyance direction along the conveyance path in the tire manufacturing mode (Figs. 1-4) ([0057]); c) switching over at least a part of the tire manufacturing line, including the at least one conveying unit, from the tire manufacturing mode to an interruption mode ([0026], [0058]: wherein the strip is held stationary, i.e., interruption mode); and d) controlling the at least one conveying unit in the interruption mode to repeatedly move the continuous strip back-and-forth in the conveyance direction and a retraction direction opposite to the conveyance direction along the conveyance path ([0026], [0058]: wherein the strip is held stationary, i.e., interruption mode, and the dancer roller 43 is moved in direction D for buffering the strip, i.e., moving back-and-forth).
Regarding claim 2, Schouten further discloses the at least one conveying unit, in step c), is controlled to stop moving the continuous strip along the conveyance path ([0026], [0058]: wherein the strip is held stationary, i.e., interruption mode).
Regarding claim 7, Schouten further discloses the continuous strip is moved back-and-forth in step d) over a first distance in the conveyance direction and a second distance in the retraction direction ([0026], [0058]: wherein any amount of movement in either direction, as disclosed, will necessarily result in a first distance and a second distance).
Regarding claim 20, Schouten further discloses the at least one conveying unit comprises a first conveying unit (Figs. 1-4: 30, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, or 45) and a second conveying unit (Figs. 1-4: 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, or 46) located downstream of the first conveying unit along the conveyance path.
Regarding claim 25, Schouten further discloses the at least one conveying unit comprises conveyor rollers (Figs. 1-4: 30, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46).
Regarding claim 26, Schouten further discloses the tire manufacturing line comprises an extruder (Fig. 10: 102) for extruding the continuous strip, wherein the at least one conveying unit comprises a shrink conveyor (Figs. 1-4, 10: 30) for receiving the continuous strip (Figs. 1-4, 10: 9) from said extruder (Fig. 10: 102) ([0054]-[0056], [0072], [0074]).
Regarding claim 28, Schouten further discloses the at least one conveying unit comprises a festooner (Fig. 10: 101) ([0030], [0072]).
Regarding claim 29, Schouten further discloses the tire manufacturing line comprises at least one downstream station (Figs. 1-4: C) downstream of the at least one conveying unit, wherein the at least one downstream station is controlled to hold the continuous strip stationary in the conveying direction along the conveyance path in the interruption mode ([0026]: wherein the strip is held stationary, i.e., interruption mode, at the cutting station C).
Regarding claims 31-32, Schouten further discloses the continuous strip is a cordless strip or a cord-reinforced strip ([0014]: wherein the strip may be one with or without cords).
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) 8-11 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schouten et al. (US 20190270266) (of record) as applied to claim 1 above, and optionally further in view of Schouten et al. (ES 2837397, see machine translation) (“Schouten II”).
Regarding claim 8, Schouten discloses that the strip is repeatedly moved back-and-forth, and the strip is moved back-and-forth over the first distance in the conveyance direction and the second distance in the retraction direction. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would further recognize, or alternatively find obvious, that the back-and-forth movement over the second distance may be done in a limited number of ways: (1) equal to the first distance for each repetition of the back-and-forth movement of the continuous strip; or (2) varied from the first distance for each repetition of the back-and-forth movement of the continuous strip. 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).
Optionally, Schouten discloses that the strip is repeatedly moved back-and-forth for buffering or dancing, and while Schouten discloses the movement as “dancing” ([0026], [0058]), another publication of the same invention disclosed by Schouten II discloses that the movement is “oscillating” ([0031], [0065]). In other words, the back-and-forth movement is recognized as oscillating. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would further recognize, or alternatively find obvious, that the back-and-forth movement over the second distance may be done in a limited number of ways: (1) equal to the first distance for each repetition of the back-and-forth movement of the continuous strip; or (2) varied from the first distance for each repetition of the back-and-forth movement of the continuous strip. 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).
