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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 25, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
4. Claim(s) 16-21, 23, 31, 33, and 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagai (JP 2004-142541, of record) and further in view of (a) Randall (WO 2016/060851, of record) and/or Adamson (WO 03105511, of record) and (b) Tanemura (JP 2000-25410, newly cited).
As best depicted in Figure 1, Nagai is directed to a solid tire construction comprising a tread rubber layer or cover rubber layer 2 and a base rubber layer or core rubber layer 1, wherein a “side surface”, as defined by the claims, corresponds with the exposed surfaces (to the outside or the environment) of rubber layer 2 and rubber layer 3. It is further noted that rubber layers 2 and 3 are seen to be “integrally vulcanized” (connected or attached to one another). In such an instance, though, Nagai ‘603 is silent with respect to the inclusion of an RFID tag.
In any event, it is extremely well known and conventional to include RFID tags in tire assemblies in order to, among other things, provide temperature measurements during tire running and provide informational data for a given tire (e.g. location during processing and storage). Randall (Paragraph 1)and/or Adamson (Paragraphs 1 and 2) evidence the conventional use of RFID tags in tire assemblies. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include a conventional RFID tag in the tire of Nagai for the benefits detailed above.
Also, in terms of the placement of said RFID tag, Randall states that “the electronic device may be disposed between any two layers of the tire” so long as it is not visible on the exterior of the tire (Paragraph 28) and Adamson states that “the radio device 11 and antenna 12 may be embedded in the tire structure itself or layered under rubber material which forms a surface” (Paragraph 18). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to position an RFID tag in any number of positions within the tire of Fukunaga as long as said RFID tag is not exposed to a tire outer surface. This in turn suggests a spacing of greater than 0 mm from a tire outer surface to said RFID tag and Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for a spacing between 0.5 mm and 10 mm. It is emphasized that while response accuracy is low in Comparative Example 3 such is not unexpected because a correspondence between distance and response accuracy is well known. Generally, closer distances are associated with greater accuracy. As such, Table 1 does not provide a conclusive showing of “unexpected results” for a distance between 0.5 mm and 10 mm. It is additionally noted that Randall specifically motivates one having ordinary skill in the art to provide a distance greater than 0 mm to protect the RFID tag.
Lastly, regarding claim 16, it is extremely well known and conventional to include bead cores or wire members that are formed with coated wires (e.g. brass) in tire base layers in order to provide a desired rigidity and a fitting force against the rim (high rim slip resistance), as shown for example by Tanemura (Figure 1-four bead cores 8). It is emphasized that any number of binary and ternary alloys are conventionally used to plate wires in the tire industry. Including those including tin and copper (e.g. copper-zinc-tin). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include conventional bead cores in the base layer of Nagai for the benefits detailed above. It is further noted that the claimed winding method does not further define the structure of the claimed tire article (no evidence that such a method results in a materially different tire article, although Tanemura does describe winding a plurality of coated wires).
With respect to claim 17, each of Randall and Adamson depicts tire constructions in which an RFID tag is “substantially” parallel with a tire side surface (such a “substantially” parallel arrangement can be present in the tire of Nagai).
As to claim 18, the claims are directed to a solid tire construction and limitations pertaining to a mounting relationship do not further define the structure of the claimed tire.
Regarding claim 19, the general disclosure of Randall and Adamson suggests a tire construction in which an RFID tag is positioned in any layer of Nagai, including the base layer.
With respect to claim 20, the claims are directed to a tire construction, as opposed to a wheel assembly including a tire and a rim, and thus, any relationship with a rim fails to further define the structure of the claimed tire article (tires can be mounted on any number of rims).
As to claim 21, core rubber layer 3 can include short fibers 3.
Regarding claim 23, Adamson teaches an adhesive coating layer, for example, that protects an RFID tag (Paragraph 22). Randall similarly teaches an adhesive coating layer (Paragraph 5).
With respect to claim 31, see Figure 1 of Nagai.
As to claims 33 and 38, the claimed mechanical properties appear to result from using short fibers (vinylon fibers) at a loading greater than 1 phr in a carbon black-containing diene based rubber and such is the case in the modified rubber composition of Nagai. It is noted that Nagai suggests the use of natural rubber and butadiene rubber (Paragraph 33) and while this appears to be in relation to tread rubber (as opposed to the base rubber layer), a fair reading of Nagai suggests the general use of any known diene rubber (individually or in a mixture) in the tread layer or the base layer and such appears to result in the claimed mechanical properties. Absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form the tire base layer of Nagai in accordance to the claimed invention (claimed diene rubber materials and claimed mechanical properties).
5. Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagai, Randall, Adamson, and Tanemura as applied in claim 19 above and further in view of Yoshida (US 3,762,485, of record).
As detailed above, core layer 1 of Nagai includes short fibers. Nagai further states that the type of short fibers is not limited and refers to exemplary fiber materials including nylon, PET, and rayon. While Nagai is silent with respect to the use of vinylon fibers, such fibers are well recognized as being conventionally used in tire applications. Yoshida provides one example in which vinylon fibers, among other known short fibers, are included in tire rubber layers (Column 2, Lines 63+). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use any known fiber material, including vinylon short fibers, in the short fiber-containing composition of Nagai. It is emphasized that Nagai specifically suggests the use of any number of common fiber materials and Yoshida recognizes the alternative use of nylon, polyester and vinylon in fiber reinforced tire applications. Also, Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the specific use of vinylon fibers.
Furthermore, Yoshida teaches preferred fiber lengths between 0.1 mm and 10 mm, fiber diameters less than 100 microns, and fiber loadings between 5 and 100 phr (Column 3, Lines 1-20). More particularly, Yoshida evidences the general order of characteristics associated with short fibers used in the tire industry and Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed characteristics.
6. Claim(s) 24 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagai, Randall, Adamson, and Tanemura as applied in claim 16 above and further in view of Baba (US 2009/0091455, of record).
As detailed above, it is well recognized that RFID tags are conventionally protected by a covering or coating layer, wherein said layer is insulating to further eliminate any wave interference (optimizes communication). Each of Adamson and Randall recognizes the known inclusion of such a layer. While the references fail to expressly disclose the use of polyphenylene sulfide resins or ceramic, such materials are well recognized as being conventional insulating materials that are commonly used with RFID tags, as shown for example by Baba (Paragraph 22). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use any number of known materials, including polyphenylene sulfide and ceramic, to provide protection while eliminating wave interference.
7. Claim(s) 26 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagai, Randall, Adamson, and Tanemura as applied in claim 16 above and further in view of Cervellati (US 214/0191040, of record).
As detailed above, it is well recognized that RFID tags are conventionally protected by a covering or coating layer, wherein said layer is insulating to further eliminate any wave interference (optimizes communication). Each of Adamson and Randall recognizes the known inclusion of such a layer. While the references fail to expressly disclose the use of a cord-containing fabric layer, such layers are commonly used to protect RFID assemblies, as shown for example by Cervellati (Abstract and Paragraph 24). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use any number of known materials, including cord-containing fabric layers, to provide protection while eliminating wave interference.
8. Claim(s) 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagai, Adamson, Randall, and Tanemura as applied in claim 16 above and further in view of Okada (JP 59-173702, of record).
As detailed above, Nagai teaches a tire construction comprising a ground contacting layer (tread rubber layer) and a base rubber. In such an instance, though, Nagai is silent with respect to the hardness values of the tread rubber layer.
In any event, the claimed hardness values are consistent with those used for ground-contacting layers or tread layers in similar solid tire designs, as shown for example by Okada ‘702. More particularly, Okada ‘702 teaches a ground-contacting rubber layer having a JIS hardness between 50 and 70 and such fully encompasses the claimed range between 50 and 58. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form the ground-contacting rubber of Nagai with conventional mechanical properties, as evidenced by Okada ‘702 (provides the necessary properties for ground-contacting rubber layers).
9. Claim(s) 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagai, Adamson, Randall, and Tanemura as applied in claim 19 above and further in view of Durel (US 2005/0004297, of record).
As to claim 34, the base layer of Nagai includes diene rubber and carbon black and additional common additives or ingredients. A fair reading of Nagai suggests the inclusion of any number of common additives and such includes phenol resins (methylene acceptor) and hexamethylenetetramine (methylene donor). This combination of ingredients is commonly used to introduce a reinforcing resin or adhesive resin in a given tire component. Durel provides one example of the conventional use of a methylene assembly in tire rubber compositions for the benefits detailed above (Paragraph 328). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form the base rubber of Nagai with conventional components absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results.
Response to Arguments
10. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 16-27 and 31-34 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.
Conclusion
11. 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 March 5, 2026