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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claim 23 directed to a species that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: claim 1 lets forth a range of the lower end of the second filler of from 5% to 60% of the tire cross-sectional height, and claim 22 sets forth a range of the lower end of the second filler of from 25% to 60% of the tire cross sectional height, and these claims have already been examined. Newly submitted claim 23 sets forth a range of the lower end of the filler from 5% to 19% of the tire cross-sectional height. Claim 1 is a linking claim for the species of claims 22 and claim 23. Claims 22 and 23 would have been species claims properly allowing for an election requirement if presented concurrently earlier in prosecution.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 23 withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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, 12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruneau (US Pub. No. 2013/0206312) in view of Tsukada (JP05-131815; machine translation relied upon) and Lallement (US Pub. No. 2019/0322142).
Regarding claim 1, Bruneau teaches a pneumatic tire comprising a tread portion 30 extending in a tire circumferential direction and having an annular shape, a pair of sidewall portions 40 respectively disposed on both sides of the tread portion, and a pair of bead portions 50 each disposed on an inner side of the sidewall portions in a tire radial direction (paragraph [0037]; figure 5), a bead filler 120 (taken to be the claimed first filler rubber) being disposed on an outer circumference of a bead core 70 of each of the bead portions, a single and only carcass ply 60 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 and being disposed wrapping only the bead core and the first filler rubber, a plurality of belt layers 80 and 90 being disposed on an outer circumferential side of the carcass layer in the tread portion, and an outer strip 130 (taken to be the claimed second filler rubber) being disposed on and in contact with the turned up portion on an outer side of the carcass layer in a tire width direction (paragraphs [0037]-[0045]; figures 2-3 and 5), where the height of the carcass turnup is from 5% to 85% of the height of the tire (paragraph [0014]), the second filler rubber having a lower end disposed at a height of 1% to 5% of the radial height of the tire (paragraph [0016]), with a specific embodiment disposed at a height of 5% of the radial height of the tire (paragraph [0045]), falling within the claimed range. Bruneau does not specifically disclose the hardness of the first and second filler rubbers. Tsukada teaches a similarly configured tire with a lower bead filler hardness of from 90 to 95, falling within the claimed range, and an upper bead filler hardness of from 70 to 93, overlapping the claimed range (machine translation at pages 2-3; figure 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use bead filler hardness values as taught by Tsukada in the tire of Bruneau as a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Bruneau does not specifically disclose a transponder. Lallement teaches using a transponder 2 being disposed between the carcass layer 37 and the second filler rubber 50 in contact with the second filler rubber (paragraph [0068]; figure 4 – although the paragraph refers to the transponder being at the interface of the carcass ply 37 and the first filling rubber 46, the figure clearly displays that the transponder is disposed next to the second filling rubber, and the paragraph also states that the transponder is placed externally at a radial distance D3 from the end 54 of the first filling rubber). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a transponder and locate it as taught by Lallement in the tire of Bruneau (combined) in order to allow the tire to be identified and tracked during the lifetime of the tire (see Lallement at paragraph [0008]). As was stated above, Bruneau teaches a carcass turnup extending up to 85% of the tire height, and for configurations where the turnup height extends above the second filler height, for this combined configuration, the transponder would be disposed between the turned up portion of the carcass layer and the second filler rubber as claimed.
Regarding claim 2, Bruneau teaches specific embodiments where an upper end of the second filler rubber is higher than an upper end of the first filler rubber (figures 3 and 5), as well as teaching that the radial distance DEE2 (upper end of the second filler rubber) is preferably greater than the radial distance DEE1 (upper end of the first filler rubber) (paragraph [0046]).
Regarding claim 3 and 12, Bruneau teaches heights DEE1 and DEE2 of from 30% to 50% (paragraphs [0015]-[0016]; figures 3 and 5), overlapping the claimed ranges.
Regarding claims 7 and 16, Lallement teaches providing a coating layer 100 for a transponder in a tire having a permittivity (dielectric constant) lower than 6.5 (paragraphs [0077]-[0084]; figure 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 Lallement for the transponder in the tire of Bruneau (combined) in order to allow correct radiofrequency operation (see Lallement at paragraph [0032]).
Claims 1-3, 7, 12, 16 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsukada (JP05-131815; machine translation relied upon) in view of Goodyear (GB 1572407), Bruneau (US Pub. No. 2013/0206312) and Lallement (US Pub. No. 2019/0322142).
