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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
The indicated allowability of claims 6,7, 10, 11, 14, 15, and 17-20 is withdrawn in view of the newly discovered reference(s) to Ehmke (WO 2020108833), Tomita (EP 0639472), and Diernaz (WO 92/01578). Rejections based on the newly cited reference(s) follow.
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.
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) in view of Ehmke, Tomita, and Diernaz.
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 a device region to provide protection, as shown for example by Ehmke (Figure 1) and Tomita (Figures 1a, 1b, and 3). In each of these instances, the protrusion has a center or middle region formed with a convex curvature and additional concave regions that are adjacent to said middle region, wherein a thickness of the side covering rubber is thinner in a device region as compared to around the device region. See the modified figures below.
PNG
media_image1.png
524
498
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
530
670
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It is further noted that while Ehmke and Tomita are directed to tire constructions in which a device is embedded in an interior side of the tire, it is equally well known to provide protrusions having convex and concave regions in a tire exterior side to provide protection for assemblies in general, as shown for example by Diernaz (component 25 in Figure 1 and Page 7, 2nd paragraph). As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include a protrusion in the tire of Bestgen.
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.
5. Claim(s) 3, 12, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bestgen, Ehmke, Tomita, and Diernaz as applied in claim 2 above and further in view of Jeong (KR 201000691517).
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
6. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-5, 7-9, 12, 13, and 16 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
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 R FISCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749 March 8, 2026