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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/22/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendments entered on 12/22/2025 have been accepted. Claims 1, 4, 5 and 19 are amended. There are no new or newly canceled claims. Claims 1-5, 7-21 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 line 9 should read “…a butyl rubber layer disposed on a tire inner cavity side”, to be grammatically accurate
Claim 5 line 9 should read “…a butyl rubber layer disposed on a tire inner cavity side”, to be grammatically accurate
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 8-9, 11, 13, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagayoshi (US2020/0108673A1) in view of Ueda (US2015/0283865A1, of record), in view of Nemoto (US2020/0047562A1, of record), in view of Iseki (US5658405A, of record), and in view of Naruse (US2023/0085326A1, of record).
Regarding claim 1, Nagayoshi teaches a pneumatic tire (see Figs. 5-8) comprising:
a tread portion (tread “12”); a pair of sidewall portions (pair of sidewalls “13” [0032, Figs. 5-8]); a pair of bead portions with a bead core embedded therein (pair of beads “11” which includes annular bead core “21” [0033, Figs. 5-8]), a toroidal carcass extending between the bead cores (carcass ply “23” extends between the two bead cores [0034]), and a toroidal inner liner extends between the bead portions on an inner side of the carcass (inner liner “29” clearly is located inside of the carcass throughout the tire [0038, Figs. 5-8],
at least one of the bead portions is provided with at least one electronic component (RFID tag “40” may be provided in the lower section of the tire [0041]. Figs. 5-6 provide an example where the RFID is located higher up in the bead portion, while Figs. 7-8 provide an example where the RFID is located lower down in the bead portion),
a bead apex rubber extending radially outwardly from the bead core (bead filler “22” is located radially outside the bead core [Figs. 5-8]).
Nagayoshi does not explicitly suggest the inner liner having the two layers of butyl rubber layer and insulation rubber layer, with the insulation rubber with a higher adhesive force. However, the inner liner and insulation rubber configurations as claimed are well known within the art. Ueda, for example, teaches a pneumatic tire which has an inner liner “10” and an insulation rubber “12” located on an inner side of the carcass ply “22” [Fig 1]. The inner liner is formed of a butyl rubber or halogenated butyl rubber which allows for excellent air sealing properties [0030]. The insulation rubber layer is formed of a cross-linked rubber which is excellent in adhesiveness, where the rubber is firmly joined to the carcass “8” and is firmly joined to the inner liner [0031]. As Ueda is explicit in the excellent adhesiveness properties of the insulation rubber layer and because of its explicit purpose of binding the inner liner to the carcass, the insulation rubber layer would clearly have the highest adhesive force than the butyl rubber layer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the inner liner of Nagayoshi to have the butyl inner liner and insulation layer as suggested by Ueda. One would have been motivated so as to ensure excellent air sealing property to maintain internal pressure of the tire, and so as to prevent separation of the inner liner from the carcass [Ueda, 0030-0031].
Nagayoshi modified by Ueda makes obvious the tire wherein the electronic component is embedded in the insulation rubber layer (as in Figs. 5-8 of Nagayoshi, for example, the electronic component “40” is located at a position wherein the inner liner meets the main body portion of the carcass ply. This position clearly has the RFID “40” extending into the inner liner “29” as in each of Figs. 5-8. Because the insulation rubber layer is the inner liner layer which would be disposed on a carcass side, as suggested by Ueda, this means that the RFID “40” would necessarily be at least partially embedded into the insulation rubber layer).
Nagayoshi does not explicitly have a bead reinforcing layer which extends along the bead apex rubber. However, it is extremely common within the art of tires to include a bead reinforcing layer in this section of the tire so as to improve the stability of the bead region/sidewall. Nemoto teaches a pneumatic tire with a tread, sidewalls, beads, carcass, inner liner, etc. [see Fig. 1], of similar design/structure of Nagayoshi. Nemoto includes a reinforcing layer “40” which is disposed between the folded-up portion of the carcass and the bead filler [0047, Fig. 3]. This reinforcing layer includes cords which are made of steel and are coated with coating rubber [0048]. The cords of the reinforcing layer “40” are at an angle of 15-25deg to the circumferential direction [0048].
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the bead region of Nagayoshi to have the reinforcing layer as suggested by Nemoto. One would have been motivated so as to improve the rigidity of the tire, improve steering stability, and ride comfort [0047-0049, 0055, 0058]. And when Nagayoshi is in view of Nemoto, the electronic component of Nagayoshi would necessarily be located within a radial region where the steel cord ply is located. See Figs. 5-8 of Nagayoshi, wherein the electronic component may be disclosed at locations from the bottom of the bead apex to the top of the bead apex. Also, see Nemoto Fig. 3, wherein the reinforcing layer “40” is disposed along the bead apex and terminates shortly after the top of the bead apex, such that there would necessarily be overlap.
