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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on November 7, 2025 is acknowledged.
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) 1-5 and 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mangold (US 2006/0237109) and further in view of Shimura (US 2007/0272344).
As best depicted in Figures 1 and 2, Mangold is directed to a component or holding device (combination of 5 and 7) that is adhesively attached to a tire inner surface (Paragraph 20). More specifically, an attachment surface of said device (region 7) can be formed with a plastic material or a rubber material (Paragraph 11) and such is seen to constitute a “polymer” as required by the claimed invention. In such an instance, though, said attachment surface does not include a surface pattern comprising elevations.
In any event, it is extremely well known and conventional in a multitude of applications to provide such a surface pattern in order to increase the surface area and improve bonding between first and second components. Shimura provides one example of a wheel assembly in which a surface pattern (in the form of elevations 15) is provided on an attachment surface of a component that is adhesively bonded to said assembly for the benefits detailed above (Paragraphs 1 and 6). More particularly, elevations or protrusions 15 have a height between 0.1 mm and 2.0 mm (100 microns-2,000 microns) (Paragraph 27) and thus over 90% of the heights taught by Shimura satisfy the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include a conventional surface pattern on the attachment surface in Mangold for the benefits detailed above.
Regarding claim 2, Figure 4 depicts elevations having a pyramid shape.
With respect to claim 3, Figure 6 depicts a parallel arrangement.
As to claims 4 and 5, Shimura provides the general order of dimensions associated with surface patterns and such would be applicable to the width of the elevations and the spacing between adjacent elevations. Additionally, Shimura states that an area ratio (area with elevations as compared to area without elevations), can vary between 1.1 and 3.0 (Paragraph 28), suggesting that the exact dimensions associated with the elevations can be varied. It is further emphasized that the mere presence of elevations, independent of the exact dimensions, would necessarily increase the surface area and promote improved bonding.
With respect to claim 7, adhesive 5 is depicted as filling the voids defined between adjacent elevations (Figure 2 of Shimura).
As to claim 8, Figure 6 of Shimura depicts voids that are open in a direction parallel to an attachment surface.
Regarding claim 9, it is well recognized that an innerliner conventionally constitutes an innermost tire surface designed maintain air pressure and restrict airflow into the tire construction.
With respect to claim 10, the tire of Mangold includes an electronic device 6 positioned within the holding device (Paragraph 45).
Claim(s) 1-7, 9, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mangold and further in view of Pregler (FR 2115315).
As best depicted in Figures 1 and 2, Mangold is directed to a component or holding device (combination of 5 and 7) that is adhesively attached to a tire inner surface (Paragraph 20). More specifically, an attachment surface of said device (region 7) can be formed with a plastic material or a rubber material (Paragraph 11) and such is seen to constitute a “polymer” as required by the claimed invention. In such an instance, though, said attachment surface does not include a surface pattern comprising elevations.
In any event, it is extremely well known and conventional in a multitude of applications to provide such a surface pattern in order to increase the surface area and improve bonding between first and second components. Pregler provides one example in which a plurality of well-known and conventional mechanical connections/attachments are included to promote adhesive bonding between first and second regions (Figures 11 and 12). It is emphasized that the inclusion of mechanical connections/attachments is not limited to a single application or industry- such attachments are applicable to any application or industry in which first and second components are being joined (increased surface area based on the inclusion of elevations would promote connections in general).
Lastly, regarding claim 1, the mere presence of elevations (independent of the height) would result in increased surface area and thus improved bonding between first and second components. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use any number of heights, including the broad range of heights required by the claimed invention, absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results.
With respect to claim 2, reference character 18 can be viewed as posts or ribs (Figure 11 of Pregler).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, the mere presence of elevations, independent of the exact dimensions, would necessarily increase the surface area and promote improved bonding. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use any number of dimensions to achieve the aforementioned benefits and Applicant ha snot provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the broad range of the claimed invention.
As to claim 6, Figures 11 and 12 of Pregler depict the claimed arrangement.
Regarding claim 9, it is well recognized that an innerliner conventionally constitutes an innermost tire surface designed maintain air pressure and restrict airflow into the tire construction.
With respect to claim 10, the tire of Mangold includes an electronic device 6 positioned within the holding device (Paragraph 45).
Conclusion
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 November 21, 2025