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
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 1-2, 5-6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishii (US Pub. No. 2020/0031178) in view of Fudo (US Pub. No 2021/0273153).
Regarding claim 1, Ishii teaches a tire 40 comprising a sensor module 21 (claimed functional component to acquire tire information) and a rubber base 30 (claimed housing body adapted to house the functional component), the housing body being fixed to a tire inner surface, the functional component being housed in the housing body, the functional component comprising a functional component accommodation case 20 (claimed housing) containing a sensor 21a (claimed electronic component) configured to acquire tire information such as temperature, pressure, vibration and the like, and first through third convex parts 34 to 36 (claimed at least one projection) being formed on an inner surface of the housing body (paragraphs [0016]-[0023]; figures 1-2 and 4B). Ishii does not specifically disclose that the functional component has a piezoelectric element. Fudo teaches using a sheet-like piezoelectric element 81 extending across the entire bottom surface of a housing (paragraphs [0098]-[0113]; figure 6A). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a sheet-like piezoelectric element as taught by Fudo as part of the functional component of Ishii in order to detect the deformation of a tire with high sensitivity and improve the reliability of the functional component (see Fudo at paragraph [0113]). Such a combination would have at least a part of the projection and the piezoelectric element directly in contact with each other in a state where the functional component is housed in the housing body.
Regarding claim 2, for the embodiments of figures 2 and 6a, Ishii teaches a contact area between the projection and the piezoelectric element is less than 50% with respect to an area of the inner surface of the housing body, and given the structure of the piezoelectric body (see Fudo at paragraphs [0053]-[0085] and figures 1A-1C), the contact area is expected to be within the 10% to 100% with respect to a surface area of a pressure sensing portion of the piezoelectric element.
Regarding claim 5, regarding the limitation with respect to the inclination angle difference, the claims are directed to an article including a housing body and a functional component, this article has a bottom portion fixed to a tire inner surface, a crown portion protruding from the bottom portion, a housing space formed by the bottom portion and the crown portion, and an opening portion communicating with the housing space (see figures 1-2); 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.
Regarding claim 6, Ishii teaches a specific embodiment where the inclination angle of the crown portion with respect to the bottom portion measured on the outer wall side of the crown portion in a state where the functional component is housed in the housing space is greater than 90 degrees (figure 1).
Regarding claim 12, Ishii teaches that the housing body is made of rubber (paragraph [0015]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishii in view of Fudo as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kawamata (JP2018-094968; machine translation relied upon).
Regarding claim 3, Ishii does not specifically disclose the height of the projection. In art similarly related to a tire comprising a functional component and a housing body, where the housing body has a projection, Kawamata teaches a projection height of 0.1 to 1 mm (machine translation page 4, last paragraph – page 5, first paragraph). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a projection height as taught by Kawamata in the tire of Ishii (combined) as a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishii in view of Fudo as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nagaya (JP2018-016277; machine translation relied upon).
Regarding claim 4, Ishii does not specifically disclose the 100% modulus of the rubber of the projection. Nagaya, similarly directed to a housing body with a functional component, teaches using a rubber 2 for the bottom of the housing body with a 100% modulus preferably in the range of 4 MPa to 10 MPa (machine translation at page 4, second and third paragraphs), with a specific embodiment having a 100% modulus of 7 MPa (machine translation at page 5, third paragraph). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a 100% modulus as taught by Nagaya for the projection rubber of the housing body of Ishii (combined) as a known preferable value/range for a bottom rubber of a housing body.
Claims 7-10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishii in view of Fudo as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Hayashi (JP2019-064543; machine translation relied upon).
Regarding claim 7, Ishii does not specifically disclose the thickness of the crown portion. In a similar housing body with a functional component, 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. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a crown portion thickness as taught by Hayashi in the article of Ishii (combined) in order to have good retention and removability of the functional component (see Hayashi machine translation at page 4, first paragraph).
Regarding claims 8-9, Ishii teaches that the opening portion has a width smaller than the minimum width of the housing portion (figure 1), but does not specifically disclose a relationship between D2u/D1u. Hayashi teaches or suggests 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 result effective variables, 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 8 and to optimize the H2/H1 ratio to arrive at Applicant’s claimed 0.85 ≤ H2/H1 ≤ 0.98 of claim 9.
Regarding claim 10, 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 13, Ishii does not specifically disclose using an adhesive to fix the housing body to the tire inner surface. Hayashi teaches that the housing body can be fixed to the tire inner surface using an adhesive (machine translation at page 2, seventh paragraph). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use an adhesive as taught by Hayashi in the article of Ishii (combined) as a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishii in view of Fudo as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hayashi (JP2019-064543; machine translation relied upon) and Rodgers (US Pub. No. 2011/0094645).
Regarding claim 11, Ishii does not specifically disclose the 100% modulus or loss modulus of the rubber of the housing body. Hayashi, similarly directed to a housing body with a functional component, 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. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a 100% modulus as taught or suggested by Hayashi for the rubber of the housing body of Ishii (combined) in order to prevent the functional component from falling off (see Hayashi machine translation at page 4, fifth full paragraph). 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 Ishii (combined) as a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on October 16, 2025 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of Application No. 18/848,392 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments with respect to the rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 have 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 Ishii as is set forth above.
Conclusion
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.
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 2, 2026
/JUSTIN R FISCHER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749