The steel ply of the reinforcing layer “40” of Nagayoshi in view of Nemoto would necessarily have a spliced portion of some design, as the ply/cords are wrapped around the tire in a circumferential direction such that there would necessarily be a first end and a second end at the end of the ply/cords at a minimum. Nagayoshi/Nemoto does not specifically state that the splice is overlap-jointed. However, this type of joint for tire cords/plies is conventionally known and ubiquitous within the art of tires. For example, Iseki teaches a conventional pneumatic tire wherein a ply strip is wound onto a drum, where the terminal end of the winding is overlapped with the starting edge to connect or joint thereto forming an overlap joint part [see Figs. 7-8, Col1 L10-40]. As Nagayoshi/Nemoto is silent as to the specific method of forming its ply/splice, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the conventional/well-known method of applying an overlap joint part at the two ends of the ply so as to adequately form the ply and allow for the creation of a working tire. And specifically, in applying the cut/angles of Iseki’s invention, the result is improved cord tension and efficiency [Col2 L3+].
Nagayoshi does not specifically suggest that the spliced portion is located away from the electronic component. However, it is well known within the art of tires and of electronic components in tires to situate the electronic components away from splices so as to improve the tire durability and improve signal transmission. Naruse, for example, teaches a pneumatic tire which has a tread, sidewalls, bead portion, with a bead apex rubber extending radially from the bead core, and a RFID module (synonymous with electronic component) which is disposed axially outside of the carcass and apex [see Fig. 2]. The tire naturally possesses a plurality of splice portions on its tire circumference [0054]. The center of the RFID module is disposed at least 10mm or more in the circumferential direction from a splice portion of the tire component [0054, Fig. 4].
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the tire of Nagayoshi to have the electronic device spaced away from the splice as suggested in Naruse. One would have been motivated so as to improve tire durability [0054-0055].
Regarding claim 2, modified Nagayoshi suggests a tire wherein the electronic component is spaced away from the spliced portion by an angle from 30-180degrees along the rotational axis (as in the rejection of claim 1 above, Naruse suggests that the electronic component should be spaced away from spliced portion by at least 10mm in the circumferential direction [0054]. As Naruse does not specify an upper limit to this range, and because the angular range of 30-180deg is an extremely wide range around the circumference of the tire, the suggested range of greater than 10mm in the circumferential direction would reasonably overlap with the claimed angular range. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Additionally, it is noted that Naruse specifically discloses spliced portions being separated from the electronic device at angles from 30-180degrees [see Fig. 4], such as the leftmost “Q” being separated from the RFID “10” by ~66deg in Fig. 4 of Naruse. Therefore, separation distances suggested by Naruse clearly encompass embodiments within the range of 30-180degrees).
Regarding claims 3, modified Nagayoshi suggests a tire wherein the bead reinforcing layer is located outside the bead apex rubber in the axial direction (as modified by Nemoto in the rejection of claim 1 above, the reinforcing layer as suggested by Nemoto is located axially outside of the bead apex [see Fig. 3]).
Regarding claim 8, modified Nagayoshi makes obvious an insulation rubber layer with a complex modulus of elasticity E* from 2.5 to 5.5 MPa (when Nagayoshi is in view of Ueda, the insulation rubber layer is suggested to have a modulus ranging from 2-6MPa [0033]. Because Nagayoshi is silent as to the insulation rubber layer and because the insulation rubber layer of Ueda is utilized in the rejection of claim 1 above, the insulation rubber layer of modified Nagayoshi would thus similarly have this conventional insulation rubber layer modulus ranging from 2-6MPa [0033]. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
Regarding claim 9, modified Nagayoshi suggests a tire wherein a distance in the tire radial direction from the electronic component to an outer edge of the steel cord ply is not more than 20mm (as in Fig. 5 of Nagayoshi, the electronic component “40” may be located essentially at the radially outer portion of the bead apex. Nemoto’s suggested bead reinforcing layer “40” preferably has its radially outermost point at a distance Dr from the outer end of the bead apex, wherein this distance Dr may range from 5-15mm [0058] in order to appropriately set the rigidity of the sidewall [0058]. Therefore, the distance from the electronic component “40” in embodiment Figs. 5-6 of Nagayoshi to the outer end of the bead reinforcing layer would be from 5-15mm, which overlaps with the claimed range. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
Regarding claim 11, modified Nagayoshi makes obvious a tire wherein the steel cord ply comprises 30 to 50 steel cords per 5 cm ply width (the reinforcing bead layer as suggested by Nemoto preferably has a cord count of 35-45 cords per 50mm width [0049], which is equivalent to 35-45 cords per 5cm width. This is done so as to properly set the rigidity of the reinforcing layer [Nemoto, 0061]. This suggested range of Nemoto is entirely inside of the claimed range of 30-50 per 5cm).
