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
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
3. Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-12, 14, 15, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scheinman (GB 2,326,625, of record) and further in view of Fenkanyn (US 2008/0105345, of record), Adamson (US 2003/0209064, of record), and Schuermann (DE 102018215461, newly cited) and optionally in view of Nagao (JP 11-170819, of record) and/or Gao (WO 2013082935, of record).
As best depicted in Figure 1, Scheinman is directed to a tire construction comprising a pair of beads, a pair of sidewalls, a tread portion (claimed contact region) having protuberances (land portions) and valleys (grooves), and a pair of shoulder regions (junction between respective sidewalls and the tread). The tire of Scheinman further includes a color feature 3 (corresponds with claimed illuminable feature) arranged radially beyond a bottom of said grooves (and thus into said protuberances) and designed to indicate a certain amount of wear. In describing said color feature, Scheinman states that it can be made from an optical fiber (first illuminable feature) (Page 3, claim 6). In such an instance, though, Scheinman is silent with respect to the specific makeup of said color feature when it is made from an optical fiber.
In any event, the claimed makeup including a light source, a power source associated with said light source, a receiver to receive a signal from a controller, and a controller that allows a used to control the feature is consistent with the common or standard makeup of optical fiber assemblies, as shown for example by Fenkanyn (Paragraphs 20 and 24). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to form the color feature of Scheinman made from an optical fiber in accordance to the claimed invention.
As to the power source, it is well known to include piezoelectric structures that generate power as a function of tire rotation, as shown for example by Adamson (Paragraphs 2 and 12). More particularly, the use of such a power generating system eliminates a wide variety of problems associated with non-rechargeable batteries (Paragraph 7). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to include a piezoelectric structure that powers a rechargeable battery, which in turn is associated with the light source, in the tire of Scheinman for the benefits detailed above.
With further respect to claim 1, it is similarly well known to provide lighting effects (e.g. LED) that provide a desired aesthetic characteristic in an unworn condition, as shown for example by Schuermann (corresponds with claimed second illuminable feature). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include an illuminable feature in the tread region that is exposed to an unworn tire surface as a function of the desired aesthetic effect. It is emphasized that the prior art as a whole recognizes the known use of illuminable features to provide(a) aesthetic effects (in an unworn condition) and (b) wear indication (in a worn condition). The particular manufacture of a single tire construction having such a combination of known arrangements would have been obvious as it provides both (a) and (b) detailed above. Also, when using an optic fiber cable in the tread to display a desired pattern or logo, such would be required to be present at an unworn tire outer surface.
Lastly, regarding claim 1, given that an optical fiber is embedded in a crown portion of the tire of Scheinman, it reasons that such a fiber would extend through the tire thickness from a connect point with a light source. It is emphasized that the assembly of Fenkanyn is different in that a light feature is disposed on an outer tire surface and as such, it is not required for an optical fiber to extend through a thickness of the tire. The tire of Scheinman, though, includes an optical fiber embedded within the tire structure and thus an optical fiber would be required to be connected to a light source and a power source and such would require an extension of the optical fiber through a thickness of the tire. Nagao (Figures) and/or Gao are optionally applied to evidence the known inclusion of light assemblies (in general) that extend through a thickness of a given substrate. Again, the optical fiber of Scheinman would be expected to have a connection similar to that of Fenkanyn but given that said fiber is embedded in a tire crown portion, as opposed to being positioned on a tire outer surface, such a connection would extend through a thickness of the tire construction from a tire inside.
Regarding claim 2, color feature 3 in Figure 1 is integrally formed within the tire body.
With respect to claim 4, Scheinman discusses the use of different colors at different depths (Page 1, last sentence). This disclosure would have suggested the use of multiple optical fibers. Additionally, Fenkanyn evidences the known use of multiple optical fibers (Paragraph 23). This would be applicable to each of the illuminable features.
As to claim 5, multiple optical fibers would be associated with a single light source since it is desired to provide the color feature of the entire axial extent of the crown region, as well as respective sidewall regions.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, when using different colors, a first light source would be associated with multiple optical fibers and a second light source would be associated with multiple optical fibers.
With respect to claims 8 and 9, any arrangement of optical fibers can be viewed, for example, as a pattern or graphical design or logo.
As to claims 10-12, Figure 1 depicts the claimed arrangement of the optical fiber in relation to a groove or valley bottom. Also, as detailed above, different colors (and thus different arrangements of optical fibers) can be visible at different heights.
Regarding claims 14 and 15, a biasing voltage output from circuit 52 is selectively applied to the diodes, switching them on and off (Paragraph 24). Fenkanyn further states that respective optical fibers are connected to a remote light source and a controller (Paragraph 23) and additionally, the light source may include control drivers that are used in conjunction with other vehicle systems (Paragraphs 20). The totality of these disclosures suggests that the light source can be controlled by a controller that is not mounted to the tire.
With respect to claim 21, Schuermann describes the use of different colors as a function of tire speed, suggesting that the controller has the capability of being programmed in a manner such that the lights are turned off at a certain speed. It is emphasized that any number of parameters, including the color and intensity, can be associated with any number of tire functions or operations, such as the speed and turning direction.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 2, 4-12, 14, 15, and 21 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.
Applicant contends that the reference suggests that the fiber optic material can illuminate from light located outside of the tire, for example when a portion of the fiber optic material is exposed. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The general language of Scheinman is seen to encompass a tire construction in which an optical fiber is provided to indicate when a desired wear condition is reached. It is emphasized that the general use of optical fibers to provide a desired color is known in the tire industry, as shown for example by Fenkanyn. It is further noted that the general ability to light a tire from the inside has been known for well over 50 years, as shown for example by https://www.hagerty.com/media/automotive-history/why-goodyears-bright-idea-for-illuminated-tires-didnt-shine-for-long/. Furthermore, with advancements in lighting (LED vs incandescent bulbs), LED’s have been positioned within tire structures to provide, for example, a desired aesthetic effect, as shown for example by Zhang (CN 212921025). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form a tire with first and second illuminable features (LED assemblies) given that each type of feature is known in the tire industry (display of color or patter in an unworn condition and display of color or pattern in a worn condition).
Conclusion
5. 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.
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN R FISCHER whose telephone number is (571)272-1215. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 5:30-2:00.
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.
Justin Fischer
/JUSTIN R FISCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749 July 31, 2025