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
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
3. Claim(s) 8, 9, 11, 16, 20, 21, and 24-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sandstrom (US 6,024,146, of record) and further in view of Randall (WO 2016/060851, of record), Downing (US 2006/0196332, of record), Battocchio (US 2013/0112324, newly cited), and Jung (WO 2007/081127, of record).
Sandstrom is directed to a tire construction (e.g. passenger car tire) comprising a carcass and an innerliner having a thickness between 0.2 mm and 3.5 mm (Column 4, Lines 5-12). In such an instance, though, Sandstrom is silent with respect to the inclusion of an RFID (claimed transponder).
In any event, it is extremely well-known and conventional to include a transponder in modern day tire constructions in order to, among other things, provide temperature and pressure measurements, as shown for example by Randall (Page 2, 1st Paragraph). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to include a well-known and conventional transponder in the tire of Sandstrom for the benefits detailed above.
With further respect to claim 8, Randall specifically teaches the placement of said transponder between a carcass and an innerliner (Page 4, 2nd Paragraph). Additionally, Figure 1 of Randall depicts a radial arrangement that would be recognized as being at least 15 mm radially beyond a bead core and at least 5 mm radially inward of a belt end.
Also, regarding 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). 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, for example, a spacing between adjacent splice locations would be approximately 200 mm. In order to promote balanced weight, such splice portions are generally spaced at approximately equal distances from one another and thus, when including an additional component, such as an RFID, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to contribute to a balanced weight as best possible. 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. Battocchio is further applied to expressly describe the placement of an RFID device spaced at least 90 degrees from a specific splice location (that being one associated with the component to which the RFID is arranged adjacent to) in order to promote communication (Abstract and Paragraph 57). Thus, 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.
Also, given that tire splices are commonly arranged at “approximately” equal intervals, it reasons that the totality of the references encompass an RFID device that is not positioned exactly in the middle of adjacent splice locations. Furthermore, Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed arrangement (lack of examples in which spacings from first and second splice locations are disclosed such that inventive and non-inventive tire constructions are disclosed).
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, with respect to claim 8 (and claims 20 and 21), coating rubber materials or encapsulation materials used in 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 32 of the original specification).
As to claim 9, the general disclosure to position the RFID radially beyond an upper end of the bead filler is seen to encompass the claimed range of radial locations and Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results. Again, the disclosure of “the second sidewall region 115b at a location above the apex 135b” is seen to encompass the claimed tire construction.
With respect to claims 11 and 16, as detailed above, the innerliner in Sandstrom has a thickness as large as 3.5 mm. As such, a transponder positioned at an interface of said innerliner and said carcass would be spaced significantly greater than 1 mm from a tire inner surface.
As to claims 24-26, 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. This is consistent with a spacing greater than 10 mm, and more specifically between 10 mm and 40 mm. Also, Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed spacing (lack of comparative examples with spacings greater than 40 mm). With specific respect to claims 25 and 26, Example 22 would be non-inventive but demonstrates durability superior to that of all the inventive tire constructions (Table 5).
4. Claim(s) 12, 13, 17, 18, 22, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sandstrom, Randall, Downing, Battocchio, and Jung as applied in claim 8 above and further in view of Adamson (WO 03/105509, of record).
As detailed above, Randall teaches a RFID-containing tire. While Randall is silent with respect to a coating layer having a dielectric constant less than 7, such is commonly included in similar RFID components in order to enhance transmission ranges, as shown for example by Adamson (Page 1, last paragraph and Page 2, 4th paragraph). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to include a conventional coating layer in the tire of Sandstrom as modified by Randall for the benefits detailed above.
With specific respect to claims 13 and 18, the disclose thickness range of at least 0.2 mm is seen to fully encompass the claimed range and Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results.
Regarding claims 22 and 23, Adamson (Page 2, Lines 20+) teaches a “preferred” dielectric constant less than 3 and 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).
5. Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sandstrom, Randall, Downing, Battocchio, and Jung as applied in claim 8 above and further in view of Sinnett (US 2011/0032174, of record).
As detailed above, Sandstrom as modified by Randall is directed to a RFID-containing tire construction. While Randall fails 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 Randall absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results.
6. Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sandstrom, Randall, Downing, Battocchio, Jung, and Adamson as applied in claim 18 above and further in view of Sinnett.
As detailed above, Sandstrom as modified by Randall is directed to a RFID-containing tire construction. While Randall fails 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 Randall absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results.
7. Claim(s) 8, 9, 11, 16, 20, 21, and 24-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Randall (WO 2016/060851, of record) and further in view of Downing (US 2006/0196332, of record), Battocchio, and Jung.
As best depicted in Figures 1 and 2, Randall is directed to a tire construction comprising at least one innerliner 180, a carcass ply or body ply 140, a tread 110, a bead core 125b, a bead filler 130b, a sidewall 115b, and a circumferentially oriented RFID 105 (claimed transponder) positioned radially beyond an upper end of said bead filler (Paragraph 31). In such an instance, though, said RFID is not positioned axially between an innerliner and a carcass ply.