Regarding claim 13, modified Nagayoshi makes obvious a tire wherein the plurality of steel cords are each arranged at an angle from 10-30deg with respect to the circumferential direction (the reinforcing bead layer as suggested by Nemoto in the rejection of claim 1 above, has the cords of the reinforcing layer “40” at an angle of 15-25deg to the circumferential direction [0048], which is entirely within the claimed range. This allows for the cords of the reinforcing layer to intersect with the carcass cords at an angle with each other [0048], as well as to provide for improved rigidity, steering stability, and ride comfort [0055]).
Regarding claim 15, modified Nagayoshi makes obvious a tire wherein the angle between the longitudinal direction of the electronic component and the extending direction of the plurality of steel cords range from 10 to 45 degrees (as in the rejections of claims 1 and/or claim 13 above, the plurality of steel cords of the bead reinforcing layer would be obvious to have at an angle of 15-25 deg with respect to the circumferential direction [Nemoto, 0048, 0055]. The RFID “40” of Nagayoshi may be arranged such that the longitudinal direction thereof, aka the longitudinal direction of the antenna, faces a direction corresponding to the circumferential direction of the tire so as to prevent large stresses from acting on the component [0050]. Therefore, as the electronic component is arranged in line with the circumferential direction, and the angle of the steel cords is from 15-25deg, the angle between the electronic component and the steel cords would similarly be from 15-25deg. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
Regarding claim 20, modified Nagayoshi makes obvious a tire wherein the electronic component is spaced apart from a spliced portion by an angle in a range from 30-180deg (as in the rejection of claim 1 above, Naruse suggests that the electronic component should be spaced away from spliced portion by at least 10mm in the circumferential direction [0054]. As Naruse does not specify an upper limit to this range, and because the angular range of 30-180deg is an extremely wide range around the circumference of the tire, the suggested range of greater than 10mm in the circumferential direction would reasonably overlap with the claimed angular range. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Additionally, it is noted that Naruse specifically discloses spliced portions being separated from the electronic device at angles from 30-180degrees [see Fig. 4], such as the leftmost “Q” being separated from the RFID “10” by ~66deg in Fig. 4 of Naruse. Therefore, separation distances suggested by Naruse clearly encompass embodiments within the range of 30-180degrees),
an insulation rubber layer with a complex modulus of elasticity E* from 2.5 to 5.5 MPa (when Nagayoshi is in view of Ueda, the insulation rubber layer is suggested to have a modulus ranging from 2-6MPa [0033]. Because Nagayoshi is silent as to the insulation rubber layer and because the insulation rubber layer of Ueda is utilized in the rejection of claim 1 above, the insulation rubber layer of modified Nagayoshi would thus similarly have this conventional insulation rubber layer modulus ranging from 2-6MPa [0033]. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)),
wherein the bead reinforcing layer is located outside the bead apex rubber in the axial direction (as modified by Nemoto in the rejection of claim 1 above, the reinforcing layer as suggested by Nemoto is located axially outside of the bead apex [see Fig. 3]),
wherein the steel cord ply comprises 30 to 50 steel cords per 5 cm ply width (the reinforcing bead layer as suggested by Nemoto preferably has a cord count of 35-45 cords per 50mm width [0049], which is equivalent to 35-45 cords per 5cm width. This is done so as to properly set the rigidity of the reinforcing layer [Nemoto, 0061]. This suggested range of Nemoto is entirely inside of the claimed range of 30-50 per 5cm),
wherein the plurality of steel cords are each arranged at an angle from 10-30deg with respect to the circumferential direction (the reinforcing bead layer as suggested by Nemoto in the rejection of claim 1 above, has the cords of the reinforcing layer “40” at an angle of 15-25deg to the circumferential direction [0048], which is entirely within the claimed range. This allows for the cords of the reinforcing layer to intersect with the carcass cords at an angle with each other [0048], as well as to provide for improved rigidity, steering stability, and ride comfort [0055]),
the plurality of steel cords are arranged in mutually same extending directions (the cords of the reinforcing layer are arranged in the same direction [see Nemoto, Fig. 4]),
wherein the angle between the longitudinal direction of the electronic component and the extending direction of the plurality of steel cords range from 10 to 45 degrees (as in the rejections of claims 1 and/or claim 13 above, the plurality of steel cords of the bead reinforcing layer would be obvious to have at an angle of 15-25 deg with respect to the circumferential direction [Nemoto, 0048, 0055]. The RFID “40” of Nagayoshi may be arranged such that the longitudinal direction thereof, aka the longitudinal direction of the antenna, faces a direction corresponding to the circumferential direction of the tire so as to prevent large stresses from acting on the component [0050]. Therefore, as the electronic component is arranged in line with the circumferential direction, and the angle of the steel cords is from 15-25deg, the angle between the electronic component and the steel cords would similarly be from 15-25deg. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagayoshi (US2020/0108673A1) in view of Ueda (US2015/0283865A1, of record), in view of Nemoto (US2020/0047562A1, of record), in view of Iseki (US5658405A, of record), and in view of Naruse (US2023/0085326A1, of record), as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Arai (JP2007069654A, of record) or Kajita (US2004/0238094A1, of record).
