DETAILED ACTION
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the feature(s)
“a innerliner” “a belt package,” “an underthread” recited in claim 1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). If it is important to claim a feature as being new and novel, it is also important to show the feature. No new matter should be entered.
Furthermore, the limitation “a hole disposed in an individual tread groove of the plurality of tread grooves, the hole extending from an exterior surface of the tread through the undertread and belt package to the innerliner” recited in claim 1 must also be shown or the limitation canceled from the claim (Please see the 112 rejections below).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent claim 1 recites a limitation “a hole disposed in an individual tread groove of the plurality of tread grooves, the hole extending from an exterior surface of the tread through the undertread and belt package to the innerliner.”
However, application’s fig. 2 appears to show a hole (113) disposed in an individual tread groove (114) of the plurality of tread grooves (114), the hole (113) extending from an exterior surface of the tread groove (114) through the undertread and the belt package and the innerliner; and a sensor (109) disposed at least in part in the hole (113). Moreover, application’s specification paragraphs [0036]-[0037] describe “The hole 113 can be representative of a hollow channel or bore through the innerliner, belt package, undertread, as well as other layers of tire components…In some embodiments, the portion of the sensor 109 exposed through the tread groove 114 is flush with the floor of the tread groove 114 such that the sensor 109 does not interfere with the tread pattern and does not come into contact with the road.”
Hence, it appears that the hole (113) extends from an exterior surface of the tread groove (114) through the undertread and the belt package and the innerliner.
In order to overcome the rejections, claim 1 could be changed to:
--A tire, comprising:
an innerliner adjacent to a first side of a belt package;
an undertread adjacent to a second side of the belt package;
a tread adjacent to the undertread opposite the belt package, the tread comprising a plurality of tread elements and a plurality of tread grooves (114);
a hole (113) disposed in an individual tread groove (114) of the plurality of tread grooves (114), the hole (113) extending from an exterior surface of the tread groove (114) through the undertread and the belt package and the innerliner; and
a sensor (109) disposed at least in part in the hole (113).--
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li (CN 102632775 A).
Li teaches a rim valve for a tire, the rim valve comprising a valve stem (6) including a distal end and a proximal end; a valve bulb (Fig. 1 below) disposed at the proximal end of the valve stem (6); and a sensor (72) disposed on at least one of the valve bulb and the distal end of the valve stem (6). See fig. 1, reproduced and annotated below.
PNG
media_image1.png
884
869
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 7, 12-14 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yang (CN 111319405 A).
Yang teaches:
7. A tire (1) being mounted on a wheel (2), the tire and wheel combination comprising (See figs. 1-3, reproduced below):
the tire (1) including a plurality of sidewalls, each one of the sidewalls extending radially outwardly from a respective bead to a tread, the tread comprising a plurality of tread elements (as is apparent from figs. 1, 2); and
a sensor (4) disposed on an outboard side of at least one of the wheel (2) and an individual sidewall of the plurality of sidewalls (as is apparent from figs 1-3).
PNG
media_image2.png
840
775
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
1325
794
media_image3.png
Greyscale
12. The tire and wheel combination of claim 7, wherein a recess is formed in the outboard side of the individual sidewall of the plurality of sidewalls and the recess is configured to receive the sensor.
Note: Yang meets claim 7 by teaching the sensor (4) disposed on an outboard side of the wheel (2). Claim 12 essentially incorporates a non-elected species by original presentation of claim 7 which is “a sensor disposed on an outboard side of an individual sidewall of the plurality of sidewalls.” Claim 12 adds no further limitation to Yang, thus is considered irrelevant.
13-14 (are dependent on claim 12, thus fall together with claim 12).
18. The tire and wheel combination of claim 7, further comprising:
the wheel (2) including a wheel body including a rim well formed between an outboard rim sidewall and an inboard rim sidewall;
the sensor (4) being disposed on a radially inward side of the rim well; and
one or more connectors disposed circumferentially about an outboard face of the outboard rim sidewall, the one or more connectors configured to secure at least one customizable member to an outboard side of the wheel body.
Note: Yang meets claim 7 by teaching the sensor (4) disposed on an outboard side of the wheel (2). Claim 18 appears to contradict claim 7 by essentially claiming that the sensor (4) is disposed inside between the tire (1) and wheel (2). Claim 12 adds no further limitation to Yang, thus is considered irrelevant.
19-20 (are dependent on claim 18, thus fall together with claim 18).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Berens (US 2009/0058177 A1. Berens is a reference listed in an IDS filed on 6/16/2025).
15. Yang teaches the tire and wheel combination of claim 7, but is silent about:
a ring configured to fit around a rim of the wheel (2), the ring including an inboard side configured to face the rim and an outboard side; and
one or more flanges extending in an inboard direction from the inboard side of the ring and configured to secure the ring to the rim.
Berens teaches a tire and wheel combination, comprising (See figs. 1, 3b, reproduced below):
a ring (110) configured to fit around a rim of a wheel, the ring (110) including an inboard side configured to face the rim and an outboard side; and
one or more flanges (115) extending in an inboard direction from the inboard side of the ring (110) and configured to secure the ring to the rim (Note that the ring 110 may further include a removable and partially transparent cover 120 having indicia thereon; Par. 0029).
PNG
media_image4.png
624
796
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
240
580
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to apply Berens teaching to Yang tire and wheel combination by providing a ring configured to fit around a rim of the wheel (2), the ring including an inboard side configured to face the rim and an outboard side; and one or more flanges extending in an inboard direction from the inboard side of the ring and configured to secure the ring to the rim. The ring may further include a removable and partially transparent cover having indicia thereon, in order to provide decoration to the tire and wheel combination, for example.
16. Yang as modified teaches the tire and wheel combination of claim 15, wherein the outboard side of the ring (110) extends radially inward such that the ring (110) covers at least a portion of the rim and the outboard side of the ring (110) extends radially outward such that the ring (110) covers at least a portion of the individual sidewall of the plurality of sidewalls (as is evident from at least Yang fig. 1 and Berens figs. 1, 3b).
17. The tire and wheel combination of claim 15, further comprising one or more LEDs (136) disposed on the outboard side of the ring (See Berens fig. 2 and Par. 0031).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3 would be allowed if the above 112 rejections were overcome. The following would be an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
With respect to independent claim 1, prior art of record doesn’t teach, suggest, or render obvious the total combination of the recited features, including the following allowable subject matter: “…a hole (113) disposed in an individual tread groove (114) of the plurality of tread grooves (114), the hole (113) extending from an exterior surface of the tread groove (114) through the undertread and the belt package and the innerliner; and a sensor (109) disposed at least in part in the hole (113).”
(Claims 2-3 are dependent on claim 1.)
Claims 5-6 and 8-11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following would be a statement for indication of an allowable subject matter:
With respect to claim 5, prior art of record doesn’t teach, suggest, or render obvious the total combination of the recited features, including the following allowable subject matter: “…an indicator (112) disposed at the distal end of the valve stem (133), the indicator (112) being electronically connected to the sensor (109) and configured to indicate an activated state of the sensor (109).”
(Claim 6 is dependent on claim 5.)
With respect to claim 8, prior art of record doesn’t teach, suggest, or render obvious the total combination of the recited features, including the following allowable subject matter: “an indicator (112) is disposed on the center member (139).”
(Claims 9-11 are dependent on claim 8.)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record below and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure/invention.
EP 3517323 A1 to Kurz et al. discloses a tire, comprising essentially all the features recited in independent claim 1, except for the allowable subject matter.
As shown in fig. 1 (reproduced below), the tire comprises:
an innerliner (14) adjacent to a first side of a belt package (8-9);
an undertread (shown in fig. 1 below) adjacent to a second side of the belt package (8-9);
a tread (4) adjacent to the undertread opposite the belt package (8-9), the tread (4) comprising a plurality of tread elements (4) and a plurality of tread grooves (10);
a hole disposed in an individual tread treads (4), the hole extending (or may be extending) from an exterior surface of the tread (4) through the undertread and belt package (8-9) and the innerliner 14 (the hole to accommodate a sensor 6); and
a sensor (6) disposed at least in part in the hole.
Note: The sensor 6 comprises a number of transponders 1 which is reduced according to tread wear on the tire. A profile abrasion on the tire due to the tread wear can be determined by evaluating a remaining or missing number of the transponders 1.
Kurz fails to disclose the hole to be disposed in an individual tread groove (10) of the plurality of tread grooves (10), the hole extending (or may be extending) from an exterior surface of the tread groove (10) through the undertread and belt package (8-9) and the innerliner (14); and a sensor (6) to be disposed at least in part in the hole.
PNG
media_image6.png
378
874
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nguyen (Wyn) Q. Ha whose telephone number is (571) 272-2863, email: nguyenq.ha@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 4:30 pm (Eastern Time).
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, Stephen Meier can be reached at (571) 272-2149. 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.
/Nguyen Q. Ha/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853 August 23, 2026
Prosecution Insights