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 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.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP’852 (JP 2019-098852) in view of JP’543 (JP 2019-064543).
Regarding claims 1 and 14, FIG. 1 and FIG. 3 of JP’852 teaches a functional component assembly comprising a functional component (200) and a support body (100). The support body includes a base portion (125) and a housing portion having a sidewall (110, 111). An other surface of the base portion is an attachment surface to a tire inner surface (30).
The functional component is fixed inside the housing portion via a locking portion. The locking portion includes a pair of protrusion portions provided on the sidewall of the housing portion (131, 132) and a receiving portion that is the portion of the functional component in contact with the side wall (231, 232).
While JP’852 is silent to 1.02 < h/H ≤ 1.40 (claim 1) and 1.05 < h/H ≤ 1.40 (claim 14), these claimed relationships in the tire of JP’852 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because JP’852 teaches the mounting pedestal 100 has two engagement protruding parts which engages with notch parts of the functional component and is locked (abstract) and in the same field of endeavor of a tire comprising a mounting pedestal and a functional component, JP’543 teaches “the radial size of the side surface 210 of the functional component 200 is slightly larger than the radial side of the surrounding wall portion 110 and the inner side surface 111, and the side surface 210 contacts the inner side surface 11 under a constant pressure” “to effectively prevent the functional component 200 from falling off the functional component mounting pedestal 100 due to an impact applied to the pneumatic tire 10” (page 3 of the machine translation).
As to the last four lines of claim 1, the expected result in a state where the functional component is accommodated with the support body of FIG. 3 would be the claimed ratio H’/T being within the claimed range because the engagement convex portion is in the top region of the support body. And, JP’852 teaches a thickness T along the tire radial direction including the engagement convex portion 143 is 1.5 mm or more (page 4 of the machine translation). The corresponding claimed thickness T is illustrated to be at least 2 times the thickness T of JP’852 which is 1.5 mm or more, rendering obvious the claimed range.
Regarding claim 3, FIG. 3 illustrates the corresponding LH/LV and LH/L within the claimed range respectively. And, official notice is taken a functional component having a maximum length in a horizontal direction L within a range of 5.0 mm to 35.0 mm is conventional and expected in the tire art.
Regarding claim 5, see annotation below.
PNG
media_image1.png
535
741
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, JP’852 teaches the functional component 200 includes a sensor that measures a temperature, an internal pressure, an acceleration or the like, and a wireless communication device (page 2 of the machine translation). While JP’852 is silent to the sensor comprising a piezoelectric element, this claimed feature in a sensor provided in the tire of JP’852 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because official notice is taken a tire comprising a sensor including a piezoelectric element is well-known/conventional.
Regarding claim 9, see the rejection of claim 1 and FIG. 1 of JP’852.
Regarding claim 10, JP’852 teaches the functional component 200 includes sensor. The claimed shortest distance in the tire of JP’852 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention because the corresponding distance is illustrated being less than a thickness T dimension of JP’852, wherein thickness T may be as low as 1.5 mm.
Regarding claim 11, see FIG. 3 of JP’852.
Regarding claim 12, JP’852 teaches the mounting pedestal may be bonded with an adhesive (page 3 of the machine translation).
Regarding claim 13, JP’852 teaches the sensor includes a wireless communication device but is silent to a device communicating periodically and automatically transmitting data. However, this claimed feature in the tire of JP’852 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because official notice is taken providing a wireless device that automatically and periodically transmit data is well-known and conventional in the tire art (e.g. tire fleets use RFID tags that provide automated, real-time tire data throughout a tire’s lifecycle for tire studies and tire data management).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP’852 (JP 2019-098852) in view of JP’543 (JP 2019-064543), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of JP’947 (JP 2019-093947).
Regarding claim 4, JP’852 is silent to a sum of projection lengths of the locking portion on a circumference of the side wall is ¾ times to 1 time a circumferential length of the side wall. In the same field of endeavor of providing a mounting pedestal on an interior surface of a tire, JP’947 teaches 2 locking/engagement regions (FIG. 2) and alternatively, 4 locking/engagement regions (FIG. 5) having the sum of projection length of the locking region within the claimed range; providing a known alternative number of locking engagement regions (i.e. 4) which predictably yields the claimed sum of projection length is within the ordinary capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP’852 (JP 2019-098852) in view of JP’543 (JP 2019-064543), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of WO’511 (WO 2020/105511).
US 2021/0370728 is the US equivalent to WO’511 and relied as an English translation to WO’511.
Regarding claim 8, JP’852 teaches the mounting pedestal (support body) is made of rubber (page 3 of the machine translation); however, JP’852 is silent to an elongation at break, EB and a modulus at 300% elongation. However, these properties for a rubber component used for storing a sensor/functional component; that is, the mounting pedestal of JP’852 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because WO’511 teaches a rubber component used for storing a sensor having a modulus M300 of 2-15 MPa and an elongation at break, EB of 50% to 900% for a balanced setting of workability of insertion of a sensor unit, holding property, and a breakage resistance [0014].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record fails to render obvious a functional component assembly comprising “an outer shape of the functional component is a columnar shape, the housing portion has a cylindrical shape corresponding to the functional component, and the locking portion is provided in a spiral shape” including all of the limitations of the base claim and an any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered and are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented in this office action.
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 KENDRA LY whose telephone number is (571)270-7060. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00-5:00PM.
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 B 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.
/KENDRA LY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749