Regarding claims 9-11, Schouten discloses that the strip is repeatedly moved back-and-forth, and the strip is moved back-and-forth over the first distance in the conveyance direction. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would further recognize, or alternatively find obvious, that the back-and-forth movement over the first distance may be done in a limited number of ways: (1) by keeping the first distance constant between repetitions of the back-and-forth movement of the continuous strip; or (2) by varying the first distance between repetitions of the back-and-forth movement of the continuous strip. 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).
Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would further recognize, or alternatively find obvious, that, if varied, the back-and-forth movement over the first distance may be done in a limited number of ways: (1) by being incrementally varied between repetitions of the back-and-forth movement of the continuous strip; or (2) by being constantly or uniformly varied between repetitions of the back-and-forth movement of the continuous strip. 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).
Optionally, Schouten discloses that the strip is repeatedly moved back-and-forth for buffering or dancing, and while Schouten discloses the movement as “dancing” ([0026], [0058]), another publication of the same invention disclosed by Schouten II discloses that the movement is “oscillating” ([0031], [0065]). In other words, the back-and-forth movement is recognized as oscillating. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would further recognize, or alternatively find obvious, that the back-and-forth movement over the first distance may be done in a limited number of ways: (1) by keeping the first distance constant between repetitions of the back-and-forth movement of the continuous strip; or (2) by varying the first distance between repetitions of the back-and-forth movement of the continuous strip. 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).
Regarding claims 13-14, Schouten discloses that the strip is repeatedly moved back-and-forth for buffering or dancing. Optionally, while Schouten discloses the movement as “dancing” ([0026], [0058]), another publication of the same invention disclosed by Schouten II discloses that the movement is “oscillating” ([0031], [0065]). In other words, the back-and-forth movement is recognized as oscillating. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would further recognize, or alternatively find obvious, that the buffering/dancing/oscillating/back-and-forth movement may be done in a limited number of ways: (1) periodic motion; or (2) non-periodic motion. 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).
Claim(s) 1-2, 7-14, 16, 18, 20, 25, 29, and 31-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi et al. (JP 06226880, see machine translation) (of record) and optionally Schouten et al. (US 20190270266) (of record) and/or Schouten et al. (ES 2837397, see machine translation) (“Schouten II”).
Regarding claim 1, Hayashi discloses a method for manufacturing a continuous strip in a tire manufacturing line, wherein the tire manufacturing line comprises at least one conveying unit for conveying the continuous strip (Fig. 1: 10, 11, 12) along a conveyance path through the tire manufacturing line (Fig. 1), wherein the method comprises the steps of: a) operating the tire manufacturing line in a tire manufacturing mode ([0005]-[0006], [0008], [0013]-[0014], [0019]-[0020], [0026]); b) controlling the at least one conveying unit to convey the continuous strip in a conveyance direction along the conveyance path in the tire manufacturing mode; c) switching over at least a part of the tire manufacturing line, including the at least one conveying unit, from the tire manufacturing mode to an interruption mode ([0008]-[0009], [0020]-[0021], [0026]); and d) controlling the at least one conveying unit in the interruption mode to move the continuous strip back-and-forth in the conveyance direction and a retraction direction opposite to the conveyance direction along the conveyance path ([0005], [0008], [0026]).
Hayashi further discloses that moving the strip back-and-forth at the time of cutting prevents the strip tip from shifting or wrinkling, and even if there is slippage the length can be measured accurately and a ply can be obtained without any variation ([0008]-[0009]). In other words, moving the strip back-and-forth allows for accurate measuring of the strip, as well as the prevention of shifting and wrinkles. While Hayashi does not expressly recite that the back-and-forth movement is repeated, case law holds that mere reversal of movements and rearrangement of parts are obvious modifications. See MPEP 2144.04. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to repeatedly move the continuous strip back-and-forth in the conveyance direction and a retraction direction opposite to the conveyance direction along the conveyance path as needed. Repeating such movement constitutes no more than a routine optimization of a known technique to achieve its intended purpose. Moreover, repeating a known step to enhance its intended effect has been recognized as an obvious matter of design choice where no new or unexpected result is produced. Therefore modifying Hayashi to perform repeated back-and-forth movement would have yield predictable results and is considered obvious.
