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 1-2, 4-5, 7, 11, 13-14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iijima (JP2010-125920; machine translation relied upon) in view of Schurmann (DE102016203658; machine translation relied upon).
Regarding claims 1 and 7, Iijima teaches a tire assembly comprising a tire 200, a holding body 20 constituted by a sound-absorbing sponge (taken to be the claimed sound absorbing material) placed on the inner side of the tire, and a plurality of functional components 40 and 60 placed on the inner side of the tire, wherein the plurality of functional components are placed such that the masses of the plurality of functional components as a whole are distributed along a circumferential direction of the tire (machine translation at page 3, last paragraph – page 6, second paragraph; figures 1 and 5). Iijima does not specifically disclose that centers of gravity of the masses of the plurality of functional components are offset with respect to each other in the width direction. In a tire assembly similarly directed to having functional components, Schurmann teaches providing the functional components offset in the width direction (machine translation at page 3; figure 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to offset the functional components in the width direction as taught by Schurmann in the tire assembly of Iijima in order to simplify the signal evaluation of the measurement signals (see Schurmann machine translation at page 3).
Regarding claim 2, Iijima teaches that the functional component 40 is a transponder and the functional component 60 is an antenna (machine translation at pages 4-5).
Regarding claims 4-5, Iijima teaches four functional components that are shifted from each other by 90 degrees (machine translation at page 5, last full paragraph; figure 5), thus they are distributed at equal intervals.
Regarding claim 11, Iijima teaches that a porous urethane foam is suitable for the sound-absorbing sponge (machine translation at page 2, first full paragraph), the disclosure of a porous urethane foam would be recognized as encompassing ether or ester based polyurethane sponges. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use an ether-based polyurethane sponge or an ester-based polyurethane sponge because these are conventional urethane based sponges used as sound absorbing sponges used in a tire, and Iijima teaches that a porous urethane foam is suitable (see machine translation at page 4, first full paragraph).
Regarding claim 13, Iijima teaches storage spaces 30 formed in the holding body 20 corresponding to the plurality of functional components (machine translation at page 3, last paragraph – page 4, first paragraph; figure 2), thus the portions of the sound absorbing material corresponding to the plurality of functional components are thinner than portions of the sound absorbing material not corresponding to the plurality of functional components.
Regarding claim 14, Iijima teaches that the holding body is formed integrally with the tire main body (machine translation at page 4, first paragraph).
Regarding claim 20, Iijima teaches that the portions of the sound absorbing material corresponding to the plurality of functional components are thinner than portions of the sound absorbing material not corresponding to the plurality of functional components (see figures 1-3), and for configurations where each space 30 is filled, the sound absorbing material has a uniform thickness except at the portions corresponding to the plurality of functional components.
Claims 1-3, 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurz (DE 102015217474; machine translation relied upon) in view of Schurmann (DE102016203658; machine translation relied upon).
Regarding claims 1 and 17, Kurz teaches a tire assembly comprising a tire 1, a sound absorbing material 6 placed on an inner side of the tire and a module 3 (machine translation at pages 2-5; figure 1), Kurz does not specifically disclose a plurality of modules 3. In a tire assembly similarly directed to having functional components, Schurmann teaches providing a plurality of functional components depicted similarly to the module of Kurz offset in the width direction and the circumferential direction (machine translation at page 3; figure 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to offset the functional components in the width and circumferential direction as taught by Schurmann in the tire assembly of Kurz in order to measure asymmetry in the ground contact patch and simplify the signal evaluation of the measurement signals (see Schurmann machine translation at pages 2-3).
Regarding claim 2, Kurz teaches that the module can be a sensor (machine translation at pages 5-6).
Regarding claims 3, 15 and 19, Kurz teaches that the module 3 can be placed between an inner surface of the tire and the sound absorbing material (machine translation at page 5; figure 1).
Regarding claim 16, Kurz teaches that the module 3 can be placed on an inner surface of the sound absorbing material (machine translation at page 5; figure 3).
Regarding claim 18, Kurz teaches that the module 3 is directly connected via a cable connection (machine translation at page 6).
Regarding claim 20, in order for the module 3 to fit, the portions of the sound absorbing material having the module 3 must necessarily be thinner than the other portions of the absorbing material and the sound absorbing material can have a uniform thickness otherwise (see figure 1).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iijima in view of Schurmann as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Schneider (DE 102005010572; machine translation relied upon).
Regarding claim 6, Iijima does not specifically disclose the masses of the plurality of functional components. Schneider teaches that tire modules (functional components) usually have a mass of between 10 and 30 g (machine translation at page 3, third paragraph). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use functional components with a mass of between 10 and 30 g as taught by Schneider in the tire assembly of Iijima as the usual mass of tire functional components (see Schneider machine translation at page 3, third paragraph), and such results in a maximum difference in values of 20 g, falling within the claimed range.
Claims 7-11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurz in view of Schurmann as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shinmura (US Pub. No. 2007/0146124).
Regarding claim 7, Kurz does not specifically disclose that the sound absorbing material is composed of a sponge material. In a tire assembly similarly directed to a sound absorber and a functional component, Shinmura teaches using a sponge material as a sound absorbing material (paragraphs [0011]-[0015]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a sponge as taught by Shinmura as the material of the sound absorber of the tire assembly of Kurz as a lightweight, durable, noise absorbing material (see Shinmura at paragraph [0015]).
Regarding claim 8, Kurz does not specifically disclose the specific gravity of the sponge material. In a tire assembly similarly directed to a sound absorber and a functional component, Shinmura teaches using a sponge material with a specific gravity of from 0.005 to 0.06 (paragraph [0033]), such a range fully encompassing the claimed range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a specific gravity of sponge as taught by Shinmura in the tire assembly of Kurz in order to ensure that the sponge suppresses road noise effectively (see Shinmura at paragraph [0040]).
Regarding claim 9, Kurz does not specifically disclose the percentage of cross-sectional area of the inner space of the tire taken up by the sponge. Shinmura teaches that the sponge occupies from 0.4% to 20% of the volume of the inner space (paragraph [0033]), fully encompassing the claimed range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a volume of sponge as taught by Shinmura in the tire of Kurz in order to decrease the road noise 2 dB or more and to not increase the manufacturing cost or negatively impact the weight balance of the tire assembly (see Shinmura at paragraphs [0034]-[0035].
Regarding claim 10, Kurz teaches a thickness of the sound absorber of from 10 to 40 mm (machine translation at page 3, seventh paragraph), such a range overlapping the claimed range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a sound absorber thickness of 10 to 40 mm as taught by Kurz in order to result in the sound absorber having optimal acoustic properties (see Kurz machine translation at page 3, seventh paragraph).
Regarding claim 11, Kurz does not specifically disclose the type of sponge material of the sound absorber. Shinmura teaches that the sponge material can be ether group-containing polyurethane sponge, ester group-containing polyurethane sponge, polyethylene sponge, chloroprene rubber sponge, ethylene propylene rubber sponge, or nitrile rubber sponge (paragraph [0015]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a specific sponge material as taught by Shinmura in the tire assembly of Kurz as a preferable type of sponge material for a sound absorber in a tire (see Shinmura at paragraph [0015]).
Regarding claim 14, Kurz does not specifically disclose that the sound absorbing material is fixed to the tire. Shinmura teaches that one surface of the sponge is fixed to the tire (paragraph [0020]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to fix the sponge to the tire in order to prevent the weight balance of the tire from being affected by a sponge moving around in the internal space of the tire.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iijima in view of Schurmann as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Shinmura (US Pub. No. 2007/0146124).
Regarding claim 8, Iijima does not specifically disclose the specific gravity of the sponge material. In a tire assembly similarly directed to a sound absorber and a functional component, Shinmura teaches using a sponge material with a specific gravity of from 0.005 to 0.06 (paragraph [0033]), such a range fully encompassing the claimed range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a specific gravity of sponge as taught by Shinmura in the tire assembly of Iijima in order to ensure that the sponge suppresses road noise effectively (see Shinmura at paragraph [0040]).
Regarding claim 9, Iijima does not specifically disclose the percentage of cross-sectional area of the inner space of the tire taken up by the sponge. Shinmura teaches that the sponge occupies from 0.4% to 20% of the volume of the inner space (paragraph [0033]), fully encompassing the claimed range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a volume of sponge as taught by Shinmura in the tire of Iijima in order to decrease the road noise 2 dB or more and to not increase the manufacturing cost or negatively impact the weight balance of the tire assembly (see Shinmura at paragraphs [0034]-[0035].
Regarding claim 10, Iijima does not specifically disclose the thickness of the sponge. Shinmura teaches using a thickness of sponge of from 10 to 30 mm (paragraph [0079]), such a range fully encompassed by the claimed range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a sponge thickness as taught by Shinmura in the tire assembly of Iijima as a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iijima in view of Schurmann or Kurz in view of Schurmann as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schneider (DE 102005010572; machine translation relied upon).
Regarding claim 12, Iijima and Kurz do not specifically disclose the masses of the plurality of functional components. Schneider teaches that tire modules (functional components) usually have a mass of between 10 and 30 g (machine translation at page 3, third paragraph), overlapping the claimed range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use functional components with a mass of between 10 and 30 g as taught by Schneider in the tire assembly of Iijima or Kurz as the usual mass of tire functional components (see Schneider machine translation at page 3, third paragraph).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments with respect to the objections to claims 16 and 18 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection to claims 16 and 18 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments and arguments with respect to the prior art rejection 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 Schurmann.
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 November 14, 2025
/JUSTIN R FISCHER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749
