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 .
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.
Claims 1,2,4,5,9,10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koga (US 5,004,516).
Referring to claims 1,2,4,5,9 and 10. Koga discloses a device for adhering an adhesive rubber tape (corresponding to the "rubber sheet") to both ends of a steel cord fabric, the device comprising:
a device (corresponding to the "conveyance part") for conveying the steel cord fabric; an adhesive rubber tape supply device (corresponding to the "rubber sheet supply part"); a pressing roller that has a device for folding back and adhering adhesive rubber tape around both ends of the steel cord fabric, and by using said folding-back-and-adhering device, adheres half of the width direction of the adhesive rubber tape to both ends of an upper surface of the steel cord fabric; an inclined roller (corresponding to the "folding-back roller") for folding back a non-adhered section of the adhesive rubber tape to both ends of the steel cord fabric; and a tapered roller (corresponding to the "auxiliary roller") for adhering the folded-back adhesive tape to the steel cord fabric, wherein the adhesive rubber tape is adhered to both ends of the formed steel cord fabric by using an elastic body (corresponding to the "elastic member") that is capable of deforming the surface of the inclined roller in accordance with the end surface shape of the steel fabric.
Kogo discloses a steel belt is a material that is well known as a reinforcing material for a tire comprising a steel cord fabric in which an adhesive rubber tape is adhered to both ends of the steel cord fabric.
Koga does not specifically disclose adhering an adhesive rubber tape to a steel belt.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Koga to include a steel belt as opposed to a steel cord fabric because such a modification is well within the skill of the artisan.
Referring to claim 12. Koga discloses a device for adhering an adhesive rubber tape (corresponding to the "rubber sheet") to both ends of a steel cord fabric, the device comprising:
wherein the folding-back roller (111; Figure 2) is disposed on the upstream side where the main belt material is brought into the rubber sheet folding-back unit, and the belt manufacturing apparatus further comprises an auxiliary roller (rollers, 109 and 110) downstream of the folding-back roller (111; Figure 2) that is configured to promote folding-back of the rubber sheet to the other side (see Figure 3-5).
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.
Claims 3,6 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koga (US 5,004,516) in view of Onimatsu (WO 2017/195533 A1).
Referring to claims 3 and 11. Koga does no disclose wherein the elastic member is a spring member.
Onimatsu disclose a pressing roller for pressing the surface of a tire member made of an unvulcanized rubber member, the pressing roller comprising a support shaft and a plurality of elastically deformable roller pieces that are supported by the support shaft and are aligned in the axial direction of the support shaft, wherein:
each roller piece is provided with a pressing surface for contacting the surface of the tire member; the roller pieces are supported by the support shaft so as to be capable of rotating independently of each other; and
each of the roller pieces include an inner ring portion on the support shaft side, an outer ring portion on the side in contact with the tire member, and a spiral-shaped connecting portion that extends in a helical shape between the inner ring portion and the outer ring portion to elastically connect the outer ring portion and the outer ring portion.
Additionally, Onimatsu discloses the spring rate in the circumferential direction of the roller piece, and in light thereof, each roller piece corresponds to the "spring member". Onimatsu indicates that because each roller piece 7 can be elastically deformed independently, a reaction force can be effectively generated in a tire member 2 while following the unevenness of the tire member 2.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Koga’s pressing roller to include an inclined roller formed from the elastic body capable of deforming in accordance with the end surface shape of the steel fabric because an elastic member as a spring member would slight variations in the shape of the steel fabric as it is moved therebetween.
Referring to claims 6. Onimatsu disclose a pressing roller for pressing the surface of a tire member made of an unvulcanized rubber member,
wherein a bearing 12 (corresponding to the "bearing") is disposed between an inner peripheral surface of an inner ring portion 16 of each roller piece 7 and an outer peripheral surface of a support shaft 6.
Claims 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koga (US 5,004,516) in view of Onimatsu (WO 2017/195533 A1) and further in view of Uchida (JP 2017/132121 A1).
Referring to claims 7. Koga in view of Onimatsu do not disclose wherein the roller surface of the auxiliary roller is coated with an anti-adhesion coating by filling recesses in irregularities of the roller surface with a resin.
Uchida discloses a method for manufacturing a ply by enhancing the pressure-bonding effect, such that the surface of a pressing roll is grooved, and preventing a ply W1 from adhering to a pressing roll 2B during pressing, it is preferable that a coating treatment (corresponding to the "anti-adhesion coating") for preventing adhesion is applied to the surface of the pressing roll 2B, wherein the groove corresponds to the "recess section".
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Koga in view of Onimatsu to have increased the pressure-bonding effect of the adhesive rubber tape with respect to the steel cord fabric and preventing the adhesive rubber tape from adhering to the inclined roller, and applying groove processing to the surface of the inclined roller as taught by Uchida because applying a coating treatment would prevent adhesion of the rollers to rubber tape.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAKESH KUMAR whose telephone number is (571)272-8314. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH from 8AM-6:30PM 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, Gene Crawford can be reached at (571) 272-6911. 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.
/RAKESH KUMAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3651
Prosecution Insights