It is noted, though, that Randall more broadly states that RFID 105 may be disposed between any two layers of the tire. More particularly, Randall states that an exemplary arrangement can be between an innerliner and a body ply (Paragraph 28). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to use the claimed combination of axial and radial arrangements in the tire of Randall given the general disclosure identified above (each arrangement is individually disclosed).
Also, regarding claim 8, the radial arrangement depicted in Figure 1 would have been recognized as being at least 15 mm radially beyond a bead core and at least 5 mm radially inward of a belt end.
Also, regarding 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). 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, for example, a spacing between adjacent splice locations would be approximately 200 mm. In order to promote balanced weight, such splice portions are generally spaced at approximately equal distances from one another and thus, when including an additional component, such as an RFID, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to contribute to a balanced weight as best possible. 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. Battocchio is further applied to expressly describe the placement of an RFID device spaced at least 90 degrees from a specific splice location (that being one associated with the component to which the RFID is arranged adjacent to) in order to promote communication (Abstract and Paragraph 57). Thus, 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.
Also, given that tire splices are commonly arranged at “approximately” equal intervals, it reasons that the totality of the references encompass an RFID device that is not positioned exactly in the middle of adjacent splice locations. Furthermore, Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed arrangement (lack of examples in which spacings from first and second splice locations are disclosed such that inventive and non-inventive tire constructions are disclosed).
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, with respect to claim 8 (and claims 20 and 21), coating rubber materials or encapsulation materials used in 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 32 of the original specification).
With respect to claim 9, the general disclosure to position the RFID radially beyond an upper end of the bead filler is seen to encompass the claimed range of radial locations and Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results. Again, the disclosure of “the second sidewall region 115b at a location above the apex 135b” is seen to encompass the claimed tire construction.
With respect to claims 11 and 16, innerliners commonly have thickness values equal to or greater than 1 mm and thus the claimed distance would be satisfied. It is further noted that the claims are directed to absolute dimensions and it is well taken that tire dimensions are highly dependent on the intended use of the tire and ultimately the tire size (larger dimensions are commonly associated with larger tire constructions).
As to claims 24-26, 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. This is consistent with a spacing greater than 10 mm, and more specifically between 10 mm and 40 mm. Also, Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed spacing (lack of comparative examples with spacings greater than 40 mm). With specific respect to claims 25 and 26, Example 22 would be non-inventive but demonstrates durability superior to that of all the inventive tire constructions (Table 5).
8. Claim(s) 12, 13, 17, 18, 22, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Randall, Downing, Battocchio, and Jung as applied in claim 8 above and further in view of Adamson (WO 03/105509, of record).
As detailed above, Randall teaches a RFID-containing tire. While Randall is silent with respect to a coating layer having a dielectric constant less than 7, such is commonly included in similar RFID components in order to enhance transmission ranges, as shown for example by Adamson (Page 1, last paragraph and Page 2, 4th paragraph). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to include a conventional coating layer in the tire of Randall for the benefits detailed above.
With specific respect to claims 13 and 18, the disclose thickness range of at least 0.2 mm is seen to fully encompass the claimed range and Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results.
Regarding claims 22 and 23, Adamson (Page 2, Lines 20+) teaches a “preferred” dielectric constant less than 3 and 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).
9. Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Randall, Downing, Battocchio, and Jung as applied in claim 8 above and further in view of Sinnett (US 2011/0032174, of record).
As detailed above, Randall is directed to a RFID-containing tire construction. While Randall fails 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 Randall absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results.
10. Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Randall, Downing, Battocchio, Jung, and Adamson as applied in claim 18 above and further in view of Sinnett.
As detailed above, Randall is directed to a RFID-containing tire construction. While Randall fails 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 Randall absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results.
Response to Amendment
11. The declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed March 2, 2026 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 8, 9, 11-14, and 16-26 based upon Sandstrom and Randall as set forth in the last Office action because: the prior art as a whole suggests the placement of RFID devices at a substantial distance from splice locations associated with adjacent tire components in order to promote communication. Given that the claims define absolute dimensions and it is well taken that tire dimensions (and thus spacings) are highly dependent on tire size, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use spacings in accordance to the claimed invention. For example, if 10 splicing locations are used in a small tire having a circumference of 1,000 mm, a spacing between adjacent splicing locations would be on the order of 100 mm. Alternatively, if 10 splicing locations are used in a larger tire having a circumference on 2,000 mm, a spacing between adjacent splicing locations would be on the order of 200 mm. The specific use of a spacing between an RFID and a splicing location of at least 10 mm is consistent with the general order of tire dimensions and the specific disclosure by Battocchio to have a spacing defined by an angle of at least 90 degrees from a splice location associated with an adjacent tire component (promotes communication). Also, it is clear that providing a spacing of at least 10 mm from a splicing location is consistent with the desire to eliminate the buildup of weight in a single location.
Response to Arguments
12. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 8, 9, 11-14, and 16-26 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.
Conclusion
13. 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.
14. 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 April 1, 2026
Prosecution Insights