Optionally, Schouten also discloses a method for manufacturing a continuous strip in a tire manufacturing line (see rejection above), wherein the strip is held stationary at a cutting station (i.e., interruption mode) so that the strip may be moved back-and-forth for buffering ([0026], [0058]). In other words, it is known in the tire strip conveyance art to convey a strip to a cutting station, as in Hayashi, and stop to hold the strip stationary (i.e., interruption mode), as in Hayashi, and buffer (i.e., repeatedly move back-and-forth) the strip while in the interruption mode. Moreover, the method of Schouten has the advantage of positioning the strip accurately with respect to the output member and cutting device ([0033]-[0036]). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to further modify the back-and-forth movement of Hayashi to be repeated as is generally known in the similar art for the advantages discussed above, as taught by Schouten.
Additionally or alternatively, Schouten II is another publication of the same invention disclosed by Schouten, wherein the repeated buffering back-and-forth movement is recognized as oscillating so as to separate the incoming continuous strip from the stationary front end within the feed assembly (i.e., manufacturing line) ([0031], [0065]). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to further modify the back-and-forth movement of Hayashi to be repeated as is generally known in the similar art for the advantages discussed above, as taught by Schouten II.
Regarding claim 2, Hayashi further discloses the at least one conveying unit, in step c), is controlled to stop moving the continuous strip along the conveyance path ([0009], [0016], [0021]).
Additionally, Schouten further discloses the at least one conveying unit, in step c), is controlled to stop moving the continuous strip along the conveyance path ([0026], [0058]: wherein the strip is held stationary, i.e., interruption mode).
Regarding claim 7, Hayashi further discloses the continuous strip is moved back-and-forth in step d) over a first distance in the conveyance direction and a second distance in the retraction direction ([0008]-[0009], [0020]-[0021], [0026]).
Additionally, Schouten further discloses the continuous strip is moved back-and-forth in step d) over a first distance in the conveyance direction and a second distance in the retraction direction ([0026], [0058]: wherein any amount of movement in either direction, as disclosed, will necessarily result in a first distance and a second distance).
Regarding claim 8, Hayashi discloses that the strip is repeatedly moved back-and-forth, and the strip is moved back-and-forth over the first distance in the conveyance direction and the second distance in the retraction direction. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would further recognize, or alternatively find obvious, that the back-and-forth movement over the second distance may be done in a limited number of ways: (1) equal to the first distance for each repetition of the back-and-forth movement of the continuous strip; or (2) varied from the first distance for each repetition of the back-and-forth movement of the continuous strip. 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).
Regarding claims 9-11, Hayashi discloses that the strip is repeatedly moved back-and-forth, and the strip is moved back-and-forth over the first distance in the conveyance direction. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would further recognize, or alternatively find obvious, that the back-and-forth movement over the first distance may be done in a limited number of ways: (1) by keeping the first distance constant between repetitions of the back-and-forth movement of the continuous strip; or (2) by varying the first distance between repetitions of the back-and-forth movement of the continuous strip. 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).
Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would further recognize, or alternatively find obvious, that, if varied, the back-and-forth movement over the first distance may be done in a limited number of ways: (1) by being incrementally varied between repetitions of the back-and-forth movement of the continuous strip; or (2) by being constantly or uniformly varied between repetitions of the back-and-forth movement of the continuous strip. 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).
