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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 December 31, 2025 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.
Claim(s) 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 6582104 (newly cited) and further in view of (a) Obrecht (US 2001/0051685, newly cited), (b) Uehara (US 2009/0015415, of record), (c) DeCancellis (US 2020/0317891, of record), (d) Kataoka (US 2003/0234067, of record) and/or Okamura (US 6,197,868, of record), and (e) Kubo (US 3,619,345).
As best depicted in Figures 7, 8, and 10, JP ‘104 is directed to a tire construction comprising a bead core 21, a single, uniform bead filler 22, a carcass main portion 25, a carcass turnup portion 25 in direct contact with said carcass main portion radially above said bead filler, a sidewall 12, and a transponder 40 (RFID) positioned axially outward of said carcass portions. Figure 10 also depicts the presence of a coating rubber layer 43 that protects said RFID. Furthermore, JP ‘104 states that said bead filler is harder than said surrounding rubber components (corresponds with rubber member having largest storage modulus of rubber members located on an inner side in the tire width direction of the transponder). In such an instance, though, JP ‘104 fails to provide tan delta values for the bead filler.
Obrecht is similarly directed to a tire construction including a bead filler or bead apex and teaches the use of high modulus, low hysteresis rubber compositions, with specific examples having tan delta values at 60°C of 0.011 and 0.014 (Paragraphs 1 and 72- Examples 1 and 4). As detailed above, the bead filler composition of JP ‘104 is described as being harder than surrounding rubber components and Obrecht evidences the known mechanical properties associated with hard bead fillers. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the hard bead filler composition of Obrecht as the hard bead filler of JP ‘104 (known composition that provides desired mechanical properties).
With further respect to the tan delta of the bead filler, values as low as 0.011 at 60°C would have been recognized as being less than 0.4 at a temperature of -20°C. It is well recognized that loss tangent values increase with decreasing temperature. DeCancellis (Table 3) provides one example of multiple tire rubber compositions that demonstrate the general pattern of loss tangent values from 70°C to -10°C (extremely close to -20°C). It is emphasized that the loss tangent values of multiple rubber compositions in Obrecht (Examples 1 and 4) would not have been expected to exceed 0.4 at -20°C given the general relationship of loss tangent values in rubber compositions.
In terms of the RFID covering rubber in JP ‘104, Uehara evidences the known rubber compositions conventionally used in RFID assemblies (Paragraph 12). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use common rubber compositions for the covering rubber of JP ‘104.
A fair reading of Uehara suggests the use of rubber compositions having low carbon black loadings (consistent with lower modulus compositions). While 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 (white filler other than silica). It is emphasized that calcium carbonate and silica are commonly disclosed in an alternative manner when disclosing non-carbon black, white fillers, as shown for example by Kataoka (Paragraph 34) and/or Okamura (Column 4, Lines 45+). 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 the time of the invention 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, as opposed to carbon black).
With further respect to the covering layer, Uehara teaches dynamic modulus E* values between 2 MPa and 12 MPa at 20°C or less (Paragraph 12). It is emphasized that the storage modulus E’ cannot exceed the dynamic modulus E* (dynamic modulus E* is a function of storage modulus and loss modulus- E*=E’+iE”) and actually approaches the dynamic modulus value as tan delta values decrease (E” would get extremely small at low tan delta values). As such, it reasons that the dynamic modulus range disclosed above (at temperatures of 20°C or less-includes -20°C) would be extremely similar to the storage modulus range and satisfy the claimed invention.
Additionally, one would similarly expect the covering layer composition to demonstrate a low tan delta given that it is designed to simply protect the RFID and not to contribute significant mechanical properties to the tire construction as a whole. This is further supported by the suggestion to use low levels of carbon black (Paragraph 12 of Uehara). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form the modified tire of JP ‘104 with a covering layer having a smaller loss tangent than the bead filler given the totality of the teachings identified above. It is emphasized that the bead filler of Obrecht is not limited to a single composition (or single tan delta value) and the covering layer of Uehara can have extremely small modulus values (and presumably really small tan delta values) at temperatures of 20°C or less. Also, Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for ratios between 0.3 and 0.9 (Examples 35 and 36 have non-inventive ratios and demonstrate identical characteristics to Examples 33 and 34 formed with inventive ratios).
Lastly, regarding claim 4, carcass turnup ends are conventionally disclosed as having a range of heights and Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed arrangement. A fair reading of JP ‘104 does not teach the exclusive use of carcass turnup ends that terminate radially above a maximum section tire width. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to position a carcass turnup end at any number of radial positions, including those in accordance to the claimed invention.
As to claim 5, DeCancellis provides a general relationship between loss tangent values at 0°C and -10°C (exemplary ratios are between 75% and 83%) and such would not be expected to significantly change at -20°C outside the broad range of the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 4 and 5 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
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 6, 2026