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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 5, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 16-27 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Takahashi (EP 2944482) and further in view of (a) Destraves (US 2021/0098858) and (b) Adamson (WO 03/105509) and/or Randall (WO 2016/060851).
The applied reference (Destraves- US ‘858) has a common inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
As best depicted in Figure 1, Takahashi is directed to a tire construction comprising a carcass 6, a bead core 5, a belt assembly or crown block 7, an innerliner 9, a first additional rubber layer between said innerliner and said carcass (claimed fifth layer), a bead filler rubber 8 (claimed first bead filler), a chafer rubber 11 (claimed second layer), an exterior sidewall rubber 16 (claimed third layer), and a second additional layer 12 or 15 (claimed fourth layer) disposed axially inwards of said exterior sidewall and said chafer rubber. In such an instance, though, the tire of Takahashi is devoid of a radiofrequency transponder comprising an electronic portion (electronic chip and primary antenna) and a radiating dipole antenna.
It is extremely well known and conventional to include transponders in tire constructions in order to, for example, provide tire identification during and post manufacture, as shown for example by Destraves (Title). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include a conventional transponder in the tire of Takahashi for the benefits detailed above.
In terms of the structure of said transponder, Destraves teaches a radiating antenna 10 and a primary antenna that is electrically connected to an electronic portion (Paragraph 9), wherein said radiating antenna has a pair of first regions 101a,101b and a second region 102 therebetween. More particularly, (a) said primary antenna is circumscribed by a cylinder having a diameter of 0.8 mm (Paragraph 114), (b) said radiating antenna has an inner diameter of 1.05 mm (winding diameter of 1.275 mm) and a pitch of 1.55 mm in said first regions, and (c) said radiating antenna has an inside diameter of 1.35 mm (winding diameter of 1.575 mm) and a pitch of 1 mm in a second region (Paragraphs 114-119). Thus, the claimed ratio between the pitch and the winding diameter for the radiating antenna in said first regions is approximately 1.2 and between 0.8 and 3 as required by the claimed invention. Additionally, the claimed ratio between the pitch and the winding diameter for the radiating antenna in the second region is approximately 0.63.
With further respect to claim 16, an inner diameter of the radiating antenna in the first region is 1.05 mm, which is smaller than an inner diameter of the radiating antenna in a second region (1.35 mm). Also, a diameter of the cylinder circumscribing the electronic portion is 1.15 mm and such is larger than an inner diameter of the radiating antenna in said first regions (1.05 mm) (Paragraph 120). This arrangement is described as forming two mechanical stops as required by the claimed invention (Paragraphs 49 and 120).
In terms of the exact arrangement of said transponder, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include the transponder of Destraves in any number of common locations and such would include those axially on an outside of an interior end of the bead (Bt in Takahashi) and radially between a radially outermost end of bead core 5 an axial end of belt 7. Adamson (Page 4, 2nd Paragraph) and/or Randall (Paragraph 28 and Figure 1) recognize the wide variety of suitable mounting locations for tire transponders. Absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use any of the suitable mounting locations identified by Adamson and/or Randall in the tire of Takahashi (as modified by Destraves).
Furthermore, regarding claim 16, Takahashi states that the carcass reinforcing elements are inclined, for example, between 75 and 90 degrees (Paragraph 31). This suggests that the carcass can be a radial design or a bias design. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to include common antenna inclinations in the tire of Takahashi and such includes circumferential inclinations and radial inclinations. When the carcass cords are inclined at 90 degrees, a circumferential inclination for the antenna would satisfy the claims. Similarly, when the carcass cords are inclined at common bias inclination angles (for example, 45 degrees), a radial inclination or a circumferential inclination would satisfy the claims. Absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to form an arrangement that satisfies the claimed relationship.
With respect to claim 19, carcass 6 is well recognized as including a skim rubber or topping rubber on both sides of a carcass reinforcement element.
Regarding claims 20 and 21, the transponder of Destraves is embedded in a “supple” elastomer blend, which suggests a soft elastomer blend (Paragraph 64). Additionally, a wide variety of conventional components, such as the bead filler, are well recognized as being formed with extremely rigid compositions having hardness values, for example, as high as 100 Shore A. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form the elastomer blend of Destraves with inferior mechanical properties, such as modulus, given the general disclosure detailed above.
As to claim 22, the claimed dielectric constants are consistent with insulating compounds, as shown for example by Adamson (Page 2, 4th Paragraph).
With respect to claims 23-25, the claimed arrangement is consistent with the suitable mounting locations identified by Adamson and/or Randall.
Regarding claim 26, several of the rubber layers positioned axially outward of a carcass have a thickness in the axial direction and such is perpendicular to a radially extending radiating antenna.
As to claim 27, rubber masses 3a and 3b have a thickness between 2 mm and 5 mm (Paragraph 123) and thus, the transponder of Destraves is separated by a distance considerably greater than 0.3 mm from a surface of an adjacent rubber compound.
