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
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurz (DE102017209546; machine translation relied upon) in view of Sakamoto II (US Pat. No. 5,730,815).
Regarding claim 23, Kurz teaches a pneumatic tire comprising a tread portion extending in the circumferential direction and having an annular shape, a pair of sidewall portions respectively disposed on both sides of the tread portion, a pair of bead portions 8 each disposed on a radially inner side of the sidewall portions, a bead filler 5 being disposed on an outer circumference of a bead core 4 of each bead portion, a belt (it would have been obvious to use a plurality of belt layers in order to adequately reinforce the crown of the tire) being disposed on an outer circumferential side of the carcass layer in the tread portion, and a carcass layer 7 being mounted between the pair of bead portions, the carcass layer being turned up from an inner side to an outer side around the bead core, only a single layer disposed inward in a width direction of the main body of the carcass layer in the sidewall portion, a rim strip 30 (claimed rim cushion rubber layer) being disposed outside the carcass layer in the sidewall portion, and a transponder 1 that extends along the circumferential direction being embedded between the turned up portion of the carcass layer and the rim strip 30, the transponder being disposed between the top of the bead core and the top of the bead filler, where the distance 18 between the transponder and the top of the bead core is preferably at least 7 mm, such overlapping the claimed range of greater than or equal to 15 mm from the upper end of the bead core and equal to or below an upper end of the bead filler, and the distance 19 between the transponder and the top of the bead filler is preferably at least 9 mm, resulting in a preferable bead filler height of at least 16 mm (9 + 7) (machine translation at pages 3-5; figures 1-3). Kurz does not specifically disclose that the carcass is composed of organic fiber cords or that an end of a turned up portion of the carcass layer is disposed between a body portion of the carcass layer and the belt layer. Sakamoto II teaches using organic fiber cords in the carcass ply 10 (column 2, lines 37-40) and extending the carcass turnup 12a’ between the carcass and the belt (column 4, lines 33-38; figure 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use organic fiber cords and extend the carcass turnup under the belt as taught by Sakamoto II in the tire of Kurz in order to reduce noise without sacrificing steering stability, ride comfort, and the like (see Sakamoto II at column 1, lines 19-22).
Claims 9 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurz (DE102017209546; machine translation relied upon) in view of Sakamoto II (US Pat. No. 5,730,815) and Battocchio (US Pub. No. 2013/0112324).
Regarding claim 9, Kurz teaches a pneumatic tire comprising a tread portion extending in the circumferential direction and having an annular shape, a pair of sidewall portions respectively disposed on both sides of the tread portion, a pair of bead portions 8 each disposed on a radially inner side of the sidewall portions, a bead filler 5 being disposed on an outer circumference of a bead core 4 of each bead portion, a belt (it would have been obvious to use a plurality of belt layers in order to adequately reinforce the crown of the tire) being disposed on an outer circumferential side of the carcass layer in the tread portion, and a carcass layer 7 being mounted between the pair of bead portions, the carcass layer being turned up from an inner side to an outer side around the bead core, only a single layer disposed inward in a width direction of the main body of the carcass layer in the sidewall portion, a rim strip 30 (claimed rubber layer outside the carcass layer) being disposed outside the carcass layer in the sidewall portion, and a transponder 1 that extends along the circumferential direction being embedded between the turned up portion of the carcass layer and the rim strip 30, the transponder being disposed between the top of the bead core and the top of the bead filler, where the distance 18 between the transponder and the top of the bead core is preferably at least 7 mm, such overlapping the claimed range of greater than or equal to 15 mm from the upper end of the bead core and equal to or below an upper end of the bead filler, and the distance 19 between the transponder and the top of the bead filler is preferably at least 9 mm, resulting in a preferable bead filler height of at least 16 mm (9 + 7) (machine translation at pages 3-5; figures 1-3). Kurz does not specifically disclose that the carcass is composed of organic fiber cords or that an end of a turned up portion of the carcass layer is disposed between a body portion of the carcass layer and the belt layer. Sakamoto II teaches using organic fiber cords in the carcass ply 10 (column 2, lines 37-40) and extending the carcass turnup 12a’ between the carcass and the belt (column 4, lines 33-38; figure 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use organic fiber cords and extend the carcass turnup under the belt as taught by Sakamoto II in the tire of Kurz in order to reduce noise without sacrificing steering stability, ride comfort, and the like (see Sakamoto II at column 1, lines 19-22). Kurz does not specifically disclose spacing a center of the transponder 10 mm or more away from each of splice portions in the circumferential direction. Battocchio teaches spacing a center of a transponder at least 90° from the circumferential splice portions of a tire, preferably at least 135°, even more preferably greater than 150°, and most preferably equal to 180° (paragraphs [0007]-[0008] and [0055]-[0057]); figures 2-3), such positioning resulting in a distance far greater than 10mm as claimed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to position the center of the transponder as taught by Battocchio in the tire of Kurz (combined) in order to improve the quality of communications with the transponder (see Battocchio at paragraph [0007]).
Regarding claim 15, Kurz teaches that the transponder has a thickness of less than 1 mm (machine translation at page 4), overlapping the claimed range.
Regarding claim 16, Kurz teaches an RFID transponder (inherently requires an IC) and teaches spiral antennas (machine translation at page 4; figure 3).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurz in view of Sakamoto II and Battocchio as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Kanai (JP11-034620; machine translation relied upon).
