Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 16, 2026
Application No. 18/889,652

TIRE INNER TUBE

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Sep 19, 2024
Examiner
WILLIAMS, CEDRICK S
Art Unit
1749
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Tomika Technology Co., LTD.
OA Round
2 (Final)
59%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
81%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 59% of resolved cases
59%
Career Allow Rate
295 granted / 501 resolved
-6.1% vs TC avg
Strong +22% interview lift
Without
With
+22.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
44 currently pending
Career history
545
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
66.3%
+26.3% vs TC avg
§102
16.5%
-23.5% vs TC avg
§112
15.2%
-24.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 501 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Response to Amendment The amendment filed 07/24/2025 has been entered. Claims 1 and 7 have been amended. Claims 1-7 are pending. Specification The substitute specification filed 07/24/2025 is acknowledged and has been approved for entry by the examiner. 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. Figures: The examiner provides illustrations from the prior art with additional annotations as needed to facilitate discussion of the claim elements. Moreover, it is held that guidance as provided by the figures is sufficient to enable public possession of an inventive concept. That is, an enabling picture may be used to reject claims directed to an article to include: anticipating claims if they clearly show the structure which is claimed. In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972). And when the reference is a utility patent, it does not matter that the feature shown is unintended or unexplained in the specification. The drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979), see MPEP 2125.The examiner provides marked-up reproductions of applicable drawings (as needed) to facilitate discussion of the prior art. Claims 1-3, 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young (US 2008/0302458 A1), in view of Onishi (JP 61253201 A – of record), in view of Baker et al. (WO 97/25215A1). Regarding claims 1-3, 5, Young discloses an adjustable inner tube for a tire. The inner tube being configured to have a torus body having an outer circumferential side and an inner circumferential side opposite to the outer circumferential side; and an air nozzle stem 14 protruding from the inner circumferential side and communicating with an inside of the torus body. [AltContent: textbox (First and Second connecting sheet are overlapped and fixed to each other)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow] PNG media_image1.png 200 400 media_image1.png Greyscale And has a telescoping segment 22 – (construed as a first overlap connecting part). Young does not explicitly disclose the telescoping segment is distributed in a complete circle along the toroidal direction of the tire. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Young’s telescoping segment as claimed since: Young discloses the telescoping segment is configured to be a one-size-fits-all inner tube which may be fitted to tires of various sizes. More particularly, the circumference of the tube may be adjusted to enable the inner tube to conform to the shape of tires having different circumferences, see at least [0005]. Thus, one would readily envision form the telescoping segment such that it is distributed in a complete circle along a toroidal direction of the torus body, and has a first connecting sheet and a second connecting sheet, which are overlapped and fixed to each other in the compete circle along the toroidal direction of the torus body. To include having the first overlap connecting part is distributed in the complete circle along the outer/inner circumferential side of the torus body. Young does not explicitly disclose the rubber composition of the inner tube is a thermoplastic composition. Onishi discloses an inner tube that is easy to remove without air leakage. The inner tube is formed of a thermoplastic urethane, wherein such a composition is easy to manufacture and has favorable strength over conventional inner tube compositions, see [0001] – (construed as a thermoplastic polyurethane). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Young’s inner tube to be formed of thermoplastic urethane as disclosed by Onishi to form an inner tube that is easy to manufacture having favorable strength over conventional inner tube compositions as suggested by Onishi. Young does not explicitly disclose the claimed second overlap connecting part. Baker discloses a tire inner tube having tapered ends which overlap. The tapered ends forming a scarf overlap – (construed as a second overlap connecting part) are configured to be adjustable to different tire sizes, see at least page 6 paragraph 3. Thus, one would readily envision forming Young’s inner tube to have a second overlap connecting part distributed in a complete circle along a poloidal direction of the torus body, and has a first tube open end portion and a second tube open end portion fixedly inserted into the first tube open end portion in a way that the torus body defines a continuous internal cavity that extends along the toroidal direction through the second overlap connecting part. This being done to further enhance Young’s inventive adjustable inner tube. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Young’s inner tube as claimed since: Baker discloses the use of a scarf overlap/second connecting part is beneficial for forming an adjustable inner tube. Regarding claims 6-7, the claims are directed to an article of manufacture, limitations pertaining to the method of manufacture fail to further define the structure of the claimed article. Thus, the claimed fixation by welding of the first and second connecting sheets and the first and second tube end portions are not germane to the patentability of the tire product. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young (US 2008/0302458 A1), in view of Onishi (JP 61253201 A – of record), in view of Baker et al. (WO 97/25215A1), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Aoki (JP 2015123853 A – of record). [AltContent: textbox (Second connecting sheet)]Regarding claim 4, modified Young does not explicitly disclose the claimed air valve scheme. Aoki discloses a wheel tube which can be applied to a plurality of wheel sizes. The wheel tube being configured to have an end sealing section 8 wherein: [AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (First connecting sheet)] PNG media_image2.png 200 400 media_image2.png Greyscale A first connecting sheet and second connecting sheet are configured such that each of the first connecting sheet and the second connecting sheet has an inner surface and an outer surface, and the inner surface of the second connecting sheet is overlapped with and fixed to the outer surface of the first connecting sheet; an air filling valve 12 – (construed as an air nozzle stem) has a valve attachment member 14 – (construed as a base) and a stem body; the base is fixed to the inner surface of the first connecting sheet; the stem body is inserted through the first connecting sheet and the second connecting sheet to protrude from the inner circumferential side of the torus body, see figure 2 depiction above. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust modified Young’s air valve as claimed since Aoki discloses such an air valve scheme forms a stable fixed connection for an air stem, see [0028]. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-7 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 The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action. Contact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CEDRICK S WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571) 272-9776. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday 8:00am-5:00pm. 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 on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000. /CEDRICK S WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 19, 2024
Application Filed
Apr 30, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jul 24, 2025
Response Filed
Sep 19, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Apr 01, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600176
HYDROPHOBIC PATTERNS FOR TIRE TREAD GROOVES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594787
SIMULATED INFLATABLE WHEEL AND STROLLER COMPRISING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12594785
WHEEL DEVICE AND MOBILE ROBOT DEVICE COMPRISING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12589615
PNEUMATIC TIRE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12583261
AIRCRAFT TIRE WITH ZONED TREAD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
59%
Grant Probability
81%
With Interview (+22.4%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 501 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month