Regarding claim 12, Hayashi further discloses that the first distance is moved back a predetermined distance in order to accurately measure the strip without causing wrinkles, shifting, or variations ([0005], [0008], [0019], [0025]-[0026]). In other words, the first distance is considered to be a result-effective variable that will affect the accuracy and uniformity of the strip conveyance. Accordingly, it is considered within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to rely on routine experimentation to arrive at suitable optimum operating parameters for the first distance. Absent unexpected results, case law holds that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 (II)(B). In the present invention one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to optimize the first distance as needed and desired in order to improve the accuracy and uniformity of the strip conveyance.
Moreover, although Hayashi discloses an example wherein the first distance is 30 mm (i.e., 3 cm) ([0019]), this is merely a preferable example and does not explicitly limit the disclosure to such a limitation. Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or non-preferred embodiments. It is also well settled that an applied reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one of the ordinary skill in the art, including not only preferred embodiments, but less preferred and even non-preferred. See MPEP 2123.
Regarding claims 13-14, Hayashi discloses that the strip is repeatedly moved back-and-forth Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would further recognize, or alternatively find obvious, that the buffering/dancing/oscillating/back-and-forth movement may be done in a limited number of ways: (1) periodic motion; or (2) non-periodic motion. 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).
Regarding claim 16, Hayashi further discloses the back-and-forth movement of the continuous strip in step d) is controlled automatically ([0005], [0008], [0019], [0026]: wherein the distance moved is predetermined in response to a certain measurement/trigger without any human intervention, i.e., automatic).
Regarding claim 18, Hayashi further discloses the tire manufacturing line is switched over from the tire manufacturing mode to the interruption mode in response to measurements detected by measuring rollers (i.e., an interruption signal) ([0015], [0019]-[0020]).
Regarding claim 20, Hayashi further discloses the at least one conveying unit comprises a first conveying unit (Fig. 1: 3A) and a second conveying unit (Fig. 1: 3B) located downstream of the first conveying unit along the conveyance path.
Regarding claim 25, Hayashi further discloses the at least one conveying unit comprises conveyor rollers (Fig. 1).
Optionally, Schouten further discloses the at least one conveying unit comprises conveyor rollers (Figs. 1-4: 30, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46).
Regarding claim 29, Hayashi further discloses the tire manufacturing line comprises at least one downstream station (Fig. 1: 6) downstream of the at least one conveying unit (Fig. 1: 3A, 3B), wherein the at least one downstream station is controlled to hold the continuous strip stationary in the conveying direction along the conveyance path in the interruption mode ([0021]).
Optionally, Schouten further discloses the tire manufacturing line comprises at least one downstream station (Figs. 1-4: C) downstream of the at least one conveying unit, wherein the at least one downstream station is controlled to hold the continuous strip stationary in the conveying direction along the conveyance path in the interruption mode ([0026]: wherein the strip is held stationary, i.e., interruption mode, at the cutting station C).
Regarding claims 31-32, Hayashi further discloses the strip is a ply ([0008]). While Hayashi does not expressly recite if the ply does or does not comprise cord reinforcements, one of ordinary skill in the art would further recognize, or alternatively find obvious, that the ply may be provided in a limited number of ways: (1) as a cordless strip; or (2) as a cord-reinforced strip. 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).
Optionally, Schouten further discloses the continuous strip is a cordless strip or a cord-reinforced strip ([0014]: wherein the strip may be one with or without cords).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4, 6, 15, 19, 21, 23-24, 27, and 30 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 3, no prior art of record is considered to teach or suggest the combination of limitations of claims 1-3. In particular, the limitation “step d) is delayed from step c) with a time delay.”
Claim 4 would be allowable by dependence on claim 3.
Regarding claim 6, no prior art of record is considered to teach or suggest the combination of limitations of claims 1 and 6. In particular, the limitations “the continuous strip, after each repetition of the back-and-forth movement in step d) returns to a different position along the conveyance path.”
Regarding claim 15, no prior art of record is considered to teach or suggest the combination of limitations of claims 1 and 15. In particular, the limitations “the continuous strip, in the tire manufacturing mode, is moved in the conveyance direction at a production speed, wherein the continuous strip, in the interruption mode, is moved back-and-forth in step d) at an interruption speed that is less than eighty percent of the production speed.”
