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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 25, 2026 has been entered.
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 9, 13-16, 19-21 and 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. Claims 9 and 23 each define a pair of bead cores and a pair of bead fillers, but the amended language refers to “the bead core” and “the bead filler”, and thus there is a singular/plural mismatch. Claims 13-16 and 19-21 are also rejected as depending upon claim 9.
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 Besson (US Pub. No. 2003/0075255).
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 (machine translation at pages 3-5; figures 1-3). Kurz does not specifically disclose 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. Besson teaches extending the carcass turnup between the carcass and the belt (paragraphs [0017]-[0018]; figure 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to extend the carcass turnup under the belt as taught by Besson in the tire of Kurz in order to reduce the tire weight, improve the flat spot property, improve the operation of the tread and/or reduce non-uniform wear (see Besson at paragraph [0022]).
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 Besson (US Pub. No. 2003/0075255) 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 (machine translation at pages 3-5; figures 1-3). Kurz does not specifically disclose 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. Besson teaches extending the carcass turnup between the carcass and the belt (paragraphs [0017]-[0018]; figure 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to extend the carcass turnup under the belt as taught by Besson in the tire of Kurz in order to reduce the tire weight, improve the flat spot property, improve the operation of the tread and/or reduce non-uniform wear (see Besson at paragraph [0022]). 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 Besson 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 Besson 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 Besson, 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 (US Pat. No. 5,639,321) in view of Adamson (US Pub. No. 2004/0159383).
Regarding claim 22, Sakamoto 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 7 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 6 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 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 (column 2, line 53 – column 6, line 15; figures 1 and 4). Sakamoto 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 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, 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 amendment and arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 19-21 under 35 U.S.C. 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 19-21 under 35 U.S.C. 112 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 9, 13-16, 19-21 and 23 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 Besson. It is specifically noted that Besson teaches a turnup in direct contact with each bead core and bead filler, the ends of the turnup layer being disposed between a body portion of the carcass layer and the belt layer, and Besson is especially directed to automobile tires (paragraph [0001]), with none of the particularities Applicant argued with respect to Kajita.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection of claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 22, Applicant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art aware of Kurz would not be motivated to place the transponder anywhere but would understand that the placement should be limited as disclosed by Kurz. This argument is not persuasive because there are many prior art documents disclosing many different locations to place a transponder, and there is no particular reason to only focus on the location specified in Kurz. Adamson teaches providing the transponder between the carcass ply and the sidewall, thus teaching or suggesting a transponder location reading on the limitation of claim 22.
Conclusion
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 March 11, 2026
/JUSTIN R FISCHER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749