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
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04-04-2025 is acknowledged. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 18-23 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.
Claim 18 is rejected because it recites limitations “at least one elongated element comprising at least one metallic wire twisted together with at least one textile yarn…wherein the at least one metallic wire extends along a helical path in the metallic reinforcing cord”. It is not clear that the materials are part of the invention or not since the preamble is all about an apparatus.
For the express purpose of an examination on the merits, these limitations are interpreted to be part of the invention.
Any remaining claims are rejected as depending from a rejected base claim.
In the art rejections below the claims have been treated as best understood by the examiner.
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) 18-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mullebrouck et al. (2011/0240626) in view of Hirosue (2008/0085648) and Nishio (2020/0173101).
Regarding claim 18, Mullebrock teaches manufacturing a structural component of a tyre for vehicle wheels (para 0020) from at least one elongated element, the at least one elongated element comprising at least one metallic wire twisted together with at least one textile yarn (fig 3a, para 0009),
removing the at least one textile yarn from the at least one elongated element to form a metallic reinforcing cord, wherein the at least one metallic wire extends along a helical path in the metallic reinforcing cord (para 0023 to 0024),
incorporate the metallic reinforcing cord in a piece of elastomeric material to make the structural component of the tyre (i.e. coating, para 0015 or i.e. reinforce, para 0021).
Mullebrock does not teach an apparatus having a remove device to remove the cord and a rubberizing machine to incorporate the cord in elastomer. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to understand there must be a device or an apparatus in order to produce the coreless metal yarn.
Hirosue teaches a remove device (i.e. hot bath) to remove the cord (para 0018 and 0039).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to modify the device of Mullebrock by add a hot bath or Hirosue as dissolving an PVA core by hot bath is well-known in the art for a cost effective manufacture.
While the combined apparatus Mullebrock-Hirosue teaches all of the limitation, but a rubberizing machine to incorporate the cord in elastomer. Nishio teaches an apparatus having a rubberizing machine (i.e. coating unit) to incorporate the cord in elastomer (para 0023).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to add a rubberizing machine of Nishio into Mullebrock machine in order to reinforce and stably coat the outer surface of the product.
Regarding claim 19, the combined Mullebrock-Hirosue-Nishio further teaches upstream of the removal device with respect to a feeding direction (A) of the at least one elongated element, at least one service reel configured to collect the at least one elongated element (Nishito, fig 1, member 5).
Regarding claim 20, the combined Mullebrock-Hirosue-Nishio does not clearly teach upstream of the removal device with respect to the feeding direction (A), a twisting device configured to twist together the at least one metallic wire and the at least one textile yarn to obtain the at least one elongated element. However, Mullebrock states that the cored is twisted (twisted cord, para 0009) before removing the core. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to understand the there must be a twisting device upstream of the removing device.
Regarding claim 21, the combined Mullebrock-Hirosue-Nishio further teaches downstream of the removal device with respect to the feeding direction (A), a collecting reel configured to collect the metallic reinforcing cord (Nishito, fig 1, member 10).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 22-23 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: none of the prior art in record teaching a machine for manufacturing a structural component of a tyre for vehicle wheels from at least one elongated element, the at least one elongated element comprising at least one metallic wire twisted together with at least one textile yarn comprising a hot jet feeding device for removing one textile yarn in combination of a rubberizing machine configured to incorporate the metallic reinforcing cord in a piece of elastomeric material to make the structural component of the tyre.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon, is listed on the attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAO-THIEU L NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-0476. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-3pm.
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, KHOA D. HUYNH can be reached at (571)272-4888. 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.
BAO-THIEU L. NGUYEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3732
/BAO-THIEU L NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732