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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-10, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 7263936 (of record) and further in view of Adamson (WO 03/105511, of record) and/or Randall (WO 2016/060851, of record).
As best depicted in Figure 1, JP ‘936 teaches a tire construction comprising a turned up carcass ply 41 having a turnup end 43a (end of wrap up portion 43), a down carcass ply 45 having an inner end 46, a bead core 30, a bead filler 21, a sidewall rubber 11, and a rim cushion rubber 50. In such an instance, though, JP ‘936 is silent with respect to the inclusion of an electronic component between a wrap up portion and a down ply.
However, it is extremely well known and conventional to include electronic components (e.g. RFID) in tire constructions in order to, among other things, provide tire informational data, as shown for example by Adamson (Page 1, 1st Paragraph) and/or Randall (Paragraph 2). One of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to include a conventional electronic device in the tire of JP ‘936 for the benefits detailed above.
Also, Adamson (Page 4) states that “the radio device 11 and antenna may be embedded in the tire structure or layered under rubber material in the tire 14 which forms a surface” and Randall (Paragraph 28) states that “the electronic device may be disposed between any two layers of the tire”. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to position an electronic device between any number of tire components or layers in the tire of JP ‘936, including the wrap up carcass portion and the down ply, in view of the general disclosures of Adamson and Randall, there being no conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed invention.
Lastly, regarding claim 1 (and claims 5 and 6), a fair reading of Adamson and Randall does not limit the radial placement of the electronic component. Additionally, the claims define a wide range of radial locations and Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for a position that is at least 4 mm from an end of the wrap up carcass portion. It is emphasized that the general disclosure of Adamson and Randall suggest the inclusion of an RFID component at any number of radial locations and such would include the broad radial region encompassed by the claims.
With respect to claim 3, end 43a of the up carcass ply is positioned radially beyond an upper end of rim cushion rubber 50 (appears to be in the vicinity of reference character 51).
As to claim 4, an end of the carcass up ply is depicted as being located at approximately 0.5 times a height of bead filler 21. It is further noted that a fair reading of JP ‘936 does not limit the exact location of the bead filler end and/or the end of the carcass up ply, further suggesting that an embodiment in accordance to the claimed invention would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 7, Adamson suggests the exemplary use of butadiene rubber to form a protective member around an electrical component (Paragraph 22) and such would recognized as being of the same “quality” as that used to form common coating rubbers in all cord reinforced tire components, including the carcass.
As to claim 8, carcass plies(up and down carcass plies) are commonly formed with the same cord material and topping rubber material.
With respect to claims 9 and 10, Adamson (Paragraph 23) teaches the general order of thickness values for coatings or layers that form a protective member. Additionally, the coating material, such as butadiene rubber, is positioned on both sides of the electronic component.
Regarding claim 15, the claimed method would necessarily be carried out when positioning an electronic component between a carcass turnup portion and a down carcass ply.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 24, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the cited references do not provide any teaching or suggestion of the specific combination of structural arrangement and dimensional positioning required by the claims. Adamson specifically states that a device may be embedded in the tire structure and positioned in a number of different places in a tire, for example, the tread 19, near the bead 12, or at the tire equator 13 (Paragraph 18) and Randall states that a device may be disposed between any two layers of the tire, with a specific suggestion that said device sandwiched between two body plies (recognized as carcass plies) (Paragraph 28). Furthermore, Figure 2 of Adamson specifically depicts a plurality of radial locations. The prior art reference of record as a whole clearly indicate the known placement of devices in a plurality of axial locations and radial locations, with a specific recognition by Adamson that different arrangements or placements simply correspond with a measurement at different locations. As such, there is a reasonable expectation of success when including a device in any number of locations, including that required by the claimed invention (simply a matter of providing measurements at different locations). Again, it is emphasized that Randall specifically teaches a tire construction in which a device is sandwiched between two body plies or carcass plies and such corresponds with the claimed arrangement.
In terms of motivation, the prior art specifically recognizes the ability to obtain measurements at different locations. Thus, any one location would provide a measurement at a single location. Additional locations provide measurements at different locations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to determine measurements at a variety of locations, including that required by the claimed invention. Furthermore, there is an express teaching by Adamson to position a device between first and second body plies or carcass plies and such is consistent with that required by the claimed invention. It is also noted that when a device is positioned between body plies or carcass plies, as suggested by Adamson, almost every radial location is at least 4 mm distant from a carcass turnup end.
In terms of any potential unexpected results, Paragraph 59 corresponds with purported benefits and there is no experimental testing that supports the assertion that ply separation is suppressed. With further respect to Figure 5, the fact that shear strains (in the up carcass ply and the down carcass ply) are slightly different from one another in a region directly adjacent the carcass turnup end fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for including a device in a region distant from the carcass turnup end by at least 4 mm. Essentially, Applicant has not provided comparative examples in which a device is positioned within 4 mm of a carcass turnup end (properties of such a tire would need to be compared with an inventive tire in which a device is spaced at least 4 mm from a carcass turnup end).
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 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 October 1, 2025