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, 2, 4, 5, 7-9, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bestgen (US 2021/0252815, of record) in view of Diernaz (WO 92/01578, of record) and optionally in view of Ehmke (WO 2020108833, of record) and/or Tomita (EP 0639472).
As best depicted in Figure 2, Bestgen is directed to a tire construction comprising a radio frequency module or RFID (claimed communication device). More particularly, said RFID can be embedded in a tire sidewall or side covering rubber 16 at a height below the tire maximum width (locations 20b and 20c). In such an instance, though, the tire of Bestgen fails to include a protrusion in the device region.
It is extremely well known and conventional, though, to include a protrusion in tires in general to protect components that are embedded in a tire side region, as shown for example by modified Figure 1 of Diernaz below.
PNG
media_image1.png
710
874
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It is emphasized that the tire of Diernaz includes an auxiliary element 4 that is embedded in a tire side region and teaches the specific inclusion of a protrusion to “withstand external aggressions” (rubber portion that corresponds with added thickness from a normal counter of the tire sidewall). Essentially, given the inclusion of an additional component, it is necessary to provide added rubber in an area where said component is arranged to reduce or eliminate potential damage to said component. It is further evident that the protrusion has a convex center region or apex sandwiched between first and second concavely curved regions. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include a protrusion in the tire of Bestgen to provide protection for the RFID (additional component that is embedded in the tire side portion). The general concept of providing protection to an additional tire component would be applicable to any number of additional tire components, including an RFID. Ehmke and Tomita are optionally provided to specifically evidence the known inclusion of protrusions in RFID-containing tires (Figure 1).
Additionally, regarding claim 1, a fair reading of the references suggests that the general inclusion of rubber would provide protection to an embedded or underlying tire component. Essentially, a protrusion thickness that is greater than 0 mm provides protection against external damage. More particularly, a protrusion thickness would be expected to extend radially inward of and outward of an RFID, as well as circumferentially beyond an RFID in both directions. This corresponds with complete coverage of an RFID with the protrusion. Thus, a thickness in a region adjacent an RFID (1 mm or less from a location of the RFID as defined by Applicant) would be expected to be larger than a thickness in a region where the RFID is arranged (device region- based on the fact that an RFID is present). Again, nothing in the prior art references of record suggest that the protrusion abruptly ends outside the device region such that a thickness in an adjacent region is extremely small. It is also noted that Diernaz generally states that it is simply required that sufficient rubber is present to provide a desired protection and Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed thickness relationship.
Lastly, regarding claim 1, Tomita depicts the structure of protrusions such that the transition from concave regions to a center or middle convex region would be present in a radial direction and a circumferential direction (perimeter of protrusion encircles the non-annular device 7). It is also noted that Diernaz states that any profile, including the circular arc depicted in the figures, can be used as along as sufficient rubber coverage is provided (Page 7). The totality of these teachings suggests a protrusion that satisfies the claimed geometry.
As to claim 2, the claims are directed to absolute dimensions and it is well taken that tire dimensions are highly dependent on the tire size and ultimately the intended use of the tire. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use any number of dimensions that are consistent with the general order of dimensions used in tire bead regions and such would include the claimed range between 0.1 mm and 1.0 mm absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results.
Regarding claims 4 and 8, such is depicted by the figures of Ehmke, Tomita, and Diernaz.
With respect to claims 5, 9, and 16, a wide variety of locations in Figure 2 of Bestgen are between a side covering rubber 16 and stiffener 9.
4. Claim(s) 3, 12, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bestgen, Diernaz, Ehmke, and Tomita as applied in claim 2 above and further in view of Jeong (KR 201000691517, of record).
As detailed above, the modified tire of Bestgen includes a protruding portion in a lower region to provide protection for an embedded device (RFID). In such an instance, though, Bestgen is silent with respect to the inclusion of a marking portion.
In any event, it is extremely well known and conventional to include any number of marking portions, such as characters and logos, in tires, as shown for example by Jeong (Figure 5). Jeong further states that a height Dp of said marking portions can be as large as 10 mm (Abstract). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include conventional marking portions in the tire of Bestgen (provides a desired aesthetic arrangement). Also, a thickness as large as 10 mm would have been recognized as being significantly larger than a height of a protrusion associated with the RFID device (markings have a large thickness so that a logo or character can be seen while a protrusion associated with an RFID is provided to add a thickness consistent with that associated with a side covering rubber thickness).
With respect to claim 12, such is depicted by the figures of Ehmke, Tomita, and Diernaz.
Regarding claim 13, a wide variety of locations in Figure 2 of Bestgen are between a side covering rubber 16 and stiffener 9.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant's arguments filed May 27, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the cited art does not teach or suggest that “the communication device is embedded in the tire side portion on an inner side in the tire width direction relative to the base of the protrusion”.
It is initially noted that Bestgen is directed to tire constructions in which an RFID is embedded in a tire side portion. Thus, the RFID is inward of an exterior surface that defines the tire side portion. When modifying the tire of Bestgen to include additional rubber or a protrusion to protect said RFID, an original exterior surface corresponds with a base portion of the protrusion (protrusion extends axially outward from the exterior tire surface or base portion). Thus, the modified tire of Bestgen would in fact include an RFID positioned on an inner side in the tire width direction relative to the base of the protrusion. Figure 1 of Diernaz provides evidence of the relationship of a component that is embedded in a tire side portion and a protrusion designed to protect said component. In the case of Diernaz, the additional component is an auxiliary rod or bead core 4. It is emphasized, though, that a general teaching of Diernaz is the inclusion of a protrusion on an exterior side surface when additional components are provided in a tire side portion in order to protect said component from external damage. This would be directly applicable to the tire of Bestgen in which an additional component in the form of an RFID is embedded in a tire side portion. Ehmke and Tomita are optionally applied to specifically evidence the known inclusion of additional rubber in the form of protrusions in RFID-containing tires.
Applicant further contends that following the prior art would result in a localized thickening of the side-covering rubber. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. A fair reading of the references suggests that the general inclusion of rubber would provide protection to an embedded or underlying tire component. Essentially, a protrusion thickness that is greater than 0 mm provides protection against external damage. More particularly, a protrusion thickness would be expected to extend radially inward of and outward of an RFID, as well as circumferentially beyond an RFID in both directions. This corresponds with complete coverage of an RFID with the protrusion. Thus, a thickness in a region adjacent an RFID (1 mm or less from a location of the RFID as defined by Applicant) would be expected to be larger than a thickness in a region where the RFID is arranged (device region- based on the fact that an RFID is present). Again, nothing in the prior art references of record suggest that the protrusion abruptly ends outside the device region such that a thickness in an adjacent region is extremely small. It is also noted that Diernaz generally states that it is simply required that sufficient rubber is present to provide a desired protection and Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed thickness relationship.
Applicant also argues that the claimed pneumatic tire achieves a specific and advantageous result not contemplated by the cited art, that being the suppression of strain concentration at the protrusion and improved durability against external impacts. As detailed above, though, Diernaz specifically states that the inclusion of a protrusion or added rubber protects a given component from external damage. Thus, the prior art does in fact achieve an advantageous effect consistent with that identified by Applicant.
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 August 7, 2026
Prosecution Insights