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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
3. Claim(s) 12-16, 20, and 23-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurz (DE 102007030238, of record) and further in view of Schurmann (WO 2017/028962, newly cited).
As best depicted in Figure 6, Kurz is directed to a tire construction in which an electronic module 4 (electronic components 5- e.g. sensors, antennas, transponders, accumulators) is adhesively attached to an inner tread or crown surface. More particularly, said module is defined by a housing portion having an extension that is less than an extension of the base portion or coupling surface.
PNG
media_image1.png
484
642
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Additionally, the exact axial extent of the housing portion can be arbitrarily since the claims fail to structurally limit the “housing portion”- it is simply required that an extension of the housing portion is less than an extension of the coupling surface (any arbitrary extension that is less than an extension of the coupling surface against the tire can be viewed as the housing portion).
In such an instance, though, Figure 6 depicts the presence of a continuous adhesive layer and thus, the assembly of Figure 6 is devoid of a second region that is devoid of adhesive.
Schurmann is similarly directed to a tire construction and teaches adhesively bonding a component to a tire inner surface in a crown region. More particularly, Schurmann describes the use of adhesive patterns that occupy less than 100% of a coupling surface of the component, preferably between 30% and 70% of a coupling surface, that is bonded to a tire inner surface in order to among other things, reduce tire weight, improve processing, and improve driving characteristics. For example, a singular adhesive region having an oval shape can be viewed as a first region and a second region contained within said first region and devoid of adhesive can be viewed as a second region. See modified Figure 6 of Schurmann below.
PNG
media_image2.png
580
562
media_image2.png
Greyscale
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use any number of adhesive patterns taught by Schurmann, including that depicted in Figure 6, in the tire of Kurz for the benefits detailed above. It is emphasized that a singular adhesive region having an oval shape (claimed first region) continuously surrounds or envelopes a singular second region (claimed second region) that is devoid of adhesive. Also, given that said first adhesive region is depicted as being centered with respect to the component being adhesively bonded, it reasons that said first adhesive region would be contained within the projection of the housing portion in Kurz. It is also noted that any number of axial extensions that are less than an axial extension of the coupling surface can be selected for the housing portion.
Regarding claims 13 and 14, a second region taught by Schurmann is centered on a component being bonded to a tire and is continuous in that it is fully surrounded by or enveloped by a first adhesive region.
With respect to claim 15, the second region of Kurz as modified by Schurmann extends beneath and within the extension of the housing portion and such is seen to satisfy the claimed structural requirements.
As to claim 16, the boundaries of the housing portion can be arbitrarily selected such that distance D falls between 1 mm and 5 mm.
With respect to claim 20, see Figure 3A.
Regarding claim 23, as noted above, the housing portion extension can be arbitrarily selected so as to satisfy the claimed quantitative relationship. It is also noted that the claims include the language “about” 80% and such language broadens the scope of the claimed invention.
As to claims 24 and 26, Schurmann broadly states that a total adhesive area between the inner surface of the tire and the component being bonded thereto is between 10% and 90%. Additionally, in terms of a width of the second region, exemplary Figure 6 depicts an axial extension that is less than an axial extension of the coupling surface and as detailed above, an axial extension of the housing portion can be any arbitrary extension that is less than an axial extension of the coupling surface. Thus, it reasons that the disclosure of Schurmann encompasses the claimed quantitative relationship and Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed range (lack of comparative examples formed with an axial extension less than 100% and outside the claimed range).
With respect to claim 25, the housing portion of Kurz, whose axial extent can be arbitrarily selected, can be broadly viewed as being “substantially” cylindrical.
4. Claim(s) 17 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurz and Schurmann as applied in claim 12 above and further in view of Nakao (CN 101553373, of record).
In terms of the type of adhesive, the claimed types of adhesives are consistent with those that are conventionally used in a wide variety of tire components, including electronic modules. Nakao, for example, is similarly directed to a tire construction in which an electronic modulus is attached to a tire inner surface. In such an instance, adhesive layer 11 is an acrylic adhesive, silicone adhesive, or rubber adhesive (Paragraph 54). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use conventional adhesive materials for the adhesive layer of Kurz.
Regarding claim 27, the claimed thickness values are consistent with those that are conventionally used in a wide variety of tire components, including electronic modulus. Nakao, for example, is similarly directed to a tire construction in which an electronic module is attached to a tire inner surface. In such an instance, adhesive layer 11 has a preferred thickness between 5 and 50 microns (Paragraph 54). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use conventional adhesive dimensions for the adhesive layer of Kurz.
5. Claim(s) 19, 21, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurz and Schurmann as applied in claim 12 and further in view of Bertrand (JP 2007-176479, of record) and Beneze (US 4,257,836, of record).
As detailed above, Kurz is broadly directed to a tire construction in which an electronic module embedded in an encapsulation material is adhesively attached to a tire inner surface (circular assembly that is devoid of corners). While Kurz fails to specifically depict or disclose the claimed structure (for the module), it is generally well known to form such assemblies including an electronic module as multiple parts having cord reinforcement (e.g. metal or other material) and a battery or power source, as shown for example by Bertrand (Pages 4, 6, 8, and 9 and Figures 2 and 9). It is emphasized that there are countless configurations for conventional electronic assemblies that are attached to a tire inner surface and Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed configuration.
With further respect to the cord materials, Bertrand specifically recognizes the inclusion of reinforcement cords and teaches the use of metal OR OTHER MATERIAL. There are a wide variety of conventional materials that are extensively used in tire reinforcement applications in general and in almost every instance, metallic materials and non-metallic materials are disclosed alternatively as providing necessary reinforcement, as shown for example by Beneze (Column 5, Lines 9+). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the language “other material” as including the conventional cord materials listed in the claims and Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed tire article.
Additionally, the claims define an extremely broad range of cord densities that encompass those that are conventionally used in almost every cord reinforced tire component.
Regarding claim 21, the claimed encapsulation material is consistent with that which is conventionally used with tire electronic assemblies. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to use any number of conventional encapsulation materials, including those required by the claimed invention, absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results. This position remains unchallenged by Applicant and as such is seen to constitute Admitted Prior Art.
With respect to claim 22, adhesives are well recognized as being one of the most common, if not the most common, manner in which tire parts or components are joined together. As detailed above, Bertrand recognizes the common use of multiple parts to form conventional tire electronic assemblies- one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to use conventional adhesive, such as those required by the claimed invention, to connect or join said parts. Also, Kurz states that the electronic module 4 can be an elastomer- the term “elastomer” within the context of the tire industry is well recognized as encompassing conventional rubber materials (diene-based rubbers) being reinforced with carbon black (almost every tire component formed with an elastomer includes, at a minimum, a diene-based rubber and carbon black).
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 12-17 and 19-27 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.
Conclusion
7. 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.
8. 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 May 26, 2026
Prosecution Insights