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) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adamson (WO 03/105509, of record) and further in view of Strache (DE 102005033071, of record) and Bishop (US 2018/0056719, newly cited).
As best depicted in Figure 2, Adamson is directed to a tire construction comprising a tread 19, a pair of sidewalls 17, a pair of bead cores (no reference character provided), a carcass ply 16 (with steel being one of the most conventional cord materials), and an electronic device 10 including antenna 20 and positioned on a tire inner surface (embedded in patch 30 when placed on a tire inner surface). It is further noted that while Adamson fails to provide a reference character for the bead filler, it is extremely well known and conventional that bead fillers represent fundamental components of modern day tire constructions. More particularly, such bead fillers are generally triangular in shape, formed with hard rubber compositions, and extend radially outward form the bead cores. In such an instance, though, Adamson is silent with respect to the presence of intersections between the antenna and carcass cords.
It is initially noted that the antenna of Adamson is described as being sinusoidal in order to mitigate affects from stresses/forces experienced during manufacture and normal running. Given the conventional arrangement of carcass cords, it reasons that a plurality of intersections would be present as required by the claimed invention. Strache has been provided to expressly depict a tire construction having radial carcass cords 5 and a sinusoidal antenna 3 (Figure 1c). In such an instance, a plurality of intersections are present between the antenna and the carcass cord. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form the tire of Adamson with between 7 and 25 intersections in view of the general disclosure of Adamson and Stache. Also, Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed number of intersections (lack of comparative examples with less than 7 or more than 25 intersections).
Lastly, regarding claim 1, the claims are directed to a tire construction, as opposed to a wheel assembly including a tire and a rim, and as such, limitations pertaining to the rim fail to further define the structure of the claimed tire. Additionally, a fair reading of Adamson suggests the general manufacture of tire constructions having any number of dimensions and such would include those designed to be mounted on rims having diameters of at least 20 inches (any tire size would benefit from the inclusion of an electronic device). Bishop is further applied to evidence the dimensions associated with heavy duty tires intended to be typically mounted on rims between 57 inches and 63 inches (Paragraph 2). More particularly, bead core widths W, which are smaller than an overall width between a tire inner and outer surface (claimed bead filler area width), range between 3.5 and 4.5 inches (approximately 89 mm and 114 mm) (Paragraphs 2 and 34). Again, it is emphasized that a fair reading of Adamson does not limit the type of tire and the benefits of providing information during manufacturing and running are desirable in all tire constructions, including those having a bead filler area width of at least 30 mm (associated with heavy duty tires).
With respect to claims 2, 3, 5, and 6, the general depiction in Figure 2 is consistent with the broad range of the claimed invention and Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results.
Regarding claims 4 and 7-9, the general disclosures of Adamson and Stache suggest a wide variety of tire constructions without limitation in regards to the number of intersections. It is evident that the exact number of intersections is a function of, for example, the amplitude of the antenna and the carcass cord density (and thus the carcass cord spacing). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form the tire of Adamson, as modified by Stache, with intersections in accordance to the claims absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results.
4. Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adamson, Stache, and Bishop as applied in claim 1 above and further in view of Randall (WO 2016/060851, newly cited).
While Adamson fails to specifically describe the placement of RFID assemblies on first and second tire side portions, such is consistent with the general manufacture of RFID-containing tires, as shown for example by Randall (Paragraph 29). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to position an equal number of RFID assemblies in respective side portions (consistent with common designs of RFID-containing tires).
Response to Arguments
5. 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
6. 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.
7. 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 18, 2025