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 .
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, 7 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Funk-Friedek (DE 102016204925; machine translation relied upon) in view of Kurz (DE 102017209546; machine translation relied upon).
Regarding claims 1, 3 and 13, Funk-Friedek teaches a pneumatic tire (a tread portion extending in a tire circumferential direction and having an annular shape and a pair of sidewall portions respectively disposed on both sides of the tread portion are required in order for the tire to function as intended), a pair of bead portions 1 each disposed on an inner side of the sidewall portions in a tire radial direction, a bead filler 4 being disposed on an outer circumference of a bead core 3 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 2 being mounted between the pair of bead portions, the carcass layer having a turned up-portion 2a being turned up from a tire inner side to a tire outer side around the bead core, an innerliner layer 5 disposed at an inner surface of the tire along the carcass, and a reinforcing layer 6 disposed between an outer side of the bead filler and the carcass turnup, 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 is made of textile yarns such as polyamide, polyester, or rayon, with specific embodiments made of polyamide 6.6, where a radially inner end of the reinforcing layer is radially inside a radially outer end of the bead core (machine translation at pages 1-3; figure 2). Funk-Friedek 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 Funk-Friedek 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, Funk-Friedek teaches that the carcass turn-up portion terminates beyond an outer end of the reinforcing layer 6 (figure 2), where the carcass turn-up continues beyond the top of the figure, thus teaching or suggesting that an end of the turned-up portion of the carcass is 5 mm or more away from the upper end of the reinforcing layer.
Regarding claim 7, Funk-Friedek teaches a range of yarn fineness of less than or equal to 700 dtex, with a specific advantageous amount of yarn fineness disclosed as 700 dtex (machine translation at page 2).
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Funk-Friedek in view of Kurz as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Battocchio (US Pub. No. 2013/0112324).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Funk-Friedek (combined) does not specifically disclose spacing a center of the transponder 10 mm or more from a splice portion 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 Funk-Friedek (combined) in order to improve the quality of communications with the transponder (see Battocchio at paragraph [0007]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Funk-Friedek in view of Kurz as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Miyazaki (US Pub. No. 2016/0355062).
Regarding claim 6, Funk-Friedek teaches a clearance between cords in the reinforcing layer of at least 0.1 mm (machine translation at page 2), but 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 Funk-Friedek (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 Funk-Friedek in view of Kurz as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Adamson (US Pub. No. 2004/0252072).
Regarding claim 8, Funk-Friedek 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 Funk-Friedek (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 Funk-Friedek in view of Kurz and Battocchio as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Miyazaki (US Pub. No. 2016/0355062).
Regarding claim 16, Funk-Friedek teaches a clearance between cords in the reinforcing layer of at least 0.1 mm (machine translation at page 2), but 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 Funk-Friedek (combined) in order to effectively reinforce the bead of the tire (see Miyazaki at paragraph [0041]).
Regarding claim 17, Funk-Friedek teaches a range of yarn fineness of less than or equal to 700 dtex, with a specific advantageous amount of yarn fineness disclosed as 700 dtex (machine translation at page 2).
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Funk-Friedek in view of Kurz, Battocchio and Miyazaki as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Adamson (US Pub. No. 2004/0252072).
Regarding claim 18, Funk-Friedek 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 Funk-Friedek (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 Funk-Friedek (DE 102016204925; machine translation relied upon) in view of Takagi (US Pub. No. 2020/0108675).
Regarding claim 21, Funk-Friedek teaches a pneumatic tire (a tread portion extending in a tire circumferential direction and having an annular shape and a pair of sidewall portions respectively disposed on both sides of the tread portion are required in order for the tire to function as intended), a pair of bead portions 1 each disposed on an inner side of the sidewall portions in a tire radial direction, a bead filler 4 being disposed on an outer circumference of a bead core 3 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 2 being mounted between the pair of bead portions, the carcass layer having a turned up-portion 2a being turned up from a tire inner side to a tire outer side around the bead core, an innerliner layer 5 disposed at an inner surface of the tire along the carcass, and a reinforcing layer 6 disposed between an outer side of the bead filler and the carcass turnup, 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 is made of textile yarns such as polyamide, polyester, or rayon, with specific embodiments made of polyamide 6.6, where a radially inner end of the reinforcing layer is radially inside a radially outer end of the bead core (machine translation at pages 1-3; figure 2). Funk-Friedek 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 Funk-Friedek 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 Funk-Friedek.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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 August 5, 2026
/JUSTIN R FISCHER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights