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.
Claims 1, 3-4, and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pedrinelli et al. (US 2022/0055426) in view of Lallement et al. (US 2019/0322142).
Regarding claims 1, 3-4, and 8-10, FIG. 12 of Pedrinelli et al. teaches a tire comprising a body (3a or 3b), a bead filler (6), and a bead wire (5). An electronic device 13 is a wireless RFID [0033] that is integrated or embedded within the pneumatic tire; particularly, placed between the body and an inner liner (10).
While Pedrinelli et al. is silent to “when a distance from the upper end of the bead filler to a lower end of the bead filler is greater than 37 mm, the reference spacing range is 5 to 15 mm from the upper end of the bead filler”, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide FIG. 12 of Pedrinelli with the claimed relationship because D5 is between 25-60 mm [0062], D1 and D2 is not greater than 7 mm and D3 > 10 mm [0057]-[0058]; providing the dimensions D1, D2, D3, and D5 in FIG. 12 of Pedrinelli would yield a tire which satisfies the claimed invention.
As to the limitation “when the distance from the upper end of the bead filler to the lower end of the bead filler is 37 mm or less, the reference spacing range is 40 to 55 mm from an upper end of the bead wire”, this limitation is not applicable to FIG. 12 because the height of the bead filler is expected to be greater than 37 mm.
Pedrinelli et al. teaches the electronic device is inserted into a sleeve 17 consisting of two strips 18 of green rubber superimposed and pressed one against the other and in general, the two strips 18 of green rubber of the sleeve 17 are 1-2 mm longer/wider than the transponder 13 [0036] (claim 9). Pedrinelli states that the rubber of the two strips 18 is initially raw and is vulcanized together with the rest of the pneumatic tire thereby satisfies the claimed limitation “heating a contact portion between the pair of topping members to be heat-sealed to each other to form the tag topping module” (claims 3-4).
While Pedrinelli et al. is silent to recite the topping member having the same material as the material of the tire body (claims 1 and 8) and “each of the pair of topping members has a modulus deviation of 10% or less with respect to the tire body” (claim 10), these claimed features provided in the tire of Pedrinelli et al. would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because (1) Pedrinelli et al. teaches the sleeve is made of rubber and official notice is taken it is well-known/conventional for the inner liner of the tire to be made of rubber, thereby satisfying the “same material” limitation, (2) Lallement et al., directed to the same field of endeavor of providing an RFID in a tire, teaches a RFID embedded /encapsulated between two layers of non-vulcanized, electrically insulating elastomer blend wherein the elastic modulus of the encapsulating rubber mass is equal to the elastic modulus of the adjacent rubber blends [0034], and (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would understand providing the same rubber composition to the innerliner (an adjacent tire constituent to the electronic device in Pedrinelli) and to the topping rubber of the RFID would predictably yield the same elastic modulus.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered and are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented in this office action.
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 KENDRA LY whose telephone number is (571)270-7060. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00-5:00PM.
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 B 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.
/KENDRA LY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749