5. Claim 16-27 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Takahashi (EP 2944482) and further in view of (a) Destraves (US 2021/0019590) and (b) Adamson and/or Randall.
The applied reference (Destraves- US ‘590) has a common inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
As best depicted in Figure 1, Takahashi is directed to a tire construction comprising a carcass 6, a bead core 5, a belt assembly or crown block 7, an innerliner 9, a first additional rubber layer between said innerliner and said carcass (claimed fifth layer), a bead filler rubber 8 (claimed first bead filler), a chafer rubber 11 (claimed second layer), an exterior sidewall rubber 16 (claimed third layer), and a second additional layer 12 or 15 (claimed fourth layer) disposed axially inwards of said exterior sidewall and said chafer rubber. In such an instance, though, the tire of Takahashi is devoid of a radiofrequency transponder comprising an electronic portion (electronic chip and primary antenna) and a radiating dipole antenna.
It is extremely well known and conventional to include transponders in tire constructions in order to, for example, provide tire identification during and post manufacture, as shown for example by Destraves (Title). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include a conventional transponder in the tire of Takahashi for the benefits detailed above.
In terms of the structure of said transponder, Destraves teaches a radiating antenna 10 and a primary antenna that is electrically connected to an electronic portion (Paragraph 9), wherein said radiating antenna has a pair of first regions 101a,101b and a second region 102 therebetween. More particularly, (a) said primary antenna is circumscribed by a cylinder having a diameter of 0.8 mm (Paragraph 97), (b) said radiating antenna has an inner diameter of 1.05 mm (winding diameter of 1.275 mm) and a pitch of 1.55 mm in said first regions, and (c) said radiating antenna has an inside diameter of 1.35 mm (winding diameter of 1.575 mm) and a pitch of 1 mm in a second region (Paragraphs 101-103). Thus, the claimed ratio between the pitch and the winding diameter for the radiating antenna in said first regions is approximately 1.2 and between 0.8 and 3 as required by the claimed invention. Additionally, the claimed ratio between the pitch and the winding diameter for the radiating antenna in the second region is approximately 0.63.
With further respect to claim 16, an inner diameter of the radiating antenna in the first region is 1.05 mm, which is smaller than an inner diameter of the radiating antenna in a second region (1.35 mm). Also, a diameter of the cylinder circumscribing the electronic portion is 1.15 mm and such is larger than an inner diameter of the radiating antenna in said first regions (1.05 mm). This arrangement would form two mechanical stops as required by the claimed invention.
In terms of the exact arrangement of said transponder, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include the transponder of Destraves in any number of common locations and such would include those axially on an outside of an interior end of the bead (Bt in Takahashi) and radially between a radially outermost end of bead core 5 an axial end of belt 7. Adamson (Page 4, 2nd Paragraph) and/or Randall (Paragraph 28 and Figure 1) recognize the wide variety of suitable mounting locations for tire transponders. Absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use any of the suitable mounting locations identified by Adamson and/or Randall in the tire of Takahashi (as modified by Destraves).
Furthermore, regarding claim 16, Takahashi states that the carcass reinforcing elements are inclined, for example, between 75 and 90 degrees (Paragraph 31). This suggests that the carcass can be a radial design or a bias design. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to include common antenna inclinations in the tire of Takahashi and such includes circumferential inclinations and radial inclinations. When the carcass cords are inclined at 90 degrees, a circumferential inclination for the antenna would satisfy the claims. Similarly, when the carcass cords are inclined at common bias inclination angles (for example, 45 degrees), a radial inclination or a circumferential inclination would satisfy the claims. Absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to form an arrangement that satisfies the claimed relationship.
With respect to claim 19, carcass 6 is well recognized as including a skim rubber or topping rubber on both sides of a carcass reinforcement element.
Regarding claims 20 and 21, the transponder of Destraves is embedded in a “supple” elastomer blend, which suggests a soft elastomer blend (Paragraph 47). Additionally, a wide variety of conventional components, such as the bead filler, are well recognized as being formed with extremely rigid compositions having hardness values, for example, as high as 100 Shore A. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form the elastomer blend of Destraves with inferior mechanical properties, such as modulus, given the general disclosure detailed above.
As to claim 22, the claimed dielectric constants are consistent with insulating compounds, as shown for example by Adamson (Page 2, 4th Paragraph).
With respect to claims 23-25, the claimed arrangement is consistent with the suitable mounting locations identified by Adamson and/or Randall.
Regarding claim 26, several of the rubber layers positioned axially outward of a carcass have a thickness in the axial direction and such is perpendicular to a radially extending radiating antenna.
As to claim 27, rubber masses 3a and 3b have a thickness between 2 mm and 5 mm (Paragraph 123) and thus, the transponder of Destraves is separated by a distance considerably greater than 0.3 mm from a surface of an adjacent rubber compound.
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 16-20, 22-27, and 29 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
7. 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 January 16, 2026