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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 17, 2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on July 2, 2026 and March 2, 2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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 1, 3-5, 7, 9-10 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakajima (WO 2019/054226; English equivalent US Pub. No. 2020/0247193 relied upon) in view of Adamson II (US Pub. No. 2004/0159383), Pedrinelli (US Pub. No. 2022/0088974) and Battocchio (US Pub. No. 2013/0112324).
Regarding claims 1, 5, 10 and 13-14, Nakajima teaches a pneumatic tire comprising a tread portion 4 extending in a tire circumferential direction and having an annular shape, a pair of sidewall portions 3 respectively disposed on both sides of the tread portion, and a pair of bead portions 2 each disposed on an inner side of the sidewall portions in a tire radial direction (paragraph [0050]; figure 1) and a transponder 34 being disposed in the sidewall portion (paragraphs [0050] and [0072]; figures 1-2B), a longitudinal length of the transponder of preferably 18 cm or less (paragraph [0074]), it being noted that the thickness dimension is expected to be less than the longitudinal length, with a specific embodiment having an IC chip of 3 mm x 3 mm x 0.4 mm along with a 30 mm antenna on both sides of the chip (paragraph [0108]), additionally Nakajima teaches arranging the antenna portion to extend in an orthogonal direction to the cord of the carcass (paragraph [0074]), therefore teaching or suggesting that the antenna extend in the circumferential direction (as claimed) or in the axial direction. Nakajima does not specifically disclose a coating for the transponder, or the dielectric constant of the rubber of the sidewall portions. Adamson II teaches using a coating 22 on a radio frequency device 10 in a tire, where the radio frequency device can be a transponder, that the transponder can be placed in the sidewall, that the dielectric constant of the coating is less than that of the elastomeric material of the tire and is preferably less than 3, that the coating thickness is at least 0.02 mm measured perpendicular to the antenna, that the length of the transponder is much greater than the thickness, and the transponder comprises a radio device 11 (claimed substrate) and antennas 12 extending from both ends of the substrate (paragraphs [0017]-[0021]); figures 1-2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a coating having a dielectric constant and thickness, and a substrate with antennas extending from both ends as taught by Adamson II in the tire of Nakajima in order to allow for very high frequency or higher radio transmission from the antenna (see Adamson II at paragraph [0004]). This combination having a transponder thickness of 0.4 mm and a coating thickness of at least 0.02 mm results in a Gac/Gar ratio of 1.1 (0.44/0.4) or greater, overlapping the claimed ranges of claims 1 and 13. Nakajima does not specifically disclose a distance L between an end of the antenna in the circumferential direction and an end of the coating layer in the circumferential direction. Pedrinelli teaches that a coating layer for a transponder is generally 1-2 mm longer than the transponder (paragraph [0033]), overlapping the claimed range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a distance L as taught by Pedrinelli for the distance L between an end of the antenna and an end of the coating layer in the tire of Nakajima (combined) as a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Nakajima does not specifically disclose spacing a center of the transponder 10 mm or more from all splice portions in the circumferential direction. Battocchio teaches spacing a center of a transponder at least 90° from the circumferential splice portions of a tire, preferably at least 135°, even more preferably greater than 150°, and most preferably equal to 180° (paragraphs [0007]-[0008] and [0055]-[0057]); figures 2-3), such positioning resulting in a distance far greater than 10mm as claimed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to position the center of the transponder as taught by Battocchio in the tire of Nakajima (combined) in order to improve the quality of communications with the transponder (see Battocchio at paragraph [0007]).
Regarding claim 3, Adamson II teaches a radio device 11 (claimed substrate) and antennas 12 extending from both ends of the substrate (paragraph [0017]); figures 1-2), and Nakajima teaches arranging the antenna portion to extend in an orthogonal direction to the cord of the carcass (paragraph [0074]) as well as a specific embodiment having a tire size 195/65R15 (paragraph [0108]), the R indicating a radial carcass, therefore teaching or suggesting that the antenna extend in the circumferential direction (as claimed) or in the axial direction.
Regarding claims 4 and 9, Adamson II teaches or suggests that the center of the transponder is disposed at a 50% position with respect to the coating thickness (figure 1).
Regarding claims 7 and 12, Nakajima teaches a specific embodiment of tire size 195/65R15 (paragraph [0108]), such a tire having section height of 126.8 mm (195 * 0.65), where the transponder is positioned 40% from the bottom of the bead core (paragraph [0116]), such resulting in a positioning 51 mm from the bottom of the bead core, such positioning taken to be substantially greater than the minimum distance of 15 mm required by the claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims 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. In particular, it is noted that newly cited Pedrinelli specifically discloses a distance L reading on the claimed range, and newly cited Battocchio provides specific motivation for the placement of a center of a transponder greatly farther than 10 mm from all circumferential spliced portions. It is also noted for the record that Downing teaches circumferential splices (paragraph [0073]; figures 20A-20B).
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 July 8, 2026
/JUSTIN R FISCHER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights