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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 29, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 1 includes the language in pertinent part “A housing body with a functional component, the housing body comprising: a functional component… and a housing body configured to house the functional component”. This language together is unclear and inconsistent. The first part of the preamble, “A housing body with a functional component”, sets forth an article with two different components, a housing body and a functional component. However, next comes the language “the housing body comprising: a functional component”, which defines the functional component as part of the housing body. Further, the functional component was already defined by the preamble. Next, “and a housing body configured to house the functional component” is set forth, even though the housing body was also already defined in the preamble. Lastly, as the claim is directed to an article which is a housing body with a functional component, the claim construction requires the housing body and the functional component together, and therefore the housing body without the functional component is not the claimed article and therefore it is not relevant to the claimed article. Claims 2-19 are also rejected as depending upon claim 1. Claim 19 is also rejected because it claims an angle of the housing body when the functional component is not housed in the housing space.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-6, 8-14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi (JP2019-064543; machine translation relied upon) in view of Naruse (WO2020/105511; English equivalent US Pub. No. 2021/0370728 relied upon).
Regarding claims 1-2, 4-5, 12-13 and 19, Hayashi teaches a housing body 100 with a functional component 200, the housing body comprising a functional component configured to acquire tire information such as temperature or internal pressure, and a housing body housing the functional component, the housing body comprising a bottom portion 120 fixed to a tire inner surface, a crown portion (110 and 130 collectively) protruding from the bottom portion, a housing space formed by the bottom portion and the crown portion, and an opening portion 135 communicating with the housing space, the opening portion having a width smaller than a minimum width of the housing space (machine translation at pages 2-3; figures 1 and 3). Additionally, Hayashi teaches or suggests using an inclination angle of the crown portion measured on an outer wall side in the crown portion within the claimed 90 degrees or more of the range of claim 2 (figure 3), as well as teaching that the height of the side surface 210 of the functional component 200 is slightly larger than the height of the wall portion 110 of the housing body in order to provide constant pressure on the functional component (machine translation at page 3, seventh full paragraph). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to similarly use a slightly larger height and circumferential length of the functional component than that of the housing body in order to provide constant pressure on the functional component. As too high of a ratio between heights or circumferential lengths would not apply constant pressure and too low of a ratio would result in either too much pressure or being unable to fit the component in the housing body, these ratios are a result effective variable, and thus it would have been obvious to optimize the D2u/D1u ratio to arrive at Applicant’s claimed 0.60 < D2u/D1u < 0.95 of claim 4 and to optimize the H2/H1 ratio to arrive at Applicant’s claimed 0.85 ≤ H2/H1 ≤ 0.98 of claim 5. Regarding the limitation with respect to the inclination angle difference in claim 1, the claims are directed to an article including a housing body and a functional component, this article has a crown portion; however, the angle of the crown portion in a state where the functional component is not provided does not further limit the structure of the claimed article, and the relationship between the angle of the article and an additional, hypothetical angle does not further define the structure of the claimed article. Hayashi does not specifically disclose that the functional component and the housing space have different cross-sectional shapes, or that the inclination angle of the inner wall is different than an inclination angle of a side surface of the functional component. Naruse teaches using a functional component and a housing space with different cross-sectional shapes (paragraphs [0032]-[0036]; figure 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a functional component and a housing space with different cross-sectional shapes as taught by Naruse in the housing body with a functional component of Hayashi as a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding claims 3 and 11, Hayashi teaches a thickness of the crown portion of 1.5 mm to 2.4 mm (machine translation at page 3, last paragraph – page 4, first paragraph), such a range being fully encompassed by the claimed range.
Regarding claims 6 and 14, having too large of an opening 135 would lead to not enough
pressure on the functional component, and too small of an opening would not allow the functional
component to fit into the housing, therefore the circumferential length of the opening is a result effective variable, and it would have been obvious to optimize the circumferential length of the opening
to arrive at Applicant’s claimed 0.4 ≤ D2o/D1u ≤ 0.8.
Regarding claim 8, Hayashi teaches that the housing body is made of rubber (machine
translation at page 2, seventh paragraph).
Regarding claim 9, Hayashi teaches that the housing body can be bonded with an adhesive to
the tire inner surface (machine translation at page 2, seventh paragraph).
Regarding claim 10, Hayashi teaches a tire comprising the housing body with a functional component fixed to the tire inner surface, the functional component being housed in the housing space
(machine translation at page 2; figures 1-3).
Claims 7 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi in view of Naruse as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of Rodgers (US Pub. No. 2011/0094645).
Regarding claims 7 and 15, Hayashi teaches a 50% modulus value of the housing body of 0.8 to 1.4 MPa (machine translation at page 3, fourth and fifth full paragraphs), and as 100% modulus will be somewhat greater than 50% modulus, it is expected that the 100% of Hayashi will fall fully within or overlapping with the claimed range of 100% modulus of 0.5 to less than 10 MPa. Hayashi does not specifically disclose the loss modulus of the housing body. Rodgers teaches loss modulus values of an elastomer in an innerliner (the same area of the tire that the housing body is located) of 0.975 and 2.049 MPa (paragraph [0091]; table 2, Comparative Example 1 and Example 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a loss modulus as taught by Rodgers for the housing body of Hayashi (combined) as a known loss modulus for use in an elastomer on the inner side of a tire with the predictable result of having a functional elastomer.
Regarding claim 16, Hayashi teaches that the housing body is made of rubber (machine translation at page 2, seventh paragraph).
Regarding claim 17, Hayashi teaches that the housing body can be bonded with an adhesive to the tire inner surface (machine translation at page 2, seventh paragraph).
Regarding claim 18, Hayashi teaches a tire comprising the housing body with a functional component fixed to the tire inner surface, the functional component being housed in the housing space (machine translation at page 2; figures 1-3).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 29, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues with respect to claim 1 that the claim does not recite an angle when the functional component is not provided, but instead recites an angle when the functional component is provided but is not housed in the housing space. However, the claim is directed to an article, but when the functional component is provided but is not in the housing space, it is not a single article as claimed, but instead two articles. The claim is to “a housing body with a functional component”. If the two are not together, they are not one article.
Applicant argues that the ratios between the heights and circumferential lengths are not results effective variables, because the prior art does not recognize these as results effective variables. However, Applicant is ignoring the basis on which these variables were found to be results-effective. Specifically, Hayashi teaches that the height of the side surface 210 of the functional component 200 is slightly larger than the height of the wall portion 110 of the housing body in order to provide constant pressure on the functional component (machine translation at page 3, seventh full paragraph) and that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to similarly use a slightly larger height and circumferential length of the functional component than that of the housing body in order to provide constant pressure on the functional component. As too high of a ratio between heights or circumferential lengths would not apply constant pressure and too low of a ratio would result in either too much pressure or being unable to fit the component in the housing body, these ratios are a result effective variable, and thus it would have been obvious to optimize the D2u/D1u ratio to arrive at Applicant’s claimed 0.60 < D2u/D1u < 0.95 of claim 4 and to optimize the H2/H1 ratio to arrive at Applicant’s claimed 0.85 ≤ H2/H1 ≤ 0.98 of claim 5. Accordingly, the prior art recognizes a similar variable as results-effective, and due to the principles of physics, these variables function similarly, and are therefore similarly results-effective.
Applicant argues regarding claims 7 and 15 that there is no motivation for selecting Rodgers to combine with Hayashi. However, the rejection is based on the rationale of a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (see MPEP at 2143 I. A). Applicant has not argued that the elements were not known, or that the results were not predictable, and thus the rejection stands.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP N SCHWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1612. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:30.
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.
/P.N.S/ Examiner, Art Unit 1749 February 20, 2026
/JUSTIN R FISCHER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749