Regarding claims 1-3, 12 and 22, Tsukada teaches a pneumatic tire comprising (a tread portion extending in a tire circumferential direction and having an annular shape is a well-known and conventional feature and would have been obvious to use in order to increase the traction of the tire), a pair of sidewall portions respectively disposed on both sides of the tread portion (such are inherently required for a tire to function as intended), and a pair of bead portions each disposed on an inner side of the sidewall portions in a tire radial direction, a first filler rubber 4d being disposed on an outer circumference of a bead core 2 of each of the bead portions, a carcass layer 3 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 and being disposed wrapping only the bead core and the first filler rubber, (a plurality of belt layers being disposed on an outer circumferential side of the carcass layer in the tread portion being a well-known and conventional feature, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use such in order to reinforce the tread portion of the tire), and a second filler rubber 4u being disposed on an outer side of the carcass layer in a tire width direction, the second filler rubber having a lower end disposed at a height of (h – a) + bead core height, where h is in a range of 25 to 40 mm, and the overlap length a is 3 to 7 mm, and Tsukada teaches a lower bead filler hardness of from 90 to 95, falling within the claimed range, and an upper bead filler hardness of from 70 to 93, overlapping the claimed range, and a height H (claimed upper end of the second filler rubber) of 0.50 to 0.60 times the section height SH (machine translation at pages 2-3; figure 1), as well as teaching a specific embodiment where the upper end of the second filler rubber is higher than the upper end of the first filler rubber (as is required by claim 2). Tsukada does not specifically disclose the bead core height. Goodyear teaches that the bead core height for passenger car tires is about three-tenths of an inch (7.6 mm) to about nine-tenths of an inch (22.9 mm) (page 2, lines 70-73). This results in a second filler lower end of from about 24.6 ((25 – 7) + 7.6) to about 59.9 ((40 – 3) + 22.9) mm, with a specific embodiment of tire having a section height of 122 mm, resulting in a second filler lower end percentage of 20.2% (24.6/122) to 49.1% (59.9/122), falling within the claimed range of claim 1 of 5% to 60% and overlapping the range of claim 22 of 25% to 60%. Tsukada is not limiting with respect to the carcass (see machine translation at page 2 – summary of invention and at page 5 – claim 1), but does not specifically disclose that the carcass layer is a single and only carcass ply in the pneumatic tire, and that the second filler rubber is in contact with the turned up portion of the carcass. In a similarly configured tire, Bruneau teaches a single and only carcass ply 60 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 and being disposed wrapping only the bead core and the first filler rubber, the second filler rubber being in contact with the turned up portion of the carcass layer (paragraphs [0038]-[0045]; figures 3 and 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a carcass configuration as taught by Bruneau in the tire of Tsukada (combined) as a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Tsukada does not specifically disclose a transponder. Lallement teaches using a transponder 2 being disposed between the carcass layer 37 and the second filler rubber 50 in contact with the second filler rubber (paragraph [0068]; figure 4 – although the paragraph refers to the transponder being at the interface of the carcass ply 37 and the first filling rubber 46, the figure clearly displays that the transponder is disposed next to the second filling rubber, and the paragraph also states that the transponder is placed externally at a radial distance D3 from the end 54 of the first filling rubber). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a transponder and locate it as taught by Lallement in the tire of Tsukada (combined) in order to allow the tire to be identified and tracked during the lifetime of the tire (see Lallement at paragraph [0008]). Given the configuration of figure 1 of Tsukada teaching a turnup portion of a carcass next to a second filler rubber, such suggests combined configurations where the transponder is disposed between the turned up portion of the carcass layer and the second filler rubber as claimed.
Regarding claims 7 and 16, Lallement teaches providing a coating layer 100 for a transponder in a tire having a permittivity (dielectric constant) lower than 6.5 (paragraphs [0077]-[0084]; figure 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 Lallement for the transponder in the tire of Tsukada (combined) in order to allow correct radiofrequency operation (see Lallement at paragraph [0032]).
Claims 8, 10-11 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruneau in view of Tsukada and Lallement or Tsukada in view of Goodyear, Bruneau and Lallement as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Nakajima (WO 2019/054226; English equivalent US Pub. No. 2020/0247193 relied upon) and Adamson (US Pub. No. 2004/0252072).
Regarding claims 8 and 17, Bruneau (combined) and Tsukada (combined) do not specifically disclose the ratio of the thickness of the coating layer to the thickness of the transponder. Nakajima teaches 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]), and Adamson teaches a coating thickness of at least 0.3 mm (paragraph [0026]), the combination having a transponder thickness of 0.4 mm and a coating thickness of at least 0.3 mm results in a Gac/Gar ratio of 2.5 or greater, overlapping the claimed range, and it is noted that the use of transponders having a greater thickness with the same minimal coating thickness would result in an even smaller Gac/Gar ratio. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a coating having a thickness as taught by Adamson and a chip size as taught by Nakajima as a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
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 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 claim 11, 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 9 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruneau in view of Tsukada, Lallement, Nakajima and Adamson or Tsukada in view of Goodyear, Bruneau, Lallement Nakajima and Adamson, and further in view of Pedrinelli (US Pub. No. 2022/0088974).
Regarding claims 9 and 18, Adamson teaches a radio component 111 (claimed substrate) and antennas 112 extending from both ends of the substrate (paragraph [0015]); figure 1). Bruneau (combined) and Tsukada (combined) do not specifically disclose a distance L between an end of the antennas and an end of the coating layer in the circumferential direction. Pedrinelli teaches using a distance of 1-2 mm between an end of the transponder and an end of the coating (paragraph [0033]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a distance L as taught by Pedrinelli in the tire of Bruneau (combined) or Tsukada (combined) as a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 19, Adamson teaches a radio component 111 (claimed substrate) and antennas 112 extending from both ends of the substrate (paragraph [0015]); figure 1), 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 claim 20, 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).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsukada in view of Goodyear, Bruneau and Lallement as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ikegami (US Pub. No. 2009/0301628).
Regarding claim 21, Tsukada teaches a height H (claimed upper end of the second filler rubber) of 0.50 to 0.60 times the section height SH (machine translation at page 1). In a similarly configured tire, Ikegami teaches the use of a second filler upper end of from 0.50 to 0.65 times the section height SH (paragraph [0009]; figure 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a second filler upper end height range as taught by Ikegami in the tire of Tsukada (combined) as a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments with respect to the prior art rejections of the claims 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 Bruneau.
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 13, 2026
/JUSTIN R FISCHER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749