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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/16/2025 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 23 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “wherein length” in line 14 should be written as –wherein a length—for grammatical clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-11, 13, and 21-26 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.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “wherein a square sheet of the elastomeric or thermoplastic material comprises sides each having a length of 120 mm and a thickness equal to a thickness of the flexible support, such that the square sheet conforms, at room temperature, to a cylindrical mandrel with a radius of 200 mm without breaking or exhibiting permanent deformation” in lines 8-12 is unclear. It is unclear how this square sheet is a component of the claimed tire. Is the at least one monitoring device made on the flexible support having a square shape of 120 mm by 120 mm (i.e., is the flexible support cut or formed to be a square shape having sides of length 120 mm each)? Is the square sheet an entirely different component from the flexible support but having the same material and thickness as the flexible support? Does the flexible support comprise the square sheet? Based upon Applicant’s specification, it appears the flexible support is used to form said square sheet (Pages 8-9: "flexible support" generally means a support made of a material … which, if used for the construction of a square-shaped sheet having a side significantly greater than the circumferential extension of the area of entry or exit from the footprint area of a tyre (for example a slab with a surface area of 120 mm x 120 mm) and with a thickness equal to the support, allows such a sheet to conform - at room temperature - to a cylindrical surface with a radius smaller than the normal radius of curvature of a tyre inflated to its nominal pressure … without breaking or undergoing permanent deformation) (Fig. 4 also appears to show the flexible support having a square shape). For the purposes of examination, the examiner assumes the flexible support forms the square sheet such that it is the same material and thickness, and thereby the at least one monitoring device is made on the square flexible support having sides each with a length of 120 mm.
Claims 2-3, 5-11, 13, 21-22, 24, and 26 are indefinite by dependence on claim 1.
Regarding claim 23, the phrase “wherein a square sheet of the elastomeric or thermoplastic material comprises sides each having a length of 120 mm and a thickness equal to a thickness of the flexible support, such that the square sheet conforms, at room temperature, to a cylindrical mandrel with a radius of 200 mm without breaking or exhibiting permanent deformation” in lines 9-13 is unclear. It is unclear how this square sheet is a component of the claimed tire. Is the at least one monitoring device made on the flexible support having a square shape of 120 mm by 120 mm (i.e., is the flexible support cut or formed to be a square shape having sides of length 120 mm each)? Is the square sheet an entirely different component from the flexible support but having the same material and thickness as the flexible support? Does the flexible support comprise the square sheet? Based upon Applicant’s specification, it appears the flexible support is used to form said square sheet (Pages 8-9: "flexible support" generally means a support made of a material … which, if used for the construction of a square-shaped sheet having a side significantly greater than the circumferential extension of the area of entry or exit from the footprint area of a tyre (for example a slab with a surface area of 120 mm x 120 mm) and with a thickness equal to the support, allows such a sheet to conform - at room temperature - to a cylindrical surface with a radius smaller than the normal radius of curvature of a tyre inflated to its nominal pressure … without breaking or undergoing permanent deformation) (Fig. 4 also appears to show the flexible support having a square shape). For the purposes of examination, the examiner assumes the flexible support forms the square sheet such that it is the same material and thickness, and thereby the at least one monitoring device is made on the square flexible support having sides each with a length of 120 mm.
Claim 25 is indefinite by dependence on claim 23.
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 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) 1-3, 5-6, 8-11, 13, 21, and 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conwell et al. (US 20060290505) (of record), Baeuning et al. (DE 102013106015, see machine translation) (of record), Borgna et al. (US 20190244074) (of record), and optionally Wu (Lap shear test for PSA, Paul Wu’s Blog, pp. 1-2, Sept. 2019) (of record).
Regarding claims 1, 9, 21, and 23, Conwell discloses a tyre having a surface (Fig. 1: 30) and at least one monitoring device (Fig. 1: 18, 20) adhering to the surface, wherein the at least one monitoring device is made on a flexible support (Fig. 1: 14, 24) ([0023], [0037], [0040], [0045]), and wherein the adhesion of the flexible support (Fig. 1: 14, 24) to the surface (Fig. 1: 30) is achieved through a decoupling element (Fig. 1: 12) interposed between the at least one monitoring device (Fig. 1: 18, 20) and the surface of the tyre (Fig. 1: 30) ([0036], [0038]); wherein the flexible support is a film comprising an elastomeric or thermoplastic material such as polyester ([0023], [0037], [0040], [0045]), wherein the decoupling element comprises a double-sided adhesive tape comprising a component of at least one acrylic adhesive layer ([0040]).
