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.
Claim(s) 2, 12, 13, and 15-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 02124302 (of record) and further in view of Uehara (US 2009/0015415, of record), Hodges (EP 0678404, of record), Mitarai (EP 3189987, of record), and Kubo (US 3,619,345, of record).
As best depicted in Figure 1, JP ‘302 is directed to a tire construction comprising an innerliner 29 (extends between respective bead portion and terminates in region where reference character 29 is provided), a bead filler 28, a carcass 27 (main portion and turnup portion contact one another radially beyond a radially outer end of said filler), a bead core 24, a sidewall 23, a rim chafer or abrasion layer 26, and belt layers 21. In such an instance, at most 2 rubber layers (chafer and sidewall) are present axially outward of the carcass turnup portion. In such an instance, though, JP ‘302 is silent with respect to the inclusion of a transponder in an outer side of said carcass.
It is extremely well known , though, that transponders (RFID) are conventionally included in modern day tire constructions to provide a wide variety of information, including location during manufacture and shipment. Similarly, transponders are commonly included in modern day tire constructions in order to provide information during running, such as pressure and temperature. Uehara provides one example of a common RFID module (claimed transponder) embedded in a tire construction (Paragraphs 1, 2, and 14). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include a well-known transponder in the tire of JP ‘302 for the benefits detailed above. It is noted that the general disclosure in Paragraph 14 suggests arrangements that are axially outside a carcass.
Also, regarding claim 2, Uehara teaches the inclusion of a covering layer having a dynamic modulus E’ at 20°C between 2 MPa and 12 MPa (Paragraph 12). In such an instance, though, JP ‘302 is silent with respect to the mechanical properties of the bead filler. In any event, rubber compositions demonstrating high hardness and modulus are conventionally used for bead fillers. Hodges provides one example of a tire construction in which a hard bead filler has a JIS hardness between approximately 72 and 92 and a modulus between 10 MPa and 60 MPa (Page 5, Lines 1-9). When using common modulus values for bead filler compositions in the tire of JP ‘302, the claimed quantitative relationships would have been satisfied. For example, with a modulus of 60 MPa in the bead filler of JP ‘302, the claims are satisfied when the modulus of the covering rubber layer is between 1.8 MPa and 90 MPa (modulus values disclosed by Uehara are fully encompassed by this range). One of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to include a coated transponder in the tire of JP ‘302 and satisfy the claimed quantitative relationship for the benefits detailed above (bead filler constitutes a rubber member having the largest storage modulus at 20C of rubber members located on an inner side in the width direction of the transponder).
With further respect to claim 2 (and claim 15), a fair reading of Uehara suggests the use of rubber compositions having low carbon black loadings (consistent with lower modulus compositions). Additionally, the exemplary compositions include 5-55 phr of silica. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to use any number of non-carbon black fillers in the covering layer of Uehara and such would include calcium carbonate. It is emphasized that calcium carbonate and silica are commonly disclosed in an alternative manner when disclosing non-carbon black, white fillers. Additionally, calcium carbonate and silica are recognized as having low permitivities (e.g. do not absorb electromagnetic waves)- see Kubo (Column 2, Lines 4-16). Thus, the use of silica or calcium carbonate as the white filler in Uehara remains consistent with the desire of Uehara to have low wave absorption and optimized electrical communication. Similarly, the use of these white fillers, as opposed to high carbon black loadings, promotes low modulus compositions. Again, Uehara teaches a rubber composition designed to have low wave absorption (optimizes electrical communication) and low modulus values- one of ordinary skill in the art at would have found it obvious to use calcium carbonate and/or silica to achieve such a composition and Uehara recognizes the general order of loadings for white fillers (art recognizes low absorption rates due to these white fillers).
Also, regarding claim 2, rim chafer/clinch 8 can be viewed as the claimed “rubber member adjacent on an outer side in the tire width direction of the covering layer”. For example, rim chafers are well recognized as being hard rubber layers that have mechanical properties that are extremely similar to those of hard bead fillers (see Mitarai- Paragraphs 27 and 30). This would suggest modulus ratios for an “adjacent” rubber layer in JP ‘302 (sidewall 23 and/or rim chafer or abrasion rubber 26) and a covering rubber that are similar to those detailed above in regards to the bead filler and in accordance to the claimed invention.
Lastly, regarding claim 2 (and claim 24), given that the modulus at 20°C in Uehara and that of the claimed invention are identical, it reasons that the claimed ratio would be consistent with that required by the claimed invention (modulus at elevated temperature in Uehara would be expected to decrease in the same manner as that of the claimed invention). Also, Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed ratio (Tables in Applicant’s original disclosure do not even include the claimed ratios).
Regarding claim 12, Uehara teaches dynamic modulus values identical to those required by the claimed invention.
With respect to claim 13, Uehara (Paragraph 12) teaches a preferred relative permittivity between 4 and 7 and such is related to the claimed dieletric constant.
