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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on January 14, 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is 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 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohsawa (US Pub. No. 2022/0055417) in view of Kurz (DE 102017209546; machine translation relied upon).
Regarding claims 1, 3 and 13, Ohsawa teaches a pneumatic tire comprising a tread portion 4 extending in a tire circumferential direction and having an annular shape and a pair of sidewall portions 3 respectively disposed on both sides of the tread portion in order to function as intended), a pair of bead portions 2 each disposed on an inner side of the sidewall portions in a tire radial direction, a bead filler 6 being disposed on an outer circumference of a bead core 5 of each of the bead portions, where a base of the bead filler has a same width as the top width of the bead core, a carcass layer 7 being mounted between the pair of bead portions, the carcass layer being turned up from a tire inner side to a tire outer side around the bead core (paragraph [0032]; figure 1), and a reinforcing layer 9 disposed adjacent (broadest reasonable interpretation of adjacent is “near”) to a width direction outer side of the bead filler, the reinforcing layer extending only on the outer side of the bead filler, where the reinforcing layer is configured such that it does not overlap any portion of the bead core in the width direction, a height of the upper end of the reinforcing layer being greater than a height of the upper end of the bead filler, where the reinforcing layer can be made of organic fiber cords including nylon, aramid, PET and/or PEN, with specific embodiments made of nylon and aramid or nylon and PET, where a radially inner end of the reinforcing layer is radially inside a radially outer end of the bead core (paragraphs [0043]-[0095]; figure 7C). A pneumatic tire inherently requires an air barrier layer to function, and official notice is taken that it is well-known and conventional to place an inner liner layer on the inside of the carcass to act as an air barrier, and accordingly it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use an inner liner at an inner surface of the carcass as a well-known and conventional location to place an air barrier layer that is inherently required for a pneumatic tire to function as intended. Ohsawa does not specifically disclose a transponder. Kurz teaches providing a transponder 1 between the turnup 17 of the carcass ply and the rim strip component 30, where the height 18 is preferably at least 7 mm (machine translation at page 4), overlapping the claimed range of transponder positioning. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a transponder positioned as taught by Kurz in the tire of Ohsawa in order to enable the tire to be identified by a transponder, and to easily integrate the transponder in a location that is permanently protected from high material stresses (see Kurz machine translation at pages 1-2).
Regarding claim 2, Ohsawa teaches that the carcass turn-up portion terminates beyond an outer end of the reinforcing layer 9 (figure 7C), as well as teaching a specific embodiment having a tire size of 155/65R14 (paragraph [0087]), these teachings together suggesting a claimed distance of 5 mm or more.
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohsawa in view of Kurz as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Downing (US Pub. No. 2006/0196332).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Ohsawa (combined) does not specifically disclose spacing a center of the transponder 10 mm or more from a splice portion in the circumferential direction. However, it is extremely well-known that tire constructions comprise a plurality of circumferentially-spaced apart splice portions, as shown for example by Downing, which teaches that a tire is assembled out of multiple components cut to size and spliced on a building drum, where a typical tire may comprise about six splices spaced about the tire (paragraph [0003]), and where the component can be a carcass layer (paragraph [0012]), a bead filler (paragraph [0008]), an inner liner layer (paragraph [0015]), a sidewall rubber layer (paragraph [0021]), or a toe guard or chafer (taken to be the claimed rim cushion rubber layer) (paragraph [0008]). As the claim language only requires that the center be spaced from a single splice portion, and the splice portions of the various claimed tire components are spaced around the tire, the tire configuration set forth above will have at least one, and potentially all of the splices spaced at least 10 mm from the center of the transponder. Also, Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed configuration (all of the inventive examples in Tables 1 and 2 have a circumferential distance of 10 mm or less and thus fail to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for a circumferential distance of 10 mm or more, and the only example with a distance of less than 10 mm is example 6 with a distance L of 5 mm, such an embodiment having worse results than that of another inventive embodiment with a distance L of 10 mm, example 5). It is further noted that the claims are directed to absolute dimensions and it is well taken that tire dimensions are a function of the intended tire use and ultimately the tire size (larger tires, for example, have greater circumferences and thus spacings between splice portions, for example, would be expected to be greater).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohsawa in view of Kurz as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Miyazaki (US Pub. No. 2016/0355062).
