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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 13-17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamamoto (US 4,602,063).
Yamamoto is directed to a tire rubber composition comprising at least one diene-based elastomer (Column 2, Lines 47-61) and 0.2-5 parts by weight of a novolak type phenol formaldehyde resin (corresponds with claimed at least one chemical) having the following general formula (Column 4, Lines 25+).
PNG
media_image1.png
162
386
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With further respect to claim 13, the language “for a radiofrequency identification (RFD) device for a tire” corresponds to the intended use of a rubber composition or coating and as such, fails to further define the structure of the claimed composition.
Regarding claim 17, the rubber composition of Yamamoto includes a filler (Column 6, Lines 60+).
As to claim 19, the rubber composition of Yamamoto includes polyisoprene (Column 2, Lines 50+).
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.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto.
As detailed above, Yamamoto is directed to a tire rubber composition comprising reinforcing agents or fillers (Column 6, Lines 60-69 and Column 7, Lines 16+). Included among the exemplary additives are carbon black, calcium carbonate, and clay. While Yamamoto fails to suggest the use of silica, silica represents one of the most well-known and conventional reinforcing agents or fillers (along with carbon black) in tire rubber compositions. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form the tire rubber composition of Yamamoto with silica absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results (well recognized as providing suitable reinforcing properties when used in tire rubber compositions).
6. Claim(s) 13-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uehara (US 2009/0015415) and further in view of Giller (DE 2537656).
Uehara is directed to an RFID module covered with a rubber coating, wherein said coating includes at least one diene-based rubber (Paragraph 10). In such an instance, though, Uehara fails to specifically teach the inclusion of at least one chemical having a specific formula.
It is noted, though, that Uehara teaches the use of “various types of compounding agents compounded for general use and tire rubber” (Paragraph 15). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the claimed chemical as being included within the “various types of agents compounded for general use and tire rubber”. Giller, for example, recognizes the known us of alkyl phenol novolac resins (corresponds with claimed chemical) as a tackifier in natural or synthetic rubber tire compositions (Abstract). It is well recognized that tackifiers are extensively used in tire rubber compositions to provide the desired tack- the specific use of a chemical satisfying the claimed formula would have been obvious given the general disclosure by Uehara to include various compounding agents and Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed composition.
Regarding claims 15 and 16, Giller teaches the use of 0.3-15 percent by weight (Abstract).
As to claims 17 and 18, Uehara teaches the inclusion of silica (Paragraph 12).
With respect to claim 19, Uehara teaches the use of natural rubber and synthetic polyisoprene (Paragraph 10).
7. Claim(s) 20-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uehara and Giller as applied in claim 13 above and further in view of Adamson (US 2004/0159383).
As detailed above, Uehara is directed to a tire including an RFID module. While Uehara fails to describe the makeup of said RFID device, it is well known and conventional that such a device is commonly formed with an antenna comprising a brass coated wire, as shown for example by Adamson (Paragraph 20). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form the RFID of Uehara in accordance to the claimed invention. Figure 1 of Adamson specifically depicts an RFID formed with a rubber coating 22 and an antenna 20 in the form of a brass coated spring steel.
PNG
media_image2.png
238
578
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 24-26, Giller recognizes the known inclusion of a chemical at loadings that satisfy the claimed invention.
With respect to claims 27 and 28, the rubber composition of Uehara includes silica (Paragraph 12).
As to claim 29, Uehara teaches the use of natural rubber and synthetic polyisoprene (Paragraph 10).
Conclusion
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 July 29, 2026
Prosecution Insights