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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 October 30, 2025 has been entered.
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.
Claims 14-17 and 19-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Destraves (WO2018/104620; English equivalent US Pub. No. 2020/0079159 relied upon) in view of Alvarez (US Pub. No. 2008/0066843), Sinnett (US Pub. No. 2008/0192451) and Kim (US Pub. No. 2016/0049734).
Regarding claims 14, 17, 21 and 24, Destraves teaches a tire casing 1 that is toroidal in shape about a reference axis and equipped with a passive radiofrequency transponder 100, and comprises a crown block 82 comprising a crown reinforcement 86 having axial ends, and a tread 89 connected at each of its axial ends to a bead 84 by a sidewall, first threads forming outward and return portions adjacent to one another, aligned circumferentially, anchored in the beads, loops each connecting an outbound and a return portion, the first threads forming at least one circumferential alignment defining a carcass reinforcement 87 dividing the casing into inner and outer regions with respect to the carcass, in each bead, means of anchoring the first threads comprising second threads oriented circumferentially and axially bordering the first threads and forming at least one spiral 85, a first layer of elastomer compound 93 forming an exterior surface of the tire casing in the region of the bead, the first layer of elastomer compound being intended to come into contact with a rim, a second layer of elastomer compound 83 situated radially on an outside in contact with the first layer of elastomer compound forming an exterior surface of the sidewall, the transponder comprising an electrical portion 120 and a radiating dipole antenna 102 consisting of a single-strand helicoidal spring defining a helix pitch P, a winding diameter D, a midplane and a wire diameter defining an interior and exterior diameter of the radiating antenna, of which a length is designed to communicate with an external radiofrequency reader defining a first longitudinal axis, a central region and two lateral regions along the first longitudinal axis, the electronic portion comprising an electronic chip 101 and a primary antenna 107 of coil type comprising at least one turn, and defining a second longitudinal axis and a midplane perpendicular to the second longitudinal axis, the primary antenna being electrically connected to the electronic chip and electromagnetically coupled to the radiating dipole antenna, the primary antenna being circumscribed inside a cylinder of which an axis of revolution is parallel to the second longitudinal axis and in which the diameter is between a third and three times, preferably between half and two times, the diameter of the radiating antenna, and the transponder being arranged such that the first and second longitudinal axes are parallel and that the midplane of the primary antenna is positioned in the central region of the helical spring, wherein, with the radiating antenna comprising a second region in which the radiating antenna is situated plumb with the electronic portion and a first region in which the radiating dipole antenna is not situated plumb with the electronic portion (paragraphs [0012]-[0076]; figures 1, 4 and 6-7), wherein the radiating antenna is situated plumb with at least two first threads of the carcass and situated axially on an outside relative to the interior end of the bead and radially between the outermost end of the at least one spiral and the axial end of the crown reinforcement (100bis in figure 6 or 100 in figure 7 – these positions also being in contact with a layer of elastomer compound corresponding to the claimed layers 90-94 as required by claim 21). Further, Destraves teaches that the radiating antenna has a constant pitch, a wire diameter of 200 micrometers, a winding diameter of about 1.4 mm, a length of between 35 and 55 mm, corresponding to the winding of a straight wire of a length equal to half the wavelength of the transmission signal of the radiofrequency transponder in an elastomer blend mass at 915 MHz (paragraph [0055]), such a length being about 164 mm. Accordingly, where the diameter of the wire is d = 0.2 mm, length of the wire is L = 164 mm, the length of the spring is l = 35 or 55, and the helical diameter of the wire is D = 1.4 mm, the number of turns n can be calculated as n = L/(Pi * D) and the pitch can be calculated as p = l/n, resulting in a pitch ratio p/D of about 0.67 to 1.07, overlapping the claimed ranges. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a pitch ratio of greater than 0.8 and less than 3 in the first region, and less than or equal to 0.8 in the second region, because Destraves teaches an overlapping range (see paragraph [0055]). Destraves does not specifically disclose that each bead is reinforced with a first spiral situated in the inner region of the tire casing and a second spiral situated in the outer region of the tire casing. Alvarez teaches using a bead reinforcement with a first spiral 6a situated in the inner region of the tire casing and a second spiral 6b in the outer region of the tire casing (paragraph [0105]; figure 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a bead reinforcement with inner and outer spirals as taught by Alvarez in the tire of Destraves in order to have excellent results, particularly in terms of endurance, as well as have good mounting ability and favorable road behavior (see Alvarez at paragraphs [0004] and [0015]). Destraves does not specifically disclose using a greater helix pitch P1 in the first region than a pitch P2 in the second region. Sinnett teaches a specific embodiment having a greater pitch in a first axially outer region than in a second axially inner region (paragraphs [0020]-[0023]; figure 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use two different pitches as taught by Sinnett for the radiating antenna of the tire of Destraves (combined) in order to allow for higher distribution of stress in high stress zones, and to shorten the overall length of the antenna elements required (see Sinnett at paragraph [0023]). Destraves and Sinnett do not specifically disclose that the second pitch corresponds to a portion of the radiating dipole antenna situated plumb with the electronic portion. Kim teaches that a metallic antenna can be used to protect an electronic device (paragraph [0004]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the second pitch be plumb with the electronic device in order to protect the electronic device, because a smaller pitch results in a denser antenna to protect the electronic device (see Kim at paragraph [0004]).
Regarding claim 15, Destraves teaches a third layer of elastomer compound 92 axially outside of the carcass and axially inside of the second layer 83 (paragraph [0067]; figure 6).
Regarding claim 16, Destraves teaches an airtight inner liner 90 and a fourth layer of elastomer compound 96 axially on an inside of the carcass (paragraphs [0072]-[0073]; figure 6).
Regarding claim 19, Destraves teaches that a tension elastic modulus of the encapsulating mass is lower than a tension elastic modulus of at least one elastomer adjacent to the encapsulating mass (paragraphs [0035]-[0036]).
Regarding claim 20, Destraves teaches a relative dielectric constant of the encapsulating mass is preferably lower than 6.5 (paragraph [0039]).
Regarding claim 22, Destraves teaches situating the transponder at least 10 mm from the end of a reinforcing ply (paragraph [0025]).
Regarding claim 23, Destraves teaches that the first longitudinal axis of the unit is oriented perpendicular to the cords of the carcass (paragraph [0019]).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Destraves in view of Alvarez, Sinnett and Kim as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Lionetti (US Pub. No. 2010/0122757).
Regarding claim 18, Destraves teaches encapsulating the transponder in a mass of electrically insulating elastomer (paragraph [0033]), but does not specifically disclose partially encapsulating the transponder. In a tire similarly having a transponder, Lionetti teaches partially encapsulating a transponder (paragraphs [0005], [0043] and [0050]; figures 4-6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to partially encapsulate the transponder as taught by Lionetti in the tire of Destraves (combined) in order to not degrade the performance or durability of the tire, is mechanically suitable and durable in service, provides suitable radio frequency reading capability, and is capable of efficient incorporation into the tire manufacturing process (see Lionetti at paragraph [0050]).
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Destraves in view of Alvarez, Sinnett and Kim as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Zhinong (US Pat. No. 6,112,102).
Regarding claim 26, Destraves teaches that the electronic portion is circumscribed by a cylinder which is parallel to the first longitudinal axis and of which the diameter is larger than or equal to the first inside diameter of the radiating dipole antenna (see above), but Destraves does not specifically disclose using a first inside diameter smaller than a second inside diameter. However, it is well-known in the art to adjust the helical diameter to have a smaller and a bigger diameter section as is shown by Zhinong (column 9, lines 19-44; figures 12B-12C), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a smaller first diameter than a second diameter in order to affect the design choice of the length of the helix, bandwidth of the resonant frequencies, etc. (see Zhinong at column 9, lines 19-44 and figures 12B-12C).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments with respect to the 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 Kim as is set forth above.
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 February 9, 2026
/JUSTIN R FISCHER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749