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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 June 30, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 8, 9, 11-13, 16-18, 20-23, and 27-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe (JP 5-254315, of record) and further in view of (a) Randall (WO 2016/060851, of record) and/or Adamson (WO 03/105509, of record), (b) Downing (US 2006/0196332, of record) and/or Vannan (WO 97/22464, newly cited), and (c) Jung (WO 2007/081127, of record).
As best depicted in Figure 1, Watanabe is directed to a passenger tire construction comprising a tread 1, a pair of belt layers 6,7, a main carcass portion 4a, a turnup carcass portion 4b, a bead core 5, a bead filler 8, a chafer 3 (claimed rim cushion layer), and a sidewall rubber 2, wherein a bead filler height “h” is 15 mm and a chafer height H is 32 mm (Paragraph 25). It is initially noted that tread 1 and sidewall 2 are disclosed as separate and distinct components that are continuous with one another (Paragraph 15). This language would be recognized as describing a conventional tire construction in which the tread and sidewall contact one another as required by the claims.
It is further evident that a carcass turnup end is radially beyond said chafer height. In such an instance, though, Watanabe is silent with respect to the inclusion of an electronic device between a carcass turnup portion and a chafer.
However, it is extremely well known and conventional to include electronic devices (e.g. RFID) in tire constructions in order to, among other things, provide tire informational data, as shown for example by Adamson (Page 1, 1st Paragraph) and/or Randall (Paragraph 2). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to include a conventional electronic device in the tire of Jardine for the benefits detailed above.
Also, Adamson (Page 4) states that “the radio device 11 and antenna may be embedded in the tire structure or layered under rubber material in the tire 14 which forms a surface” and Randall (Paragraph 28) states that “the electronic device may be disposed between any two layers of the tire”. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to position an electronic device between any rubber layers of Watanabe, including between the carcass layer and the rim cushion layer (would correspond with claimed rubber layer disposed in the sidewall portion), in view of the general disclosures of Adamson and Randall, there being no conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed invention. It is emphasized that the term rubber layer does not appear to be intended to distinguish from the rim cushion rubber layer (see figures in Applicant’s original disclosure).
With further respect to claim 8, it is extremely well known that tire constructions comprise a plurality of circumferentially spaced apart splice portions, as shown for example by Downing (Paragraph 3) and/or Vannan (Page 13, Lines 3-13). More particularly, given that passenger tires commonly have a circumference on the order of 2,000 mm, it is evident that a tire with six splices, for example, would have a considerably larger spacing between adjacent splice locations (greater than 300 mm between adjacent splice locations). Even in a tire having ten splices (hypothetic number of splices based on the disclosure that “typical” tires have “about” 6 splices in Downing) , for example, a spacing between adjacent splice locations would be approximately 200 mm. In terms of the exact circumferential placement of said electronic device, the specific placement of an RFID directly adjacent a splice would be inconsistent with the general idea to promote balanced weight as much as possible. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to significantly space an RFID device from the splice locations associated with the components adjacent the RFID device to eliminate a buildup of weight in a single location.
Also, given 6 splices for example, respective splices would be approximately spaced 60 degrees from each other such that a transponder or electronic device, when positioned between splices, would necessarily be disposed 80 degrees or less from at least one of the splice portions in the tire circumferential direction.
Furthermore, it reasons that the totality of the references encompass an RFID device that is not positioned exactly in the middle of adjacent splice locations and Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed arrangement. The general suggestion by the prior art would be to position an RFID device between adjacent splice regions and such would include those in which an RFID device is directly in the middle of adjacent splice regions and those in which an RFID device is positioned offset from a center between adjacent splice regions. Again, the claims essentially encompass a multitude of tire constructions where an RFID device is not positioned at a location directly adjacent a splice region and such is consistent with the general idea to eliminate weight buildup in a single location (distributing weight over the circumferential extent of the tire is extremely well known and conventional in the tire industry- expressly evidenced by Vannan).
It is also noted that the claims are directed to absolute dimensions and it is well taken that tire dimensions are a function of the intended tire use and ultimately the tire size (larger tires, for example, have greater circumferences and thus greater spacings between splice portions, for example, would be expected to be greater and smaller tires having smaller circumferences and thus smaller spacings between splice portions would be expected to be smaller).
Lastly, regarding claim 8 (and claims 20, 21, and 23), coating rubber materials or encapsulation materials used with RFID assemblies are known to be formed with any number of shapes or geometries, as shown for example by Jung (Page 2, 2nd Paragraph). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the claimed geometries given the general recognition in the art and Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results. It is further noted that Applicant states that “the cross-sectional shape of the coating layer 23 is not particularly limited….” (Paragraph 33 of original specification).
With respect to claim 9, Figure 1 depicts a tire construction in which a carcass turnup end is spaced greater than 15 mm from a belt end (based on a tire section height of approximately 100 mm as detailed above). Additionally, all radial locations along the chafer that are spaced between 30 mm and 32 mm from a rim base are necessarily spaced at least 15 mm from a bead core height (based on the fact that they would be spaced at least 15 mm from a bead filler outer end, which itself is radially beyond a bead core height). Also, a wide variety of additional radial locations within the radial extent of the chafer would satisfy the claims since the bead core is spaced from a bead filler outer end. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to position the RFID taught by Adamson and/or Randall at any number of radial locations that satisfy the claimed invention absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results.
Regarding claims 11 and 16, thickness t in Figure 1 can be as large as 2.5 mm and a maximum thickness of chafer 9 appears to significantly greater than thickness t at a height in the vicinity of the radially outer end of the bead filler. This suggests a wide variety of embodiments in which the RFID would be spaced at least 2 mm from a tire outer surface (when positioned at the boundary between the carcass turnup and the chafer).
As to claims 12, 13, 17, 18, 22, and 23 the RFID taught by Adamson includes a coating layer having a dielectric constant preferably less than 3 and a thickness of at least 0.2 mm (fully encompasses claimed range) (Page 2, Lines 20+). With specific respect to claims 22 and 23, it is well taken that a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including non-preferred embodiments (MPEP 2123).
Regarding claims 27-29, the general disclosure of the aforementioned references suggests the placement of an RFID device that is distanced by more than 10 mm from splice locations (in light of the disclosed angles). In terms of “an adjacent splice”, the general disclosure of the references suggests the placement of an RFID away from splice locations so as to avoid increased weight in a single location (a location that includes a spliced region already contributes to added tire weight). This is consistent with a spacing greater than 10 mm, and more specifically between 10 mm and 40 mm. It is particularly noted that claims 28 and 29 actually define spacings that do not result in the greatest tire durability (Example 22 demonstrates superior tire durability, as compared with Examples 21, 23, and 24). Based on Table 4-2, it appears that even greater durability would be achieved when using non-inventive spacings greater than 40 mm. Again, as detailed above, the general concept of promoting weight distribution over the circumferential extent of the tire is consistent with the claimed arrangement of the RFID in relation to adjacent splice locations.
5. Claim(s) 14 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe, Adamson, Randall, Downing, Vannan, and Jung as applied in claim 8 above and further in view of Sinnett (US 2011/0032174, of record).
As detailed above, Adamson and Randall evidence the common manufacture of tires with radio frequency identification devices (RFID). While such references fail to disclose the entire makeup of such devices, the claimed structure is consistent with common devices used in the tire industry, as shown for example by Sinnett (Abstract and Paragraphs 27 and 28). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to use common RFID assemblies in the tire of Watanabe absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results.
6. Claim(s) 24-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe, Adamson, Randall, Downing, Vannan, and Jung as applied in claim 23 above and further in view of Iwamura (EP 1,197,354, of record).
Watanabe is directed to a passenger tire construction including at least one carcass ply (Paragraph 5). This disclosure, at a minimum, encompasses tire constructions including first and second carcass plies. In such an instance, though, Watanabe fails to depict or describe the location of turn ends associated with said first and second carcass ply.
The claimed carcass arrangement including two carcass plies, though, is consistent with that which is conventionally employed with multiple carcass plies arrangement, as shown for example by Iwamura (Figure 2 and Paragraphs 12 and 13). More particularly, a turnup end of the inner carcass ply is positioned at a height as large as 0.80 times a tire section height and a turnup end of the outer carcass ply is positioned at a height as small as 0.01 times a tire section height. This in turn suggests a wide variety of tire constructions in which the RFID is separated by at least 10mm from each turnup end (given that the exemplary tire can have a separation of greater than 50 mm between respective turnup ends). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include a conventional arrangement in the multi carcass assembly of Watanabe absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 25, see Figures 1 and 2 of Iwamura.
Response to Arguments
7. Applicant's arguments filed June 30, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that since the Office has admitted that the device should be placed to balance the weight, the Office has stated the obvious result regardless of disclosure is to put the device in the center, which is not what is claimed. It is emphasized that a fair reading of the prior art references suggests the desire to eliminate the buildup of weight in a single location. This is consistent with the general recognition in the tire industry that the formation of individual spots or locations with high weights is undesirable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the totality of the prior art as encompassing any number of tire constructions in which an RFID is not positioned directly adjacent a splice region, and such would include those in which an RFID is directly between adjacent splice regions and those in which an RFID is positioned between adjacent splice regions while not being centered between said regions. Also, Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed arrangement (original disclosure fails to compare a centered arrangement and a non-centered arrangement). In fact, Figure 3 in Applicant’s original disclosure appears to depict 8 equally spaced splice regions in a 265/40ZR20 tire construction (approximate circumference of 2260 mm) and region S3 is centered between adjacent splice locations Q. Given a spacing of approximately 283 mm between splice locations Q, the claims essentially encompass a region having a length of approximately 263 mm (corresponds with approximately 93% of the distance between adjacent splice locations). Also, looking at Table 4-2, the tire durability appears to generally improve when a distance between an RFID and a splice location is increased (compare Examples 7, 8, 21, and 22). This is not unexpected since the tire industry recognizes the desire to obtain substantially equal weight distribution over a circumferential extent of the tire. In fact, Table 4-2 suggests that Example 22 (non-inventive tire construction in claims 28 and 29) provides superior durability, as compared to Examples 8 and 21 (inventive tire constructions). Table 4-2 also suggests that additional non-inventive tire constructions having greater spacings from the splice locations would result in superior tire durability. Again, independent claim 8 is essentially encompassing every tire construction in which the RFID is not positioned extremely close to a splice location and such is consistent with the general disclosure of the prior art references of record.
Conclusion
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN R FISCHER whose telephone number is (571)272-1215. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 5:30-2:00.
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.
Justin Fischer
/JUSTIN R FISCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749 July 16, 2026
Prosecution Insights