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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12, 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.
4. Claim(s) 2, 12, 13, 15-17, and 19-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giannini (EP 2900492, newly cited) and further in view of Uehara (US 2009/0015415, of record), Galimberti (WO 2005/118695, newly cited), and Kubo (US 3,619,345, of record).
As best depicted in Figure 1, Giannini is directed to a tire construction comprising an innerliner 112, a bead filler 104, a carcass 101 (main portion and turnup portion contact one another radially beyond a radially outer end of said filler), a bead core 102, a sidewall 108, an antiabrasive strip or rim cushion rubber layer 105, and belt layers 106. 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, Giannini 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 Giannini 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’ (corresponds with claimed storage modulus E’) at 20°C between 2 MPa and 12 MPa (Paragraph 12). In such an instance, though, Giannini 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. Galimberti provides one example of a tire construction in which a hard bead filler has a JIS hardness between approximately 70 and 95 and a dynamic modulus at 23°C between about 11 MPa and about 50 MPa (Page 7, Lines 7-29). When using common dynamic modulus values E’ for bead filler compositions in the tire of Giannini, the claimed quantitative relationships would have been satisfied. For example, with a dynamic modulus E’ of 50 MPa in the bead filler of Giannini, the claims are satisfied when the modulus of the covering rubber layer is between 1.5 MPa and 75 MPa (modulus values disclosed by Uehara are fully encompassed by this range). Alternatively, with a dynamic modulus E’ of 11 MPa in the bead filler of Giannini, the claims are satisfied when the modulus of the covering rubber layer is between 0.33 MPa and 16.5 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 Giannini and satisfy the claimed quantitative relationship for the benefits detailed above (bead filler constitutes a rubber member having the largest storage modulus at 20°C 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, antiabrasive strip 105 constitutes “a rubber member adjacent on an outer side in the tire width direction of the covering layer”. Additionally, said antiabrasive strip has a dynamic modulus E’ at 23C of at least 9 MPa (Paragraphs 17 and 19). Thus, a ratio between the dynamic modulus of the covering rubber and the dynamic modulus of the antiabrasive strip is less than 1.33 and substantially overlaps the claimed invention (any dynamic modulus value for the antiabrasive strip less than approximately 67 MPa would necessarily result in the claimed ratio).
Additionally, regarding claim 2 (and claim 24), given that the modulus ratio 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).
Lastly, regarding claim 2, tire sidewalls and tire antiabrasive strips 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. Additionally, the claims are directed to absolute dimensions and it is well taken that said dimensions are a function of the tire size and ultimately the intended use of the tire.
As to claim 17, the general disclosure “above a rim flange” is seen to encompass the claimed arrangement (Paragraph 14).
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 Giannini, as taught by Mitarai, is 50 MPa, the claims are satisfied when the cover rubber layer has a modulus between approximately 1.5 MPa and 10 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.
As to claim 25, Figure 1 of Giannini depicts an antiabrasive strip or rim cushion rubber on an axially inside of the bead core, a radially inside of said bead core, and an axially outside of said bead core.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 2, 12, 13, 15-17, and 19-25 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
6. 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 R FISCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749 June 29, 2026
Prosecution Insights