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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 30, 2026 has been entered.
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 and 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi (JP2019-064543; machine translation relied upon) in view of Masago (JP2019-093996; machine translation relied upon) and Naruse (WO2020/105511; English equivalent US Pub. No. 2021/0370728 relied upon).
Regarding claim 1, 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 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 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 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, this ratio is 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. Hayashi does not specifically disclose that the circumferential length D2u of the upper portion of the housing space being smaller than a circumferential length D2L of a lower portion of the housing space. In related art similarly directed to a housing body with a functional component, Masago teaches a functional component attachment pedestal 100 (taken to be the claimed housing body) shaped such that the circumferential and widthwise length of the upper portion of the housing space is smaller than that of the lower portion (machine translation at pages 2-3; figures 1-2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a smaller circumferential length of the upper portion than the lower portion as taught by Masago in the housing body of Hayashi as a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Hayashi does not specifically disclose that the functional component and the housing space have different cross-sectional shapes. 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 claim 2, Masago teaches a specific embodiment where length D2u of the upper portion of the housing space is equal to the length D1u of the upper portion of the functional component and the length D2L of the lower portion of the housing space is greater than the length D1L of the lower portion of the functional component, thus using D2u/D1u smaller than D2L/D1L (figure 5B).
Regarding claims 3 and 11, Hayashi teaches a locking portion 130 bent toward the opening portion (machine translation at page 2; figure 3), and 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 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 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, this ratio is a result effective variable, and thus it would have been obvious to optimize the H2/H1 ratio to arrive at Applicant’s claimed 0.85 ≤ H2/H1 ≤ 0.98.
Regarding claims 4 and 12, 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 claims 5 and 13, having too high of a ratio between cross-sectional areas 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, this ratio is a result effective variable, and thus it would have been obvious to optimize the Sc/Ss ratio to arrive at Applicant’s claimed 0.6 ≤ Sc/Ss ≤ 0.9.
Regarding claims 6 and 14, 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 to 115 degree range (figure 3), and given the range of circumferential lengths set forth above, it is expected that the angle of the crown portion in a state where the functional component is housed in the housing space would overlap the claimed range.
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 Masago and 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 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 amendment and arguments with respect to the prior art rejections of the claims has been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Naruse.
Applicant's arguments regarding the non-amended limitations of the claims have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that Masago being a known method and yielding predictable results is not a sufficient basis for obviousness. 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). The rejection has articulated (1) a finding that the prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference; (2) a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; (3) a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable; and no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration. Applicant has not argued that the elements were not known, or that the results were not predictable, and thus the rejection stands.
Applicant argues that the ratio between the circumferential lengths is not a results effective variable, because the prior art does not recognize this as a results effective variable. However, Applicant is ignoring the basis on which this variable was 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 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 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, this ratio is 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. 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 further argues that Hayashi does not disclose any values as to the size difference, merely that it is “slightly larger”. However, in the instant case, where the claimed D2u/D1u can be equal to 0.95, a difference of only 5% in circumferential length, the disclosure “slightly larger” is taken to encompass such a value. Applicant has made no argument as to why a difference of only 5% would not be considered to be “slightly larger”.
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 March 14, 2026
/KATELYN W SMITH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1749