With respect to claim 16, any number of splice portions are present in a tire, including those in the tread region, and such would be spaced significantly greater than 10 mm from a transponder positioned in a sidewall region axially beyond a carcass. Additionally, a wide variety of individual tire components have multiple splice locations in the circumferential direction such that at least one splice portion would be spaced at least 10 mm from a transponder (splice portions are commonly spaced out in a tire circumferential portion- even distribution maintains weight balance).
As to claim 17, the general disclosure “above a rim flange” is seen to encompass the claimed arrangement (Paragraph 14).
Regarding claim 18, tire sidewalls are conventionally significantly larger than 2 mm, such that the claimed spacing would be satisfied when a transponder is placed in any number of sidewall locations.
With respect to claim 19, Uehara teaches a coating thickness between 0.2 mm and 2.0 mm (Paragraph 12).
As to claim 20, the claimed components are consistent with those that are conventionally included in RFID modules (transponders). Applicant has not challenged the Examiner’s position and as such, it is taken to be Admitted Prior Art.
Regarding claim 21, as detailed above, when the bead filler modulus of JP ‘302, as taught by Mitarai, is 60 MPa, the claims are satisfied when the cover rubber layer has a modulus between approximately 1.8 MPa and 12 MPa and such is almost identical to the disclosed range in Uehara.
With respect to claim 22, Uehara teaches a preferred thickness value between 0.2 mm and 2.0 mm (Paragraph 12). It is well taken that a reference may be relied for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, including non-preferred embodiments. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use thickness values greater than 2.0 mm and in accordance to the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 23, Uehara teaches a silica composition between 5 phr and 55 phr. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use any combination of white fillers to arrive at such a loading given that a multitude of white fillers are recognized as promoting low wave absorption and tire rubber compositions are conventionally disclosed as including an individual white filler or a combination of white fillers.
4. Claim(s) 2, 12, 13, and 15-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP ‘302 and further in view of Uehara, Hodges, Mitarai, Kubo, and Misawa (JP 1-106706, newly cited).
As best depicted in Figure 1, JP ‘302 is directed to a tire construction comprising an innerliner 29 (extends between respective bead portion and terminates in region where reference character 29 is provided), a bead filler 28, a carcass 27 (main portion and turnup portion contact one another radially beyond a radially outer end of said filler), a bead core 24, a sidewall 23, a rim chafer or abrasion layer 26, and belt layers 21. In such an instance, at most 2 rubber layers (chafer and sidewall) are present axially outward of the carcass turnup portion. In such an instance, though, JP ‘302 is silent with respect to the inclusion of a transponder in an outer side of said carcass.
It is extremely well known , though, that transponders (RFID) are conventionally included in modern day tire constructions to provide a wide variety of information, including location during manufacture and shipment. Similarly, transponders are commonly included in modern day tire constructions in order to provide information during running, such as pressure and temperature. Uehara provides one example of a common RFID module (claimed transponder) embedded in a tire construction (Paragraphs 1, 2, and 14). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include a well-known transponder in the tire of JP ‘302 for the benefits detailed above. It is noted that the general disclosure in Paragraph 14 suggests arrangements that are axially outside a carcass.
Also, regarding claim 2, Uehara teaches the inclusion of a covering layer having a dynamic modulus E’ at 20°C between 2 MPa and 12 MPa (Paragraph 12). In such an instance, though, JP ‘302 is silent with respect to the mechanical properties of the bead filler. In any event, rubber compositions demonstrating high hardness and modulus are conventionally used for bead fillers. Hodges provides one example of a tire construction in which a hard bead filler has a JIS hardness between approximately 72 and 92 and a modulus between 10 MPa and 60 MPa (Page 5, Lines 1-9). When using common modulus values for bead filler compositions in the tire of JP ‘302, the claimed quantitative relationships would have been satisfied. For example, with a modulus of 60 MPa in the bead filler of JP ‘302, the claims are satisfied when the modulus of the covering rubber layer is between 1.8 MPa and 90 MPa (modulus values disclosed by Uehara are fully encompassed by this range). One of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to include a coated transponder in the tire of JP ‘302 and satisfy the claimed quantitative relationship for the benefits detailed above (bead filler constitutes a rubber member having the largest storage modulus at 20C of rubber members located on an inner side in the width direction of the transponder).
With further respect to claim 2 (and claim 15), a fair reading of Uehara suggests the use of rubber compositions having low carbon black loadings (consistent with lower modulus compositions). Additionally, the exemplary compositions include 5-55 phr of silica. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to use any number of non-carbon black fillers in the covering layer of Uehara and such would include calcium carbonate. It is emphasized that calcium carbonate and silica are commonly disclosed in an alternative manner when disclosing non-carbon black, white fillers. Additionally, calcium carbonate and silica are recognized as having low permitivities (e.g. do not absorb electromagnetic waves)- see Kubo (Column 2, Lines 4-16). Thus, the use of silica or calcium carbonate as the white filler in Uehara remains consistent with the desire of Uehara to have low wave absorption and optimized electrical communication. Similarly, the use of these white fillers, as opposed to high carbon black loadings, promotes low modulus compositions. Again, Uehara teaches a rubber composition designed to have low wave absorption (optimizes electrical communication) and low modulus values- one of ordinary skill in the art at would have found it obvious to use calcium carbonate and/or silica to achieve such a composition and Uehara recognizes the general order of loadings for white fillers (art recognizes low absorption rates due to these white fillers).
Also, regarding claim 2 (and claim 24), the sidewall can be viewed as the claimed “rubber member adjacent on an outer side in the tire width direction of the covering layer”. For example, tire sidewalls are well recognized as having mechanical properties (e.g. modulus values) that would result in the claimed relationship. More particularly, Misawa teaches modulus values at 20°C between 4 MPa and 8 MPa (Abstract) and given the modulus values between 2 MPa and 12 MPa for the coating layer, a wide variety of embodiments would satisfy the claimed invention (range between 0.25 and 4 is suggested by these values and such substantially encompasses the broad range of the claimed invention in claim 2 and fully encompasses the broad range of the claimed invention in claim 24). These ratios would not be expected to significantly deviate in a manner that falls outside the scope of the claimed invention at elevated temperatures.
Lastly, regarding claim 2 (and claim 24), given that the modulus at 20°C in Uehara and that of the claimed invention are identical, it reasons that the claimed ratio would be consistent with that required by the claimed invention (modulus at elevated temperature in Uehara would be expected to decrease in the same manner as that of the claimed invention). Also, Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed ratio (Tables in Applicant’s original disclosure do not even include the claimed ratios).
Regarding claim 12, Uehara teaches dynamic modulus values identical to those required by the claimed invention.
With respect to claim 13, Uehara (Paragraph 12) teaches a preferred relative permittivity between 4 and 7 and such is related to the claimed dieletric constant.
With respect to claim 16, any number of splice portions are present in a tire, including those in the tread region, and such would be spaced significantly greater than 10 mm from a transponder positioned in a sidewall region axially beyond a carcass. Additionally, a wide variety of individual tire components have multiple splice locations in the circumferential direction such that at least one splice portion would be spaced at least 10 mm from a transponder (splice portions are commonly spaced out in a tire circumferential portion- even distribution maintains weight balance).
As to claim 17, the general disclosure “above a rim flange” is seen to encompass the claimed arrangement (Paragraph 14).
Regarding claim 18, tire sidewalls are conventionally significantly larger than 2 mm, such that the claimed spacing would be satisfied when a transponder is placed in any number of sidewall locations.
With respect to claim 19, Uehara teaches a coating thickness between 0.2 mm and 2.0 mm (Paragraph 12).
As to claim 20, the claimed components are consistent with those that are conventionally included in RFID modules (transponders). Applicant has not challenged the Examiner’s position and as such, it is taken to be Admitted Prior Art.
Regarding claim 21, as detailed above, when the bead filler modulus of JP ‘302, as taught by Mitarai, is 60 MPa, the claims are satisfied when the cover rubber layer has a modulus between approximately 1.8 MPa and 12 MPa and such is almost identical to the disclosed range in Uehara.
With respect to claim 22, Uehara teaches a preferred thickness value between 0.2 mm and 2.0 mm (Paragraph 12). It is well taken that a reference may be relied for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, including non-preferred embodiments. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use thickness values greater than 2.0 mm and in accordance to the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 23, Uehara teaches a silica composition between 5 phr and 55 phr. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use any combination of white fillers to arrive at such a loading given that a multitude of white fillers are recognized as promoting low wave absorption and tire rubber compositions are conventionally disclosed as including an individual white filler or a combination of white fillers.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant's arguments filed February 24, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the abstract of JP ‘302 states that the purpose is “to dispense with a chafer” and thus, it’s not reasonable to conclude that Mitarai’s alleged disclosure of any similarity of a bead filler and a chafer or Hodges disclosure of a bead filler hardness are relevant in establishing whether a chafer relative to a covering layer satisfies the claim limitations. This argument is not entirely understood. JP ‘302 (Figure 1) teaches an inventive tire construction that does in fact include a conventional rubber chafer 26 adjacent a rim flange. The fact that such an inventive tire is devoid of a cord reinforced bead layer or chafer 10 is immaterial to the pending combination of references. More particularly, the disclosure of Mitarai is directed to rubber compositions designed for a bead filler and rubber composition designed for a rubber chafer or clinch. As such, the prior art of record does in fact suggest that high hardness compositions having essentially the same mechanical properties are used in the bead filler and the rubber chafer. It is emphasized that rubber layer 26 in the tire of JP ‘302 is in fact a rubber chafer (Figure 1) and such a tire is devoid of a cord reinforced bead layer (rubber chafer or abrasion rubber 26 of JP ‘302 is directly analogous to the rubber chafer or clinch 8 of Mitarai).
Conclusion
6. 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.
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 March 10, 2026