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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 16, 2026 has been entered.
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 1-2, 4, 6, 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lallement (US Pub. No. 2019/0322142) in view of Adamson (US Pub. No. 2004/0252072), Adamson II (US Pub. No. 2004/0159383), Pedrinelli (US Pub. No. 2022/0088974) and Battocchio (US Pub. No. 2013/0112324).
Regarding claims 1-2 and 4, Lallement teaches a pneumatic tire comprising a tread portion 32 extending in the circumferential direction and having an annular shape, a pair of sidewall portions 33 respectively disposed on both sides of the tread portion and a pair of bead portions 34 each disposed on a radially inner side of the sidewall portions (paragraph [0060]; figure 1), a transponder 1 being embedded in one of the sidewall portions, the transponder and associated antenna 10 being directly covered with a coating layer (3a and 3b collectively) made of an electrically insulating elastomer blend having a permittivity (dielectric constant) lower than 6.5 (paragraphs [0077]-[0084]; figures 2 and 8). Lallement does not specifically disclose the dielectric constant of the rubber of the sidewall portions, but such a rubber may have a dielectric constant as high as 12 (see Adamson at paragraph [0017]), thus Lallement in view of Adamson teaches or suggests that the relative dielectric constant of the coating layer is lower than that of the rubber member adjacent to the coating layer. Lallement does not specifically disclose a shortest distance D between an outer edge of the coating layer to the transponder in a tire meridian cross-section. Adamson II teaches a coating layer for a transponder having a thickness of at least 0.02 mm (paragraph [0021]), with a preferred thickness of at least 0.1 mm, and specific embodiments with thickness of 0.5 mm, 1 mm, and 1.5 mm (paragraph [0023]), having a specific embodiment within and a range overlapping the claimed range of claim 2, as well as teaching a shortest distance of 0.3 mm or more as required by claim 1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a coating thickness as taught by Adamson II in the tire of Lallement in order to achieve an acceptable transmission range (see Adamson II at paragraph [0023]). Lallement does not specifically disclose that the transponder comprises a substrate and antennas extending from both ends of the substrate. Adamson II teaches using a transponder having a substrate 11 and antennas 20 extending from both ends of the substrate (paragraphs [0017]-[0020]; figure 1), and using a half wave dipole length in rubber of 47 mm (paragraph [0029]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a substrate with antennas on both ends of the substrate and antenna length as taught by Adamson II in the tire of Lallement (combined) as a known alternative transponder configuration with the predictable result of having a similarly functioning transponder. Lallement 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 Lallement (combined) as a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Lallement 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 Lallement (combined) in order to improve the quality of communications with the transponder (see Battocchio at paragraph [0007]).
Regarding claims 6 and 10, Lallement teaches placing the transponder higher than a conventional rim flange of 17.5 mm, and not as high as the middle of the sidewall, with a good compromise being a distance of 30 to 40 mm from the bottom of the bead core (paragraph [0064]; figure 2).
Regarding claim 8, Lallement teaches a permittivity (dielectric constant) lower than 6.5 (paragraph [0084]).
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 March 11, 2026
/JUSTIN R FISCHER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749