Regarding claim 18, Nagayoshi does not explicitly include two carcass plies. Nagayoshi in no way limits its inventive tire to only one carcass ply. It is well understood in the art of tires that two carcass plies may be applied so as to improve the stability/strength of the tire. Arai, for example, teaches this well-known fact, as Arai states that “In general, methods for improving the handling stability of pneumatic radial tires for passenger cars include increasing the number of carcass plies” [pg. 1 of machine translation]. It is also well settled that an applied reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one of the ordinary skill in the art, including not only preferred embodiments, but less preferred and even non-preferred Merc & Co v. Biocraft Labs, Inc., 874 F 2d 804,807 10 USPQ 2nd 1843, 1846 (Fed. Cir. ). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to increase the number of carcass plies of Nagayoshi to have two carcass plies as conventionally suggested by Arai, so as to improve the handling stability and lateral stiffness [Arai, pg. 1 of machine translation].
In the alternate, Kajita teaches a pneumatic tire for passenger type vehicles [0002-0004], wherein the tire has two carcass plies “6a1” and “6a2”. The tire has a reinforcing layer “9” which is located to an axial outside of the bead apex “8” [Fig. 1, 2]. Both of the carcass layers are arranged so as to wrap around the bead core to form a main portion and turned-up portion [Fig. 1, 2]. The bead reinforcing layer is clearly disposed between the bead apex rubber and the axially inward turned up carcass [Fig. 2], and the reinforcing layer “9” extends beyond the apex “8” so as to be sandwiched between the outer main portion carcass and inner portion of the turned-up portion [see Fig. 3]. In this way, the teachings of Kajita are highly relevant to that of Nagayoshi which discloses a similar structure of its carcass ply arrangements. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify Nagayoshi to have two carcass plies at the radial positions suggested by Kajita. One would have been motivated so as to improve rigidity and to obtain improved ride comfort and steering stability in a balanced manner [0042-0048, 0054-0056].
When Nagayoshi is in view of either Arai or Kajita, the claimed limitations would be made obvious. Namely, there would be two carcass plies which would each form turned-up portions by extending around the bead core, and the bead reinforcing layer (as suggested by Nemoto) would clearly be sandwiched on its radially outer portion thereof by both the axially outer main portion and axially inner turned-up portions of the carcass, as the bead reinforcing layer of Nemoto extends radially above the outer section of the bead apex.
Regarding the height of the bead reinforcing layer, an annotated Fig. 5 of Nagayoshi is included below to facilitate discussion. The cross-sectional height of the tire and the apex are labeled with double-sided arrows. The cross-sectional height is given a standard height of 1.00, and the radial height of the bead reinforcing layer has a measured height of 0.28, or 28% of the cross-sectional height of the tire. The total cross-sectional height of the tire may be 126.75mm [0048], such that the approximate height of the apex would thus be 35.5mm. Nemoto suggests that the bead reinforcing layer may be disposed 5mm above the outer end of the apex [Nemoto, 0058], so as to improve rigidity of the tire. This would yield a height of approximately 40.5mm, or about 32% of the total cross-sectional height of the tire.
PNG
media_image1.png
756
589
media_image1.png
Greyscale
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the scale of the drawings as a starting point in their design process, specifically in choosing a height of the bead region. While patent drawings are not to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining the patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972). And when the reference is a utility patent, it does not matter that the feature shown is unintended or unexplained in the specification. The drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979), see MPEP 2125. Based on Fig. 5 of Nagayoshi, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found that a height of the bead apex as described above is about 28% (about 35.5mm), and as the bead reinforcing layer may be disposed 5mm about the apex, the height of the bead reinforcing layer would be about 40.5mm (equating to ~32% of the total cross-sectional height of the tire). As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claims 5, 4, 7, 10, 12, 14, 16-17, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagayoshi (US2020/0108673A1) in view of Ueda (US2015/0283865A1, of record), in view of Nemoto (US2020/0047562A1, of record), in view of Iseki (US5658405A, of record), and in view of Naruse (US2023/0085326A1, of record).
Regarding claim 5, Nagayoshi teaches a pneumatic tire (see Figs. 5-8) comprising:
a tread portion (tread “12”); a pair of sidewall portions (pair of sidewalls “13” [0032, Figs. 5-8]); a pair of bead portions with a bead core embedded therein (pair of beads “11” which includes annular bead core “21” [0033, Figs. 5-8]), a toroidal carcass extending between the bead cores (carcass ply “23” extends between the two bead cores [0034]), and a toroidal inner liner extends between the bead portions on an inner side of the carcass (inner liner “29” clearly is located inside of the carcass throughout the tire [0038, Figs. 5-8],
at least one of the bead portions is provided with at least one electronic component (RFID tag “40” may be provided in the lower section of the tire [0041]. Figs. 5-6 provide an example where the RFID is located higher up in the bead portion, while Figs. 7-8 provide an example where the RFID is located lower down in the bead portion),
a bead apex rubber extending radially outwardly from the bead core (bead filler “22” is located radially outside the bead core [Figs. 5-8]).
Nagayoshi does not explicitly suggest the inner liner having the two layers of butyl rubber layer and insulation rubber layer, with the insulation rubber with a higher adhesive force. However, the inner liner and insulation rubber configurations as claimed are well known within the art. Ueda, for example, teaches a pneumatic tire which has an inner liner “10” and an insulation rubber “12” located on an inner side of the carcass ply “22” [Fig 1]. The inner liner is formed of a butyl rubber or halogenated butyl rubber which allows for excellent air sealing properties [0030]. The insulation rubber layer is formed of a cross-linked rubber which is excellent in adhesiveness, where the rubber is firmly joined to the carcass “8” and is firmly joined to the inner liner [0031]. As Ueda is explicit in the excellent adhesiveness properties of the insulation rubber layer and because of its explicit purpose of binding the inner liner to the carcass, the insulation rubber layer would clearly have the highest adhesive force than the butyl rubber layer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the inner liner of Nagayoshi to have the butyl inner liner and insulation layer as suggested by Ueda. One would have been motivated so as to ensure excellent air sealing property to maintain internal pressure of the tire, and so as to prevent separation of the inner liner from the carcass [Ueda, 0030-0031].
Nagayoshi modified by Ueda makes obvious the tire wherein the electronic component is disposed between the carcass and the insulation rubber layer such that it contacts both an axially outer surface of the insulation rubber layer and an axially inner surface of the carcass ply main portion (as in Figs. 5-8 of Nagayoshi, for example, the electronic component “40” is located at a position wherein the inner liner meets the main body portion of the carcass ply. This position clearly has the RFID “40” extending along and touching both the inner liner “29” and the main body portion of the carcass, as in each of Figs. 5-8. Because the insulation rubber layer is the inner liner layer which would be disposed on a carcass side, as suggested by Ueda, this means that the RFID “40” would necessarily be touching both the outer surface of the insulation rubber layer and the inner surface of the carcass ply main portion)
Nagayoshi does not explicitly have a bead reinforcing layer which extends along the bead apex rubber. However, it is extremely common within the art of tires to include a bead reinforcing layer in this section of the tire so as to improve the stability of the bead region/sidewall. Nemoto teaches a pneumatic tire with a tread, sidewalls, beads, carcass, inner liner, etc. [see Fig. 1], of similar design/structure of Nagayoshi. Nemoto includes a reinforcing layer “40” which is disposed between the folded-up portion of the carcass and the bead filler [0047, Fig. 3]. This reinforcing layer includes cords which are made of steel and are coated with coating rubber [0048]. The cords of the reinforcing layer “40” are at an angle of 15-25deg to the circumferential direction [0048].
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the bead region of Nagayoshi to have the reinforcing layer as suggested by Nemoto. One would have been motivated so as to improve the rigidity of the tire, improve steering stability, and ride comfort [0047-0049, 0055, 0058]. And when Nagayoshi is in view of Nemoto, the electronic component of Nagayoshi would necessarily be located within a radial region where the steel cord ply is located. See Figs. 5-8 of Nagayoshi, wherein the electronic component may be disclosed at locations from the bottom of the bead apex to the top of the bead apex. Also, see Nemoto Fig. 3, wherein the reinforcing layer “40” is disposed along the bead apex and terminates shortly after the top of the bead apex, such that there would necessarily be overlap.