Regarding claim 13, Kurz does not specifically disclose the distance between the transponder and the tire outer surface. In a tire similarly directed to a bead portion with a rim strip, Kanai teaches using a rim strip with a thickness of at least 4.5 mm (abstract; machine translation at page 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a rim strip thickness as taught by Kanai in the tire of Kurz (combined) in order to improve the durability of the tire without greatly changing the total thickness of the bead portion (see Kanai machine translation at page 2).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurz in view of Sakamoto II and Battocchio as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Lallement (US Pub. No. 2019/0322142).
Regarding claim 14, Kurz teaches using a rubber coating (machine translation at page 3), but does not specifically disclose the dielectric constant of the coating layer. Lallement teaches that the transponder is covered with a coating layer having a relative permittivity (dielectric constant) lower than 6.5 (paragraphs [0077]-[0084]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a dielectric constant of the coating layer as taught by Lallement in the tire of Kurz (combined) in order to have an electrically insulating encapsulating rubber to have correct radiofrequency operation (see Lallement at paragraph [0032]).
Claims 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurz in view of Sakamoto II, Battocchio and Kanai as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Lallement (US Pub. No. 2019/0322142).
Regarding claim 14, Kurz teaches using a rubber coating (machine translation at page 3), but does not specifically disclose the dielectric constant of the coating layer. Lallement teaches that the transponder is covered with a coating layer having a relative permittivity (dielectric constant) lower than 6.5 (paragraphs [0077]-[0084]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a dielectric constant of the coating layer as taught by Lallement in the tire of Kurz (combined) in order to have an electrically insulating encapsulating rubber to have correct radiofrequency operation (see Lallement at paragraph [0032]).
Regarding claim 20, Kurz teaches that the transponder has a thickness of less than 1 mm (machine translation at page 4), overlapping the claimed range.
Regarding claim 21, Kurz teaches an RFID transponder (inherently requires an IC) and teaches spiral antennas (machine translation at page 4; figure 3).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakamoto II (US Pat. No. 5,730,815) in view of Adamson (US Pub. No. 2004/0159383).
Regarding claim 22, Sakamoto II teaches a pneumatic tire comprising a tread portion 2 extending in the circumferential direction and having an annular shape, a pair of sidewall portions 3 respectively disposed on both sides of the tread portion, a pair of bead portions 4 each disposed on a radially inner side of the sidewall portions, a bead apex 8 (claimed bead filler) being disposed on an outer circumference of a bead core 5 of each bead portion, a belt 17 having a plurality of belt layers being disposed on an outer circumferential side of the carcass layer in the tread portion, and a carcass layer 10 being mounted between the pair of bead portions, the carcass layer being turned up from an inner side to an outer side around the bead core and the end 12a’ of the turned up portion being disposed between a body portion of the carcass and the belt, only a single layer disposed inward in a width direction of the main body of the carcass layer in the sidewall portion, the body portion of the carcass layer being in continuous contact with the turned up portion of the carcass layer between an end of the belt layer and the tire maximum width position (column 2, line 13 – column 4, line 38; figure 1). Sakamoto II does not specifically disclose a transponder. Adamson teaches the use of a transponder in a tire, where the transponder can be located in a variety of different locations, including between the carcass ply and the sidewall (paragraph [0018]; figure 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a transponder in a location taught by Adamson in the tire of Sakamoto II in order to provide functions such as identification and tracking during manufacture, distribution, and use, and/or measurement of physical parameters such as pressure and temperature during use of the tire (see Adamson at paragraph [0001]). Given the configuration of Sakamoto II, a transponder placed between the carcass and the sidewall would be placed between the carcass turnup and the sidewall. Further, given the broad guidance of Adamson, it would have been obvious to place the transponder anywhere within the sidewall next to the carcass, including at points between a position 15 mm radially outward of the tire maximum width position and a position 5 mm away from the end of the belt layer as claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments with respect to the rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments and arguments with respect to the prior art rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Sakamoto II.
Applicant argues Kurz has not established the height of the bead filler. However, the height of the bead filler is not being claimed – the position of the transponder with respect to an end of the bead filler is. As was set forth previously and again above, Kurz teachings result in an overlapping range of this parameter, thus rendering it obvious. It has been further set forth above, that based on the disclosed preferable distances of at least 7 mm and at least 9 mm, results in a bead filler height of at least 16 mm.
With regards to Applicant’s arguments against Besson, it is no longer being relied upon – Sakamoto II has replaced it.
With regards to Applicant’s arguments against Adamson, “[a] reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments.” MPEP at 2123. This principle is similarly true of the prior art as a whole. Further, the prior rejection and the rejection set forth above give a rationale for using a transponder in a location as taught by Adamson - It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a transponder in a location taught by Adamson in the tire of Sakamoto II in order to provide functions such as identification and tracking during manufacture, distribution, and use, and/or measurement of physical parameters such as pressure and temperature during use of the tire (see Adamson at paragraph [0001]). Applicant did not provide any argument that placing a transponder in a location as taught by Adamson would not result in the beneficial functions taught by Adamson.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP N SCHWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1612. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:30.
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 can be reached at 571-270-5545. 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.
/P.N.S/ Examiner, Art Unit 1749 October 3, 2026
/JUSTIN R FISCHER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749