Conwell further discloses the label (Fig. 1: 10) may be of a variety of shapes and sizes and is not limited in size ([0048]). For example, it may be 4 inch by 2 inch (i.e., 101.6 inch by 50.8 mm) (Fig. 3) ([0048]). Case law holds that changes in shape are matters of design choice that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed invention is significant. See MPEP 2144.04. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to provide the flexible support with a square shape rather than a rectangular shape, especially with Conwell’s disclosure that the shape and size is not limited and may be varied. Moreover, 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. Conwell’s example of a sample label size and express disclosure that the size is not limited suggest the size and shape of the support may be varied and changed. It is also 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 length(s) of the sides of the flexible support. 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 length(s) of the sides of the flexible support as suggested by Conwell. Furthermore, because the flexible support may form the square sheet, both the square sheet and flexible support necessarily have the same thickness.
Conwell further discloses the at least one monitoring device comprises a radio transceiver (i.e., at least one electronic unit), a power source (i.e., at least one power supply device), and preferably a MSOP integrated circuit chip (i.e., an electrical connection circuit) ([0021], [0023], [0035], [0037], [0040]). Because Conwell discloses that the radio transceiver, power source, and integrated circuit are all part of the RFID tag ([0021], [0035]), and because the RFID tag is fixed on the flexible support as discussed above, each component is also fixed on the flexible support.
However, Conwell does not expressly recite a length and/or a width of the decoupling element respectively exceeds a length and/or a width of the flexible support by a certain amount.
Baeuning discloses a tire comprising a sound-absorbing foam ring (Fig. 1: 7), wherein a layer of adhesive (Fig. 1: 5) is provided between the foam ring and the tire inner surface, and wherein it is advantageous for the width of the adhesive exceed the width of the foam ring (i.e., flexible support) by 2 mm to 8 mm so as to ensure the sealing effect with production tolerances ([0009], [0012]), which overlaps with the claimed ranges of at least 0.5 mm, at least 2 mm, and between 3 and 5 mm. Case law holds that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05. Applicant's original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the amount the width of the adhesive layer exceeds the width of the flexible support. Although Baeuning discloses a foam ring rather than a RFID label, one of ordinary skill would readily recognize that the same advantages for sealing and the adhesive would also be applicable to the adhesive of the label in Conwell. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to further modify Conwell in order to provide the width of the adhesive layer exceeds the width of the flexible support in the aforementioned amount so as to ensure the sealing effect with production tolerances, as taught by Baeuning.
Moreover, Conwell does not expressly recite that the flexible support is attached to a tire inner surface. While Conwell discloses an example wherein the label is attached to an outer surface of the tire for easy access and removability ([0022], [0025], [0036], [0049]), 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. Conwell does not expressly disclose disadvantages for or discouragements of providing the label on the inner surface, merely that it is preferred for the aforementioned reasons to provide it on the outer surface.
Borgna discloses a tyre having an inner surface and at least one monitoring device (Figs. 1-2: 24) adhering to the inner surface or outer surface ([0013], [0016], [0058]), wherein the at least one monitoring device is made on a support (Figs. 1-3: 26; or Fig. 3: 24”) ([0001], [0007], [0009], [0057]), and wherein the adhesion of the support to the inner surface or outer surface is achieved through a decoupling element (Figs. 1-2: 22) interposed between the at least one monitoring device and the inner surface or outer surface of the tyre ([0001], [0007], [0009]-[0010], [0055], [0057]); wherein the support is a film comprising polyester ([0009], [0057]), wherein the decoupling element comprises a double-sided adhesive tape comprising a component chosen from a viscoelastic acrylic foam, a substrate of expanded polymeric material, at least one acrylic adhesive layer, and combinations thereof ([0009]-[0010], [0057]). By providing the RFID label on the inner surface of the tire it is not visually detectable, thereby removing the potential for manual removal or destruction ([0013]). Accordingly, Borgna teaches that it is known in the tire art to provide RFID labels either on a tire outer surface or a tire inner surface, wherein providing it on the tire inner surface has the advantages as discussed above. Although Conwell and Borgna reflect competing objectives (i.e., ease of access versus concealment), this does not constitute a teaching away as discussed above. Placement of the RFID label on the inner surface represents a design choice with predictable results, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the outer placement of Conwell as suggested by Borgna.
The limitation “such that the square sheet conforms, at room temperature, to a cylindrical mandrel with a radius of 200 mm without breaking or exhibiting permanent deformation” is a recitation of intended use that does not require any additional structure to the tire that differentiates it from the tire disclosed by Conwell. The recitation does not result in structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art because Conwell discloses a tire with a square sheet of elastomeric or thermoplastic material which is capable of conforming, at room temperature, to a cylindrical mandrel with a radius of 200 mm without breaking or exhibiting permanent deformation.
The examiner notes that the limitation “as measured according to ASTM D-1002” is a recitation of intended use that does not require any additional structure to the double-sided adhesive tape disclosed by modified Conwell. The recitation does not result in structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art because modified Conwell discloses that the double-sided adhesive tape of the claimed material is resistant to a dynamic shear stress higher than 50 kPa, which is capable of being measured according to ASTM D-1002.
Additionally, the examiner notes that the claim limitation “as measured according to ASTM D-1002” is a product-by-process limitation wherein determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. See MPEP 2113. In this case, the claim limitation does not require a process step, but rather the structure that is implied by the step (i.e., a double-sided adhesive tape resistant to a dynamic shear stress higher than 50 kPa). Moreover, case law holds that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. MPEP 2112.01. The structure that is implied by the step (i.e., a double-sided adhesive tape resistant to a dynamic shear stress higher than 50 kPa) is present in Conwell as discussed above because Conwell discloses that the double-sided adhesive tape is of the claimed material. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious that modified Conwell is at least capable of providing that the dynamic shear stress is measured according to ASTM D-1002.
Optionally, it is generally known in the pressure sensitive adhesive art that dynamic shear is commonly measured based on ASTM D-1002 (Wu, p. 1). Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome this rejection because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.
Regarding claims 2 and 8, as discussed above, Conwell discloses the decoupling element may have an acrylic adhesive layer, and thus the thickness of the decoupling element is the same as the component of the acrylic adhesive layer. Conwell further discloses the decoupling element preferably has a thickness ranging from 0.001 to 0.010 inches (i.e., 0.0254 to 0.254 mm) or 3 to 6 mils (i.e., 0.076 to 0.152 mm), or could be thicker if necessary depending on the tire surface and desired adhesion level, wherein it is designed to provide a strong bond between the RFID label and tire surface and act as a reservoir for equilibrium of component migration ([0028], [0040], [0046]). In other words, the thickness disclosed by Conwell is a preferable example teaching, and Conwell further suggests that the thickness may be varied as desired to form a strong bond (i.e., a result-effective variable). 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. Moreover, 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 a thickness of the decoupling element and/or component. 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 a thickness of the decoupling element and/or component in order to provide a strong bond between the RFID label and tire surface.
Regarding claim 3, case law holds that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. MPEP 2112.01. In this case, because the prior art teaches using an acrylic double-sided adhesive tape for a tire, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have readily recognized, or alternatively found obvious, that it would also be resistant operating temperatures of the tyre ranging from about -40°C to about 160°C.
Regarding claim 5-6, Conwell further discloses that the adhesive can be of rubber based chemistry, acrylic polymer, or a modified blend of these, and may optionally have a barrier layer ([0040]-[0041]).
However, modified Conwell does not expressly recite that the adhesive comprises expanded polymeric material.
Borgna further discloses that the foam decoupling element is resiliently deformable and flexible allowing the RFID label to easily expand and contract when affixed to a tire without the label being torn and/or damaged and while concurrently maintaining operability of the RFID device disposed within the label such that the RFID device may communicate with an RFID reader identifying and sensing conditions of the article/vulcanized tire throughout the life of the article vulcanized tire ([0055]). Borgna also discloses that the double-sided adhesive tape may include, but is not limited to, foam tapes such as 3M VHB Tape 4941 ([0010]). Applicant’s specification also discloses the same tape may be used (Pages 10, 11, 16). Case law holds that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. MPEP 2112.01. Additionally, Borgna discloses the expanded polymeric material may be polyurethane foam (i.e., expanded polyurethane) ([0055]). Moreover, Borgna further discloses the substrate of expanded polymeric material comprises an acrylic adhesive layer coated on both surfaces of the substrate (i.e., acrylic layers with a barrier layer between) ([0010]: 3M VHB 4941 Tape, see also Page 10 of Applicant’s specification disclosing the same tape as having acrylic foam adhesive on both sides). 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 adhesive layer comprising acrylic and optional barrier layer of Conwell in order to provide the foam acrylic tape taught by the substantially similar art of Borgna for the advantages discussed above.
Regarding claim 10, Conwell further discloses a protective layer (Fig. 1: optional epoxy barrier layer) is disposed on the at least one monitoring device (Fig. 1: 18, 16, 20) to cover and protect components of the at least one monitoring device ([0042]).
Regarding claim 11, Conwell further discloses the length and/or width of the protective layer (Fig. 1: optional epoxy barrier layer) are equal to or greater than the length and/or width of the at least one monitoring device (Fig. 1: 18, 16, 20), respectively.
Regarding claim 13, case law holds that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. MPEP 2112.01. In this case, because the prior art teaches using polyester as the elastomeric/thermoplastic material of the flexible support for a tire, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have readily recognized, or alternatively found obvious, that it would also be resistant operating temperatures of the tyre ranging from about -40°C to about 160°C.
Regarding claim 24, Conwell further discloses the film comprises a thickness ranging from 0.002 to 0.020 inches (i.e., 50.8 µm to 508 µm) ([0023], [0037]), which overlaps with the claimed range of from about 10 µm to about 400 µm. Case law holds that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05. Applicant's original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for a thickness of the film.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conwell et al. (US 20060290505) (of record), Baeuning et al. (DE 102013106015, see machine translation) (of record), Borgna et al. (US 20190244074) (of record), and optionally Wu (Lap shear test for PSA, Paul Wu’s Blog, pp. 1-2, Sept. 2019) (of record) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Peyron et al. (US 20060016534) (of record).
Regarding claim 7, modified Conwell does not expressly recite an expanded polymeric material having a density ranging from 10 kg/m3 to 800 kg/m3.
Peyron discloses a tyre having an inner surface and at least one monitoring device (Fig. 3: 9) adhering to the inner surface ([0020], [0036], [0062]) via a polyurethane foam double-sided adhesive tape component ([0095], [0101]). In this manner, no major modification of the appearance of the rigid marking element based on elastomers is observed, it does not tarnish, nor become discolored, and its coloring remains the same range of color as before the running tests ([0102]). Peyron further discloses the expanded polymeric material has a density ranging from 0.02 g/cm3 to 0.50 g/cm3 (i.e., 20 kg/m3 to 500 kg/m3) ([0046]), which overlaps with the claimed range of from 10 kg/m3 to 800 kg/m3. In this manner, the foam will not deform too easily and tear under the effect of centrifugal force ([0046]). Case law holds that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05. Applicant's original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the density of the expanded polymeric material. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to further modify Conwell in order to have an expanded polymeric material density in the aforementioned range of Peyron for the advantages as discussed above.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conwell et al. (US 20060290505) (of record), Baeuning et al. (DE 102013106015, see machine translation) (of record), Borgna et al. (US 20190244074) (of record), and optionally Wu (Lap shear test for PSA, Paul Wu’s Blog, pp. 1-2, Sept. 2019) (of record) as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of any of Rensel et al. (US 20070256485) (of record) and/or Kurz et al. (DE 102018202248, see machine translation) (of record).
Regarding claim 25, modified Conwell does not expressly recite the electrical connection circuit comprises a conductive ink fixed on the flexible support.
Rensel discloses a RFID sensor (Fig. 1: 104) for a tire inner surface including a circuit defined by a conductive ink disposed on a substrate ([0026], [0028], [0034], Claims 3 and 10). In this manner, the sensor layer may be formed by printing techniques using conductive inks on an elastomeric or a plastic substrate that may be incorporated into the tire during the tire build process, and an entire circuit of independent or related sensors may be printed in on such a substrate ([0034]). Moreover, a power circuit using energy generated by the tire may provide power to the sensor (Abstract). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to further modify Conwell in order to provide that the electrical connection circuit comprises a conductive ink fixed on the flexible support as is generally known in the art, as taught by Rensel, so as to easily form an entire circuit of independent or related sensors on a support while also providing a power circuit using energy generated by the tire may provide power to the sensor.
Additionally or alternatively, Kurz discloses providing a sensor (Fig. 1: 2) on a tire inner surface, wherein electronic components of the sensor can be introduced or applied into or onto the receiving area, for example in the form of printed circuit elements made of a conductive material and/or a conductive ink and/or a conductive elastic material ([0025]). This allows the respective electronic components to be placed on the sensor module reliably, easily and in a space-saving manner ([0025]). In addition, contacting is simplified because no additional solder connections are required ([0025]). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to further modify Conwell in order to provide that the electrical connection circuit comprises a conductive ink fixed on the flexible support as is generally known in the art, as taught by Kurz, so as that the electronic components (i.e., circuits) of the RFID sensor can be placed reliably, easily and in a space-saving manner without the need for additional solder connections.
Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome this rejection because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 22 is 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 22, claim 22 was previously indicated as allowable subject matter in the 03/18/2025 Nonfinal Rejection. The claimed subject matter remains allowable for the reasons of record.
Regarding claim 26, no prior art of record is considered to teach or suggest the combination of limitations of claims 1 and 26. In particular, the limitation “wherein the at least one monitoring device comprises at least one electronic unit and at least one power supply device attached to the flexible support by a conductive adhesive and a structural adhesive and the conductive adhesive is different in composition from the structural adhesive.”
The closest prior art of record is considered to be Conwell et al. (US 20060290505) (of record), Baeuning et al. (DE 102013106015, see machine translation) (of record), Borgna et al. (US 20190244074) (of record), and Divigalpitiya et al. (US 20040201112).
Conwell in view of Baeuning and Borgna disclose the limitations of claim 1 as discussed in the detailed rejection above. Conwell further discloses the at least one monitoring device comprises a radio transceiver and integrated circuit (i.e., at least one electronic unit) and a power source (i.e., at least one power supply device) ([0021], [0023], [0035], [0037], [0040]). Because Conwell discloses that the radio transceiver, power source, and integrated circuit are all part of the RFID tag ([0021], [0035]), and because the RFID tag is fixed on the flexible support as discussed above, each component is also fixed on the flexible support. Conwell further discloses that the integrated circuit mounting is done using a conductive epoxy, cement, or underfill ([0023], [0037], [0040]). However, Conwell does not expressly recite that the at least one electronic unit and at least one power supply device are attached to the flexible support by a conductive adhesive and a structural adhesive and the conductive adhesive is different in composition from the structural adhesive.
Divigalpitiya discloses a durable electronic assembly with conductive adhesive, such as for a radio frequency device ([0016]), wherein it is generally known that flexible circuits are bonded with conductive adhesives and tested for proper electrical connections such that the bonding area is held rigid during manufacture and use such that little or no adverse stress is placed on the bond and the applications are designed to deliberately avoid flexing the bonded region ([0002]), and structural adhesives are desired for the bond strength and tamper resistance, but are usually brittle (high glass transition temperature) and do not provide the durability demanded during usage of newer electronic devices, and further usually are not conductive ([0003]). For that reason, Divigalpitiya discloses a conductive adhesive that relies on combining conductive particles with a structural adhesive ([00017]-[0020]). Based upon the disclosure of what is generally known in the art, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Divigalpitiya in order to provide two separate adhesives as conductive and structural adhesives are known to have their drawbacks when separately used, but together provide a strong and durable bond as taught by Divigalpitiya. No other prior art of record is considered to teach or suggest attaching the at least one electronic unit and at least one power supply device to the flexible support by both a conductive adhesive and a structural adhesive wherein the conductive adhesive is different in composition from the structural adhesive. 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 contrary to its disclosure, especially without a teaching or suggestion to do so.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3, 5-11, 13, and 21-26 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
To the extent Applicant’s Remarks are directed to Borgna, the examiner notes Borgna is no longer relied upon as a primary reference, but rather as a secondary reference. Borgna is now merely relied upon for its teaching of providing a RFID label on either an interior or exterior of a tire and for an advantageous foam and acrylic adhesive as discussed in the detailed rejection above.
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