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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/25/2026 has been entered.
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) and Suita (US 2020/0207160).
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 inner liner (claims 1 and 8), the topping member including a pair of topping members having no air therebetween (claim 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:
Pedrinelli et al. teaches the sleeve 17 consists of two strips of rubber (FIG. 2-FIG. 4); one of ordinary skill in the art would expect air is not present between the two strips of rubber,
Lallement et al. 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]; one of ordinary skill in the art would expect air is not present between the two layer of elastomers in Lallement et al.,
One of ordinary skill in the art would have no difficulty understanding that providing the same rubber composition to the innerliner (the adjacent tire constituent to the electronic device in Pedrinelli) and to the topping rubber of the RFID would predictably yield the same elastic modulus and
Suita teaches a tire comprising an RFID tag and antenna coated by coating rubber sheets 431,432 and discloses to remove air between the coating rubber sheets as much as possible for durability benefits ([0108], [0113], [0117], [0122], FIG. 12-FIG. 15); Suita teaches towards and render obvious to encapsulate/coat an electronic device (RFID with antenna) in a tire by two topping members with no air therebetween for durability benefits.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lallement et al. (US 2019/0322142) in view of Ebiko (US 2013/0240107).
Regarding claim 11, FIG. 4 of Lallement et al. teaches a tire comprising a tire body (37) and a tag tapping module (2) that is disposed within a reference spacing range spaced apart by a preset distance from an upper end of a bead filler (46). See [0030]-[0035].
While Lallement et al. does not explicitly recite:
“a distance from the upper end of the bead filler to a lower end of the bead filler is 37 or less, and the reference spacing range is positioned at a region spaced apart by 40 to 55 mm from an upper end of a bead wire positioned in the bead filler”,
this claimed feature in the tire of FIG. 4 of Lallement et al. would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because:
The expected distance from the upper end of the bead filler to a lower end of the bead filler is expected to be 37 mm or less since the corresponding distance in FIG. 4 of Lallement et al. would be slightly less than the value of distance D1 minus a height of the bead core (35) (see FIG. 2); Lallement et al. teaches D1 is 30 mm to 40 mm [0064] and Ebiko evidences a typical diameter value for a steel wire of a bead core in a tire ranges between 1.2 mm to 1.4 mm [0035]; accordingly, the expected height of the bead core of Lallement et al. would be about 4.8 mm (4.8 mm = 4 x 1.2 mm)
Lallement et al. teaches D3 is preferably larger than 10 mm [0068].
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
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
Prosecution Insights