The steel ply of the reinforcing layer “40” of Nagayoshi in view of Nemoto would necessarily have a spliced portion of some design, as the ply/cords are wrapped around the tire in a circumferential direction such that there would necessarily be a first end and a second end at the end of the ply/cords at a minimum. Nagayoshi/Nemoto does not specifically state that the splice is overlap-jointed. However, this type of joint for tire cords/plies is conventionally known and ubiquitous within the art of tires. For example, Iseki teaches a conventional pneumatic tire wherein a ply strip is wound onto a drum, where the terminal end of the winding is overlapped with the starting edge to connect or joint thereto forming an overlap joint part [see Figs. 7-8, Col1 L10-40]. As Nagayoshi/Nemoto is silent as to the specific method of forming its ply/splice, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the conventional/well-known method of applying an overlap joint part at the two ends of the ply so as to adequately form the ply and allow for the creation of a working tire. And specifically, in applying the cut/angles of Iseki’s invention, the result is improved cord tension and efficiency [Col2 L3+].
Nagayoshi does not specifically suggest that the spliced portion is located away from the electronic component. However, it is well known within the art of tires and of electronic components in tires to situate the electronic components away from splices so as to improve the tire durability and improve signal transmission. Naruse, for example, teaches a pneumatic tire which has a tread, sidewalls, bead portion, with a bead apex rubber extending radially from the bead core, and a RFID module (synonymous with electronic component) which is disposed axially outside of the carcass and apex [see Fig. 2]. The tire naturally possesses a plurality of splice portions on its tire circumference [0054]. The center of the RFID module is disposed at least 10mm or more in the circumferential direction from a splice portion of the tire component [0054, Fig. 4].
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the tire of Nagayoshi to have the electronic device spaced away from the splice as suggested in Naruse. One would have been motivated so as to improve tire durability [0054-0055].
Regarding claims 4, modified Nagayoshi suggests a tire wherein the bead reinforcing layer is located outside the bead apex rubber in the axial direction (as modified by Nemoto in the rejection of claim 1 above, the reinforcing layer as suggested by Nemoto is located axially outside of the bead apex [see Fig. 3]).
Regarding claim 7, modified Nagayoshi makes obvious an insulation rubber layer with a complex modulus of elasticity E* from 2.5 to 5.5 MPa (when Nagayoshi is in view of Ueda, the insulation rubber layer is suggested to have a modulus ranging from 2-6MPa [0033]. Because Nagayoshi is silent as to the insulation rubber layer and because the insulation rubber layer of Ueda is utilized in the rejection of claim 1 above, the insulation rubber layer of modified Nagayoshi would thus similarly have this conventional insulation rubber layer modulus ranging from 2-6MPa [0033]. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
Regarding claim 10, modified Nagayoshi suggests a tire wherein a distance in the tire radial direction from the electronic component to an outer edge of the steel cord ply is not more than 20mm (as in Fig. 5 of Nagayoshi, the electronic component “40” may be located essentially at the radially outer portion of the bead apex. Nemoto’s suggested bead reinforcing layer “40” preferably has its radially outermost point at a distance Dr from the outer end of the bead apex, wherein this distance Dr may range from 5-15mm [0058] in order to appropriately set the rigidity of the sidewall [0058]. Therefore, the distance from the electronic component “40” in embodiment Figs. 5-6 of Nagayoshi to the outer end of the bead reinforcing layer would be from 5-15mm, which overlaps with the claimed range. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
Regarding claim 12, modified Nagayoshi makes obvious a tire wherein the steel cord ply comprises 30 to 50 steel cords per 5 cm ply width (the reinforcing bead layer as suggested by Nemoto preferably has a cord count of 35-45 cords per 50mm width [0049], which is equivalent to 35-45 cords per 5cm width. This is done so as to properly set the rigidity of the reinforcing layer [Nemoto, 0061]. This suggested range of Nemoto is entirely inside of the claimed range of 30-50 per 5cm).
Regarding claim 14, modified Nagayoshi makes obvious a tire wherein the plurality of steel cords are each arranged at an angle from 10-30deg with respect to the circumferential direction (the reinforcing bead layer as suggested by Nemoto in the rejection of claim 1 above, has the cords of the reinforcing layer “40” at an angle of 15-25deg to the circumferential direction [0048], which is entirely within the claimed range. This allows for the cords of the reinforcing layer to intersect with the carcass cords at an angle with each other [0048], as well as to provide for improved rigidity, steering stability, and ride comfort [0055]).