Regarding claim 19, no prior art of record is considered to teach or suggest the combination of limitations of claims 1 and 18-19. In particular, the limitations “the interruption signal is triggered by one of an automatically detected error in the tire manufacturing line or a user input at a human machine interface.”
Regarding claim 21, no prior art of record is considered to teach or suggest the combination of limitations of claims 1 and 20-21. In particular, the limitations “the first conveying unit and the second conveying unit are synchronously controlled to move the continuous strip back-and-forth in step d).”
Regarding claim 23, no prior art of record is considered to teach or suggest the combination of limitations of claims 1, 20, and 23. In particular, the limitations “the tire manufacturing line further comprises a tensioning device for tensioning the continuous strip between the first conveying unit and the second conveying unit, wherein the method further comprises the step of: e) controlling the first conveying unit and the second conveying unit prior to or during step d) to generate excess length in the continuous strip at the tensioning device.”
Regarding claim 24, no prior art of record is considered to teach or suggest the combination of limitations of claims 1 and 24. In particular, the limitations “the tire manufacturing line further comprises a tensioning device that is movable between a low tension state and a high tension state for variably tensioning the continuous strip, wherein the method further comprises the step of: e) controlling the tensioning device to move from the high tension state towards or into the low tension state.”
Regarding claim 27, no prior art of record is considered to teach or suggest the combination of limitations of claims 1 and 27. In particular, the limitation “the at least one conveying unit comprises a cooling drum.”
Regarding claim 30, no prior art of record is considered to teach or suggest the combination of limitations of claims 1 and 29-30. In particular, the limitation “the at least one downstream station comprises a festooner.”
The closest prior art of record is considered to be Hayashi et al. (JP 06226880, see machine translation) (of record), Schouten et al. (US 20190270266) (of record), Schouten et al. (ES 2837397, see machine translation) (“Schouten II”).
Hayashi and Schouten disclose the claim limitations as discussed in the detailed rejection above. However, neither Hayashi nor Schouten, or any other prior art of record, discloses: step d) is delayed from step c) with a time delay; the continuous strip, after each repetition of the back-and-forth movement in step d) returns to a different position along the conveyance path; the continuous strip, in the tire manufacturing mode, is moved in the conveyance direction at a production speed, wherein the continuous strip, in the interruption mode, is moved back-and-forth in step d) at an interruption speed that is less than eighty percent of the production speed; the interruption signal is triggered by one of an automatically detected error in the tire manufacturing line or a user input at a human machine interface; the first conveying unit and the second conveying unit are synchronously controlled to move the continuous strip back-and-forth in step d); the tire manufacturing line further comprises a tensioning device for tensioning the continuous strip between the first conveying unit and the second conveying unit, wherein the method further comprises the step of: e) controlling the first conveying unit and the second conveying unit prior to or during step d) to generate excess length in the continuous strip at the tensioning device; the tire manufacturing line further comprises a tensioning device that is movable between a low tension state and a high tension state for variably tensioning the continuous strip, wherein the method further comprises the step of: e) controlling the tensioning device to move from the high tension state towards or into the low tension state; the at least one conveying unit comprises a cooling drum; or the at least one downstream station comprises a festooner. Furthermore, Hayashi discloses: that the “signal” is based upon a predetermined value, and not triggered by one of an automatically detected error in the tire manufacturing line or a user input at a human machine interface; that the continuous strip moves back-and-forth based upon moving the first conveying unit, and not the first conveying unit and the second conveying unit being synchronously controlled to move the continuous strip back-and-forth in step d); and that a constant tension is applied to the continuous strip and does not disclose that there is excess length in the continuous strip at a tensioning device. 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 their express disclosures with the specifically claimed method steps and structures, especially without a 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
Prosecution Insights