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) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuda (JP 2-124302, newly cited) and further in view of Randall (WO 2016/060851, of record).
As best depicted in Figure 1, Matsuda is directed to a tire construction comprising a carcass 27 and a bead filler 28, wherein said carcass includes a turnup portion that extends radially beyond an radially outer end of said bead filler. In such an instance, though, the tire of Matsuda is devoid of an electronic device.
In any event, it is extremely well known and conventional to include electronic devices in modern day tire constructions in order to provide tire information during processing and running. Randall (Paragraph 2) provides one example of the common inclusion of electronic devices (RFID tag) in modern day tire constructions. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include a conventional electronic device in the tire of Matsuda for the benefits detailed above.
Furthermore, said device is positioned in a region 115b that is radially beyond an outer end of the bead filler 135b (Paragraph 28). This statement corresponds with a ratio as claimed greater than 100%. While Randall is silent with respect to a ratio greater than 105%, a fair reading of Randall suggests the placement of said device at any position within the second sidewall region 115b and a multitude of positions within the second sidewall region are at heights that would satisfy the claimed ratio of at least 105%. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use a ratio of at least 105% in the tire of Matsuda, as modified by Randall, given the general disclosure detailed above and Applicant has no provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed ratio.
Also, with respect to claim 1 (and dependent claims 4, 6, and 7), the general disclosure of Randall to position the electronic device such that it is not exposed on a tire interior surface or tire exterior surface is seen to encompass the claimed depths and Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results. It is further emphasized that Randall broadly states that said device “may be disposed between any two layers of the tire” (Paragraph 28)- such a disclosure is seen to encompass a multitude of arrangements in accordance to the claimed invention.
Lastly, regarding claim 1, the claims as currently drafted are directed to a tire construction, as opposed to a wheel assembly comprising a tire and a rim. As such, limitations pertaining to the rim fail to further define the structure of the claimed tire article. It is further noted that the general disclosure of Matsuda and Randall suggests any number of wheel assemblies having any number of rim dimensions- the critical aspect of Matsuda, as modified by Randall, is the inclusion of an electronic device that is embedded within the tire construction and positioned axially outward of the carcass and radially beyond an outer end of the bead filler.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, as detailed above, the general disclosure of Randall to include an electronic device radially beyond a bead filler is seen to encompass the claimed quantitative relationships and Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results. Also, as noted above, limitations pertaining to the rim fail to further define the structure of the claimed tire article (a fair reading of Matsuda suggests the general manufacture of tire constructions without limitation in regards to the tire size and thus corresponding rim).
As to claims 5, 8, and 9, it is extremely well known and conventional to include a tire serial display on a tire outer surface, particularly a tire sidewall surface (provides tire information). Given the general disclosure of Randall to position an electronic device in a tire sidewall region, it reasons that Randall encompasses a wide variety of embodiments in which the device and the display have at least some degree of overlap. Furthermore, a tire construction having at least some overlap does not provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results. It is emphasized that an overlapped arrangement would be recognized as providing an indication of the position of an internal electronic device.
With respect to claim 10, Randall teaches the claimed arrangement (Paragraph 29).
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
5. 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.
6. 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 November 20, 2025
Prosecution Insights