Regarding claim 16, modified Nagayoshi makes obvious a tire wherein the angle between the longitudinal direction of the electronic component and the extending direction of the plurality of steel cords range from 10 to 45 degrees (as in the rejections of claims 1 and/or claim 13 above, the plurality of steel cords of the bead reinforcing layer would be obvious to have at an angle of 15-25 deg with respect to the circumferential direction [Nemoto, 0048, 0055]. The RFID “40” of Nagayoshi may be arranged such that the longitudinal direction thereof, aka the longitudinal direction of the antenna, faces a direction corresponding to the circumferential direction of the tire so as to prevent large stresses from acting on the component [0050]. Therefore, as the electronic component is arranged in line with the circumferential direction, and the angle of the steel cords is from 15-25deg, the angle between the electronic component and the steel cords would similarly be from 15-25deg. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
Regarding claim 17, modified Nagayoshi suggests a tire wherein the electronic component is spaced away from the spliced portion by an angle from 30-180degrees along the rotational axis (as in the rejection of claim 1 above, Naruse suggests that the electronic component should be spaced away from spliced portion by at least 10mm in the circumferential direction [0054]. As Naruse does not specify an upper limit to this range, and because the angular range of 30-180deg is an extremely wide range around the circumference of the tire, the suggested range of greater than 10mm in the circumferential direction would reasonably overlap with the claimed angular range. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Additionally, it is noted that Naruse specifically discloses spliced portions being separated from the electronic device at angles from 30-180degrees [see Fig. 4], such as the leftmost “Q” being separated from the RFID “10” by ~66deg in Fig. 4 of Naruse. Therefore, separation distances suggested by Naruse clearly encompass embodiments within the range of 30-180degrees).
Regarding claim 21, modified Nagayoshi makes obvious a tire wherein the electronic component is spaced apart from a spliced portion by an angle in a range from 30-180deg (as in the rejection of claim 1 above, Naruse suggests that the electronic component should be spaced away from spliced portion by at least 10mm in the circumferential direction [0054]. As Naruse does not specify an upper limit to this range, and because the angular range of 30-180deg is an extremely wide range around the circumference of the tire, the suggested range of greater than 10mm in the circumferential direction would reasonably overlap with the claimed angular range. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Additionally, it is noted that Naruse specifically discloses spliced portions being separated from the electronic device at angles from 30-180degrees [see Fig. 4], such as the leftmost “Q” being separated from the RFID “10” by ~66deg in Fig. 4 of Naruse. Therefore, separation distances suggested by Naruse clearly encompass embodiments within the range of 30-180degrees),
an insulation rubber layer with a complex modulus of elasticity E* from 2.5 to 5.5 MPa (when Nagayoshi is in view of Ueda, the insulation rubber layer is suggested to have a modulus ranging from 2-6MPa [0033]. Because Nagayoshi is silent as to the insulation rubber layer and because the insulation rubber layer of Ueda is utilized in the rejection of claim 1 above, the insulation rubber layer of modified Nagayoshi would thus similarly have this conventional insulation rubber layer modulus ranging from 2-6MPa [0033]. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)),
wherein the bead reinforcing layer is located outside the bead apex rubber in the axial direction (as modified by Nemoto in the rejection of claim 1 above, the reinforcing layer as suggested by Nemoto is located axially outside of the bead apex [see Fig. 3]),
wherein the steel cord ply comprises 30 to 50 steel cords per 5 cm ply width (the reinforcing bead layer as suggested by Nemoto preferably has a cord count of 35-45 cords per 50mm width [0049], which is equivalent to 35-45 cords per 5cm width. This is done so as to properly set the rigidity of the reinforcing layer [Nemoto, 0061]. This suggested range of Nemoto is entirely inside of the claimed range of 30-50 per 5cm),
wherein the plurality of steel cords are each arranged at an angle from 10-30deg with respect to the circumferential direction (the reinforcing bead layer as suggested by Nemoto in the rejection of claim 1 above, has the cords of the reinforcing layer “40” at an angle of 15-25deg to the circumferential direction [0048], which is entirely within the claimed range. This allows for the cords of the reinforcing layer to intersect with the carcass cords at an angle with each other [0048], as well as to provide for improved rigidity, steering stability, and ride comfort [0055]),
the plurality of steel cords are arranged in mutually same extending directions (the cords of the reinforcing layer are arranged in the same direction [see Nemoto, Fig. 4]),
wherein the angle between the longitudinal direction of the electronic component and the extending direction of the plurality of steel cords range from 10 to 45 degrees (as in the rejections of claims 1 and/or claim 13 above, the plurality of steel cords of the bead reinforcing layer would be obvious to have at an angle of 15-25 deg with respect to the circumferential direction [Nemoto, 0048, 0055]. The RFID “40” of Nagayoshi may be arranged such that the longitudinal direction thereof, aka the longitudinal direction of the antenna, faces a direction corresponding to the circumferential direction of the tire so as to prevent large stresses from acting on the component [0050]. Therefore, as the electronic component is arranged in line with the circumferential direction, and the angle of the steel cords is from 15-25deg, the angle between the electronic component and the steel cords would similarly be from 15-25deg. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagayoshi (US2020/0108673A1) in view of Ueda (US2015/0283865A1, of record), in view of Nemoto (US2020/0047562A1, of record), in view of Iseki (US5658405A, of record), and in view of Naruse (US2023/0085326A1, of record), as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Arai (JP2007069654A, of record) or Kajita (US2004/0238094A1, of record).
