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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
3. Claim(s) 1-5 and 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mangold (US 2006/0237109, of record) and further in view of Shimura (US 2007/0272344, of record).
As best depicted in Figures 1 and 2, Mangold is directed to a sensor container or holding device (combination of 5 and 7) that is adhesively attached to a tire inner surface/innerliner (Paragraphs 8 and 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, the claims define an extremely broad range of dimensions that are consistent with those that are conventionally associated with tire attachment modules or containers. It is further noted that the claims define absolute dimensions and it is well taken that dimensions are highly dependent on the intended use of the tire and ultimately the tire size. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use dimensions in accordance to the claimed invention absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results. Lastly, it is noted that Figures 5 and 9 disclosed exemplary embodiments in which a container dimension is varied, further suggesting a wide variety of container dimensions.
With respect to claim 10, the tire of Mangold includes an electronic device 6 positioned within the holding device (Paragraphs 1 and 45).
4. 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, of record) and optionally in view of Shimura.
As best depicted in Figures 1 and 2, Mangold is directed to a sensor container or holding device (combination of 5 and 7) that is adhesively attached to a tire inner surface (Paragraphs 8 and 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). Shimura is optionally applied to specifically evidence the known use of surface modifications to increase surface area in tire applications.
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 has not 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, the claims define an extremely broad range of dimensions that are consistent with those that are conventionally associated with tire attachment modules or containers. It is further noted that the claims define absolute dimensions and it is well taken that dimensions are highly dependent on the intended use of the tire and ultimately the tire size. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use dimensions in accordance to the claimed invention absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results. Lastly, it is noted that Figures 5 and 9 disclose exemplary embodiments in which a container dimension is varied, further suggesting a wide variety of container dimensions.
With respect to claim 10, the tire of Mangold includes an electronic device 6 (sensor) positioned within the holding device (Paragraphs 1 and 45).
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant's arguments filed April 9, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Mangold, Applicant argues that the reference fails to teach a surface pattern attached to the innerliner of a tire. It is emphasized that the pending rejections is based on obviousness, as opposed to anticipation. More particularly, Mangold is specifically directed to a sensor container having an attachment surface and such a surface is adhesively bonded to a tire innerliner. This arrangement directly mimics that required by the claimed invention. In terms of a surface pattern, it is extremely well known and conventional across a multitude of applications to increase surface area of surfaces to be adhesively bonded to improve bond strength. Shimura provides one example of a tire application in which a surface area of a surface to be adhesively bonded to an additional component is increased for the benefits detailed above. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to increase the surface area of the attachment surface in Mangold to obtain improved bond strength.
As to Shimura, Applicant argues that the reference is directed to an electronic device that is attached to a rim/wheel, not an elastomeric tire. As detailed above, it is extremely well known and conventional across a multitude of applications to increase surface area of surfaces to be adhesively bonded to improve bond strength. Furthermore, the arrangement of Mangold and Shimura are directly analogous in that a container surface is directly in contact with an adhesive layer- the fact that one container is bonded to a rim and one container is bonded to a tire innerliner is immaterial to the teaching of Shimura to increase a surface area to improve bonding (greater surface area in the sensor container corresponds with increased contact of the adhesive with a sensor container surface and such results independent of where the sensor container is bonded).
As to Pregler, Applicant contends that the reference is not directed to tires. It is emphasized that it is extremely well known and conventional across a multitude of applications to increase surface area of surfaces to be adhesively bonded to improve bond strength. This is particularly evident in view of Pregler and Shimura. Again, when an area of a surface to be bonded is increased, the amount of adhesive that contacts said surface is increased and ultimately the bond strength is increased. Lastly, it is evident that such a benefit is independent of the application- greater bond strength is highly desirable in almost every application where adhesive bonding occurs and as such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious include a surface pattern (and thus provide increased surface area) in the assembly of Mangold.
Conclusion
6. 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.
7. 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 April 21, 2026
Prosecution Insights