Regarding claim 6, Ohsawa does not specifically disclose a tension at 2.0% elongation for the organic fiber cord of the reinforcing layer. Miyazaki teaches a force for stretching a cord element at 2% is preferably not less than 30 N, more preferably not less than 50 N (paragraph [0042]), as well as teaching a number of cords/5 cm (50 mm) of 40 to 60 (paragraph [0044]), multiplying these together results in ranges for tension of greater than 1200 N/50 mm (30 * 40), or greater than 3000 N/50 mm (50 * 60), overlapping the claimed range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use organic fiber cords having a tension at 2.0% elongation as taught by Miyazaki in the tire of Ohsawa (combined) in order to effectively reinforce the bead of the tire (see Miyazaki at paragraph [0041]).
Regarding claim 7, Ohsawa does not specifically disclose the total fineness of the organic fiber cord of the reinforcing layer. Miyazaki teaches a fineness of the organic fiber cord of 1300 to 1800 dtex (paragraph [0043]), overlapping the claimed range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use organic fiber cords having a total fineness as taught by Miyazaki in the tire of Ohsawa (combined) in order to effectively reinforce the bead of the tire (see Miyazaki at paragraph [0041]).
Claims 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohsawa in view of Kurz as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Adamson (US Pub. No. 2004/0252072).
Regarding claim 8, Ohsawa does not specifically disclose that the transponder is coated. Adamson teaches providing a coating layer (3a and 3b collectively) for a transponder in a tire having a permittivity (dielectric constant) lower than 6.5 (paragraphs [0077]-[0084]; figures 2 and 8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a coating having a dielectric constant as taught by Adamson for the transponder in the tire of Ohsawa (combined) in order to prevent a loss of effective range of the transponder (see Adamson at paragraph [0018]).
Regarding claim 9, Adamson that the coating thickness is at least 0.3 mm (paragraph [0026]), and Kurz teaches a transponder thickness of less than 1 mm (machine translation at 4), resulting in a Gac/Gar ratio of greater than 1.6 (1.6/1), overlapping the claimed range.
Regarding claim 10, Adamson teaches a radio component 111 (claimed substrate) and antennas 112 extending from both ends of the substrate (paragraph [0015]); figure 1) and a coating thickness of at least 0.3 mm (paragraph [0026]), and Kurz teaches a transponder length of between 30 and 80 mm (machine translation at page 4) thus teaching an overlapping range for a distance L between an end of the antennas and an end of the coating layer.
Regarding claim 11, Kurz teaches a transponder chip and antennas extending from both sides of the transponder chip, and arranging the antenna portion to extend in the circumferential direction (machine translation at pages 3-4, figures 1 and 3).
Regarding claim 12, Adamson teaches or suggests that the center of the transponder is disposed at a 50% position with respect to the coating thickness (figures 1-2).
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohsawa in view of Kurz and Downing as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Miyazaki (US Pub. No. 2016/0355062).
Regarding claim 16, Ohsawa does not specifically disclose a tension at 2.0% elongation for the organic fiber cord of the reinforcing layer. Miyazaki teaches a force for stretching a cord element at 2% is preferably not less than 30 N, more preferably not less than 50 N (paragraph [0042]), as well as teaching a number of cords/5 cm (50 mm) of 40 to 60 (paragraph [0044]), multiplying these together results in ranges for tension of greater than 1200 N/50 mm (30 * 40), or greater than 3000 N/50 mm (50 * 60), overlapping the claimed range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use organic fiber cords having a tension at 2.0% elongation as taught by Miyazaki in the tire of Ohsawa (combined) in order to effectively reinforce the bead of the tire (see Miyazaki at paragraph [0041]).
Regarding claim 17, Ohsawa does not specifically disclose the total fineness of the organic fiber cord of the reinforcing layer. Miyazaki teaches a fineness of the organic fiber cord of 1300 to 1800 dtex (paragraph [0043]), overlapping the claimed range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use organic fiber cords having a total fineness as taught by Miyazaki in the tire of Ohsawa (combined) in order to effectively reinforce the bead of the tire (see Miyazaki at paragraph [0041]).
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohsawa in view of Kurz, Downing and Miyazaki as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Adamson (US Pub. No. 2004/0252072).
Regarding claim 18, Ohsawa does not specifically disclose that the transponder is coated. Adamson teaches providing a coating layer (3a and 3b collectively) for a transponder in a tire having a permittivity (dielectric constant) lower than 6.5 (paragraphs [0077]-[0084]; figures 2 and 8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a coating having a dielectric constant as taught by Adamson for the transponder in the tire of Wada (combined) in order to prevent a loss of effective range of the transponder (see Adamson at paragraph [0018]).
Regarding claim 19, Adamson that the coating thickness is at least 0.3 mm (paragraph [0026]), and Kurz teaches a transponder thickness of less than 1 mm (machine translation at 4), resulting in a Gac/Gar ratio of greater than 1.6 (1.6/1), overlapping the claimed range.
Regarding claim 20, Adamson teaches a radio component 111 (claimed substrate) and antennas 112 extending from both ends of the substrate (paragraph [0015]); figure 1) and a coating thickness of at least 0.3 mm (paragraph [0026]), and Kurz teaches a transponder length of between 30 and 80 mm (machine translation at page 4) thus teaching an overlapping range for a distance L between an end of the antennas and an end of the coating layer.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohsawa (US Pub. No. 2022/0055417) in view of Takagi (US Pub. No. 2020/0108675).
Regarding claim 21, Ohsawa teaches a pneumatic tire comprising a tread portion 4 extending in a tire circumferential direction and having an annular shape and a pair of sidewall portions 3 respectively disposed on both sides of the tread portion in order to function as intended), a pair of bead portions 2 each disposed on an inner side of the sidewall portions in a tire radial direction, a bead filler 6 being disposed on an outer circumference of a bead core 5 of each of the bead portions, where a base of the bead filler has a same width as the top width of the bead core, a carcass layer 7 being mounted between the pair of bead portions, the carcass layer being turned up from a tire inner side to a tire outer side around the bead core (paragraph [0032]; figure 1), and a reinforcing layer 9 disposed adjacent (broadest reasonable interpretation of adjacent is “near”) to a width direction outer side of the bead filler, the reinforcing layer extending only on the outer side of the bead filler, where the reinforcing layer is configured such that it does not overlap any portion of the bead core in the width direction, a height of the upper end of the reinforcing layer being greater than a height of the upper end of the bead filler, where the reinforcing layer can be made of organic fiber cords including nylon, aramid, PET and/or PEN, with specific embodiments made of nylon and aramid or nylon and PET, where a radially inner end of the reinforcing layer is radially inside a radially outer end of the bead core (paragraphs [0043]-[0095]; figure 7C). A pneumatic tire inherently requires an air barrier layer to function, and official notice is taken that it is well-known and conventional to place an inner liner layer on the inside of the carcass to act as an air barrier, and accordingly it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use an inner liner at an inner surface of the carcass as a well-known and conventional location to place an air barrier layer that is inherently required for a pneumatic tire to function as intended. Ohsawa does not specifically disclose a transponder. Takagi teaches providing an RFID tag 40 (taken to be the claimed transponder) between the outside end 22A of the bead filler 22 and a tire-widest part vicinity A of the sidewall 13 (paragraph [0047]; figure 2), where the RFID tag can be located between the turnup 25 of the carcass ply and the side wall rubber 30 (paragraph [0072]; figure 8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a transponder positioned as taught by Takagi in the tire of Wada in order to enable the tire to be identified by a transponder, and to prevent the transponder from being adversely affected by the metal components of the belts and/or the bead core (see Takagi at paragraph [0047]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments with respect to the rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Ohsawa.
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 February 25, 2026
/JUSTIN R FISCHER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749