Regarding claim 19, Nagayoshi does not explicitly include two carcass plies. Nagayoshi in no way limits its inventive tire to only one carcass ply. It is well understood in the art of tires that two carcass plies may be applied so as to improve the stability/strength of the tire. Arai, for example, teaches this well-known fact, as Arai states that “In general, methods for improving the handling stability of pneumatic radial tires for passenger cars include increasing the number of carcass plies” [pg. 1 of machine translation]. It is also well settled that an applied reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one of the ordinary skill in the art, including not only preferred embodiments, but less preferred and even non-preferred Merc & Co v. Biocraft Labs, Inc., 874 F 2d 804,807 10 USPQ 2nd 1843, 1846 (Fed. Cir. ). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to increase the number of carcass plies of Nagayoshi to have two carcass plies as conventionally suggested by Arai, so as to improve the handling stability and lateral stiffness [Arai, pg. 1 of machine translation].
In the alternate, Kajita teaches a pneumatic tire for passenger type vehicles [0002-0004], wherein the tire has two carcass plies “6a1” and “6a2”. The tire has a reinforcing layer “9” which is located to an axial outside of the bead apex “8” [Fig. 1, 2]. Both of the carcass layers are arranged so as to wrap around the bead core to form a main portion and turned-up portion [Fig. 1, 2]. The bead reinforcing layer is clearly disposed between the bead apex rubber and the axially inward turned up carcass [Fig. 2], and the reinforcing layer “9” extends beyond the apex “8” so as to be sandwiched between the outer main portion carcass and inner portion of the turned-up portion [see Fig. 3]. In this way, the teachings of Kajita are highly relevant to that of Nagayoshi which discloses a similar structure of its carcass ply arrangements. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify Nagayoshi to have two carcass plies at the radial positions suggested by Kajita. One would have been motivated so as to improve rigidity and to obtain improved ride comfort and steering stability in a balanced manner [0042-0048, 0054-0056].
When Nagayoshi is in view of either Arai or Kajita, the claimed limitations would be made obvious. Namely, there would be two carcass plies which would each form turned-up portions by extending around the bead core, and the bead reinforcing layer (as suggested by Nemoto) would clearly be sandwiched on its radially outer portion thereof by both the axially outer main portion and axially inner turned-up portions of the carcass, as the bead reinforcing layer of Nemoto extends radially above the outer section of the bead apex.
Regarding the height of the bead reinforcing layer, an annotated Fig. 5 of Nagayoshi is included below to facilitate discussion. The cross-sectional height of the tire and the apex are labeled with double-sided arrows. The cross-sectional height is given a standard height of 1.00, and the radial height of the bead reinforcing layer has a measured height of 0.28, or 28% of the cross-sectional height of the tire. The total cross-sectional height of the tire may be 126.75mm [0048], such that the approximate height of the apex would thus be 35.5mm. Nemoto suggests that the bead reinforcing layer may be disposed 5mm above the outer end of the apex [Nemoto, 0058], so as to improve rigidity of the tire. This would yield a height of approximately 40.5mm, or about 32% of the total cross-sectional height of the tire.
PNG
media_image1.png
756
589
media_image1.png
Greyscale
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the scale of the drawings as a starting point in their design process, specifically in choosing a height of the bead region. While patent drawings are not to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining the patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972). And when the reference is a utility patent, it does not matter that the feature shown is unintended or unexplained in the specification. The drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979), see MPEP 2125. Based on Fig. 5 of Nagayoshi, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found that a height of the bead apex as described above is about 28% (about 35.5mm), and as the bead reinforcing layer may be disposed 5mm about the apex, the height of the bead reinforcing layer would be about 40.5mm (equating to ~32% of the total cross-sectional height of the tire). As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 5 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. New reference Nagayoshi has not been previously applied.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS F SCHNEIDER whose telephone number is (571)272-4857. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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.
/T.F.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1749
/KATELYN W SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights