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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 10/16/2024 and 5/27/2025 has been considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 6 and 17-18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
It is recommended that claim 6 be amended to include 2 commas as below, so as to enhance readability of the claim. “…wherein the plurality of Helmholtz sound absorbers are such that unit widths, which are differences between a set of the resonance frequencies adjacent to each other in a frequency band, are substantially equal”.
Claims 17 and 18 line 3 each refer to “…of either bead core” without previously introducing said pair of bead cores. The bead cores should first be introduced (as in claim 11 for example) before this recitation
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 requires a difference between the first and second resonance frequency to be 10 to 90. Claim 14, which depends upon claim 1, requires the first resonance frequency to be 210 and the second to be 201Hz, which would be a difference of 9. Therefore, the values required for the first and second resonance frequencies contradict the required difference relationship thereof required by claim 1 (with a minimum difference of 10). It is not clear how the difference between the first and second resonance frequencies may be 10 when the cited frequencies of claim 14 yield a difference of 9. Applicant is asked to amend and clarify without the addition of new matter. Claim 14 will be examined broadly, such that the resonance frequencies are close to the cited values of 210/201 (but that the difference may be at least 10hz).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-2 and 10-11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of copending Application No. 18/917030. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because instant independent claim 1 is merely broader than copending claim 10. Both claims require a pneumatic tire, with a plurality of Helmholtz sound absorbers, where a first absorbers have a first frequency that is different from second absorbers which have a second frequency. While claim 10 of 18/917030 does not explicitly have the difference between frequencies from 10 to 90Hz, this would be implicitly achieved by all frequencies as required by claim 10 of 18/917030. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). As such, instant claim 1 would be anticipated by the “species” of the copending claim. See MPEP 804 Section II(B). For similar rationale, instant claims 2 and 10-11 are rejected over copending claim 10.
Claim 5 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of copending Application No. 18/917030. For similar reasons as above, claim 5 is merely a broader version of what is required in copending claim 11. While copending claim 11 does not have the exact same verbiage as instant claim 5, they both further implicitly require additional absorbers which are made to have frequencies that are different from the first/second frequencies. As such, instant claim 1 would be anticipated by the “species” of the copending claim.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 8, 10-12, 16, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hirano (JP2004168212A).
Regarding claim 1, Hirano teaches a pneumatic tire (see Fig. 1, with the tire “16” with air chamber “20”), comprising:
A plurality of Helmholtz sound absorbers on a tire inner cavity surface (the sound absorbing devices “10” which are attached to the tire inner surface comprise boxes “32” which are considered the Helmholtz sound absorbers [0035]. The structure of these absorbing devices are substantially the same as the Helmholtz sound absorbers of the instant application [see Figs. 4-7], wherein there is a box/chamber and an extending cylindrical tubular portion),
the absorbers have a first resonance frequency which is a max and a second resonance frequency which is a min, where a difference is from 10 to 90Hz (the absorbers may be tuned to two frequency ranges such as to 230Hz and 240Hz [0036]. In this case, the first resonance would be 240Hz and the second 230Hz, and the difference between them would be 10Hz).
Regarding claim 2, Hirano teaches a tire wherein the first resonance is 130-350Hz and the second is 120 to 340Hz (as above, both resonances set to 230Hz and 240Hz would be well within the claimed range).
Regarding claim 3, Hirano teaches a tire wherein the plurality of Helmholtz sound absorbers are arranged away from each other (as in Figs. 1-3, the absorbers may be separated from each other).
Regarding claim 4, Hirano teaches a tire wherein the sound absorbers is formed of a resin that does not change shape at 120C or lower (the box of the absorber is formed of a synthetic resin material, wherein it has ample strength and rigidity [0028]. The wording of the claim is such that the resin merely not need change shape during any temperature at 120C or lower. As such, any resin would necessarily not change shape for at least some temperatures of 120C or lower, dependent upon the specific resin chosen, such as at very low temperatures. Additionally, it is noted that as the resin is chosen for providing sufficient rigidity [0028] for the tire intended to be used for automobiles [0001], the resin would thus have sufficient rigidity for a range of temperatures in the running range of the tire).
Regarding claim 8, Hirano teaches a tire wherein each of the plurality of Helmholtz sound absorbers includes at least one first sound absorption chamber with the first resonance frequency and at least one second sound absorption chamber with the second resonance frequency (as in the rejection of claim 1 above, the absorbers may be tuned to two frequencies of 230Hz and 240Hz [0036] which would be the first and second frequencies. Each of the absorbers have structures as shown in Figs. 4-7, wherein there is the closed internal space “40” formed inside of each box “32”. The internal space “40” is akin to the claimed “chambers”, and because the absorbers are tuned to the cited frequencies, these chambers of each absorber would respectively necessarily be tuned to said frequency so as to obtain the sound-absorbing effect).
Regarding claim 10, Hirano teaches a tire where the difference is 10-60zhHHz (as in the rejection of claim 1 above, the difference between the two frequencies is 10Hz [0036]).
Regarding claim 11, Hirano teaches a tire comprising a tread portion (tread “34”), a pair of sidewall portions (see Fig. 1, the sidewalls each extend respectively from outer ends of the tread radially inwards from the tread), a pair of bead portions on inner sides of the sidewall (the bead portions are respectively located radially inward of the tire sidewall, where the bead core is located at the connection point between the pneumatic tire and the rim “18”),
Each of the sound absorbers is on an inner side in the axial direction of either of the sidewalls or bead portions (as in Fig. 1, the sound absorbers are clearly located axially inside of the sidewalls/bead portions, as they are located closer towards a tire equator compared to the sidewall/bead portions which are axially outside. It being noted that no specific requirements regarding absorber radial positioning is required in the claim).
Regarding claim 12, Hirano teaches a tire wherein the absorbers are within a range of a tire tread width on an equator of a tire (as in Fig. 1, the absorbers are clearly located within the region of the tire tread and equator).
Regarding claim 16, Hirano teaches a tire wherein the absorbers are evenly spaced on the inner cavity surface in a circumferential direction (see Fig. 2, where the absorbers are clearly evenly spaced).
Regarding claim 19, Hirano teaches a tire wherein the pneumatic tire is configured to rotate at a speed of 20 to 150Km/h (the tire of Hirano is configured to run on an automobile [0001, 0022, 0032]. As such, within the conventional automobile tire speeds of 20-150Km/h, the tire would necessarily be configured to run at those conventional speeds of the automobile so as to meet all respective local speed limit laws).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 5-7, 9 and 13-15, 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirano (JP2004168212A), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hirano (JP2004168212A).
Regarding claim 5, Hirano further teaches that the Heltzholm sound-absorbing resonators “32” are formed to tune a specific frequency. Hirano explicitly states that the plurality of resonators may be tuned to “a plurality of frequency ranges” which is accomplished by making the boxes “32” “different from each other” [0035], and wherein it is explicitly said that this may be to two or more frequency ranges [0022]. And Hirano further states that the frequency of each resonator may be tuned so as to maximize the effect of the invention [0018]. Because the frequencies are tuned by the resonators to this plurality of ranges, there may be accomplished an effective sound-absorbing effect [0005, 0044]. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the specific example of Hirano in the rejection of claim 1 above so as to include a plurality of frequency ranges as suggested by Hirano (such that there would be a third different frequency), and one would have been motivated so as to accomplish a more effect sound-absorbing effect over a variety of frequencies [0005, 0044]. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claims 6-7, Hirano further makes obvious the plurality of Helmholtz sound absorbers have unit widths that are substantially equal for adjacent absorbers and for the widths to be 3 to 10Hz (as above in claim 5, Hirano explicitly states that the plurality of resonators may be tuned to a plurality of frequency ranges including two or more ranges [0022, 0035], wherein each resonator may be tuned so as to maximize the effects of the invention [0018]. The fine tuning of the resonators frequencies within the range of about 200Hz to 300Hz results in an effective sound-absorbing effect [0004-0005, 0044]. Hirano has the explicit example wherein adjacent resonators have a difference in frequency of 10Hz [0036] which is within the claimed difference range of 3 to 10Hz. Additionally, Hirano provides the specific method of fine tuning the specific frequencies of each of the absorbers in order to appropriately set the frequency dependent on the size of the device [0037-0038].
Note that a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond that person' s skill. While evaluating obviousness, one must ask whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior-art elements according to their established functions; see KSR Int. v. Teleflex 550 US (2007). To determine whether there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the way a patent claims, it will often be necessary to look to interrelated teachings of multiple patents; to the effects of demands known to the design community or present in the marketplace; and to the background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art; ibid. The analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the challenged claimed specific subject matter, for a court can consider the inferences and creative steps a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ. Under the correct analysis, any need or problem known in the field and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed; ibid. Note also that “A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton”); Ball Aerosol & Specialty Container, Inc. v. Limited Brands, Inc., 555 F.3d 984, 993 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
Further, the reason or motivation to modify a reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Therefore, it is considered that the modification of Hirano’s sound absorbers to have differences in adjacent frequencies which are substantially equal and in the range of 3 to 10Hz would have been an obvious modification and a routine optimization of the prior art in order to improve the sound-absorbing effects of the tire [0005, 0044]. As the balance in the frequencies of the sound absorbers (and thus the noise absorbing properties of the tire overall) may be adjusted by modifying the size of the Helmholtz sound absorbers, the precise interval would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date. As such, without showing unexpected results, the interval cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the interval in Hirano so as to obtain the desired balance in noise suppression frequencies (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).” Given that Hirano discloses a pneumatic tire with a plurality of Helmholtz sound absorbers, where there may be greater than 2 types of frequencies, where the difference between adjacent frequencies may be 10Hz, and where the details for modifying the absorber frequency via absorber size are laid out, one of ordinary skill in the art would have optimized the sound absorption properties of the tire and have landed upon the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 9, Hirano makes obvious a tire wherein the first and second sound absorbers are integrated with each other (Hirano suggests that the plurality of the absorbers may be made to be an “integrally formed product by mutually connecting them” [0033]. As Hirano explicitly suggests that the sound absorbers may therefore be integrally formed to each other, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to arrange the absorption chambers as such in order to exhibit effective rigidity [0033], thus allowing for the combination of sound-absorbers to appropriately tune the frequency of the tire to improve the sound effects thereof [0034, 0044]).
Regarding claim 13, Hirano makes obvious a tire wherein a first set of absorbers have the first resonance frequency and the second set have the second resonance frequency (as in the rejection of claim 1 above, there may be formed two difference absorbers which are at different frequencies, wherein there are a plurality of each [0035-0036]. The high value would be the first and the low value would be the second),
A total number of the Helmholtz sound absorbers of the first set is a first even number and a total number of the second set is a second even number (Hirano states that the resonators may be tuned so as to maximize the effects of the invention [0018]. Each of the resonators are provided with a plurality thereof [0022], so as to effectively obtain sound absorbing effects for each of the resulting resonance sounds [0044]. Therefore, it is considered that the modification of Hirano’s sound absorbers to have even numbers thereof would have been an obvious modification and a routine optimization of the prior art in order to improve the sound-absorbing effects of the tire [0005, 0044], so as to set an optimal number of absorbers around the circumference in the tire so as to realize the effects of the invention. As the noise absorbing properties of the tire overall may be adjusted by modifying the number of the Helmholtz sound absorbers (which would determine the effectiveness of reducing the sound throughout), the precise result of having the number be an even number is considered to have been merely routine optimization. As such, without showing unexpected results, the interval cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the number of resonators in Hirano so as to obtain the desired balance in noise suppression frequencies and overall tire absorption (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).” Given that Hirano discloses a pneumatic tire with a plurality of Helmholtz sound absorbers, where there may be 2 types of frequencies, where the difference between adjacent frequencies may be 10Hz, and where the details for modifying the absorber frequency via absorber size are laid out, one of ordinary skill in the art would have optimized the number of the sound absorbers of the tire and have landed upon the claimed limitations).
Regarding claims 14-15, Hirano makes obvious a tire wherein the first frequency is 210Hz and the second is 201Hz, and wherein the first frequency is 225Hz and the second is 195Hz (Hirano explicitly states that the plurality of resonators may be tuned to a plurality of frequency ranges including two or more ranges [0022, 0035], wherein each resonator may be tuned so as to maximize the effects of the invention [0018]. The fine tuning of the resonators frequencies within the range of about 200Hz to 300Hz results in an effective sound-absorbing effect [0004-0005, 0044]. A fair reading of “about” by Hirano suggests that frequencies slightly below 200Hz are included within the ranges of the invention. Additionally, Hirano provides the specific method of fine tuning the specific frequencies of each of the absorbers in order to appropriately set the frequency dependent on the size of the device [0037-0038].
Note that a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond that person' s skill. While evaluating obviousness, one must ask whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior-art elements according to their established functions; see KSR Int. v. Teleflex 550 US (2007). To determine whether there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the way a patent claims, it will often be necessary to look to interrelated teachings of multiple patents; to the effects of demands known to the design community or present in the marketplace; and to the background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art; ibid. The analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the challenged claimed specific subject matter, for a court can consider the inferences and creative steps a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ. Under the correct analysis, any need or problem known in the field and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed; ibid. Note also that “A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton”); Ball Aerosol & Specialty Container, Inc. v. Limited Brands, Inc., 555 F.3d 984, 993 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
Further, the reason or motivation to modify a reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Therefore, it is considered that the modification of Hirano’s sound absorbers to have a first frequency with a values of 210Hz/225Hz and a second frequency of 225Hz/195Hz would have been an obvious modification and a routine optimization of the prior art in order to improve the sound-absorbing effects of the tire [0005, 0044]. As the balance in the frequencies of the sound absorbers (and thus the noise absorbing properties of the tire overall) may be adjusted by modifying the size of the Helmholtz sound absorbers, the precise interval would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date. As such, without showing unexpected results, the interval cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the specific resonance frequencies of a first and second absorber in Hirano so as to obtain the desired balance in noise suppression frequencies (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).” Given that Hirano discloses a pneumatic tire with a plurality of Helmholtz sound absorbers, where there may be 2 types of frequencies, and where the details for modifying the absorber frequency via absorber size are laid out, one of ordinary skill in the art would have optimized the sound absorption properties of the tire and have landed upon the specific claimed frequencies.
Regarding claims 17-18, Hirano makes obvious a tire wherein the sound absorbers are on the inner cavity surface from a range of the inner end of a bead core to an outer end of a bead apex and within the range H of this region (Hirano teaches that the sound absorbing device is not limited to the inner peripheral surface of the tread, and that it may be mounted onto any portion of the inner surface of the air chamber [0052]. Hirano explicitly states that the absorbing devices may be placed to be on the inner surface of the bead portion of the tire [0052]. Because the bead portion would necessarily be at least partially within the ranges as defined in the claims (from a bead inner portion to an outer end of a bead apex), the claim would be met when the absorbers are arranged on the bead portion of the tire as suggested by Hirano. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the sound absorber locations to be located on the bead portion inner surface, as Hirano explicitly suggests that the absorbers may be located there [0052]. And one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected for the location on the tire cavity in such a location to lead to appropriate sound-absorbing effect of a variety of frequencies [0034, 0044, 0052-0055]).
In the alternate, claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirano (JP2004168212A), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhang (CN117584663A).
Regarding claim 13, Hirano teaches that there may be formed two difference absorbers which are at different frequencies, wherein there are a plurality of each [0035-0036]. The high value would be the first and the low value would be the second. Regarding the total number of first/second absorbers, Zhang teaches a tire/wheel arrangement which is concerned with silencing units for difference resonance frequencies [abstract], such that the teachings from Zhang would be reasonably pertinent to the absorbers tuned to different frequencies of Hirano. Zhang teaches that the number of silencing units is made to be an even number (multiple of 2N), such that the units are always in pairs [pg. 6 of machine translation]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the number of first/second absorbers to be even for the first/second set of Hirano as suggested by Zhang. One would have been motivated so as to facilitate the formation of multiple sets of acoustic dipole effects improving the effect of the invention, and to set the units more symmetrically to improve silencing quality and real production use [pg. 6 of machine translation].
Regarding claims 14-15, modified Hirano makes obvious a tire wherein the first frequency is 210Hz and the second is 201Hz, and wherein the first frequency is 225Hz and the second is 195Hz (Hirano explicitly states that the plurality of resonators may be tuned to a plurality of frequency ranges including two or more ranges [0022, 0035], wherein each resonator may be tuned so as to maximize the effects of the invention [0018]. The fine tuning of the resonators frequencies within the range of about 200Hz to 300Hz results in an effective sound-absorbing effect [0004-0005, 0044]. A fair reading of “about” by Hirano suggests that frequencies slightly below 200Hz are included within the ranges of the invention. Additionally, Hirano provides the specific method of fine tuning the specific frequencies of each of the absorbers in order to appropriately set the frequency dependent on the size of the device [0037-0038].
Note that a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond that person' s skill. While evaluating obviousness, one must ask whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior-art elements according to their established functions; see KSR Int. v. Teleflex 550 US (2007). To determine whether there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the way a patent claims, it will often be necessary to look to interrelated teachings of multiple patents; to the effects of demands known to the design community or present in the marketplace; and to the background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art; ibid. The analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the challenged claimed specific subject matter, for a court can consider the inferences and creative steps a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ. Under the correct analysis, any need or problem known in the field and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed; ibid. Note also that “A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton”); Ball Aerosol & Specialty Container, Inc. v. Limited Brands, Inc., 555 F.3d 984, 993 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
Further, the reason or motivation to modify a reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Therefore, it is considered that the modification of Hirano’s sound absorbers to have a first frequency with a values of 210Hz/225Hz and a second frequency of 225Hz/195Hz would have been an obvious modification and a routine optimization of the prior art in order to improve the sound-absorbing effects of the tire [0005, 0044]. As the balance in the frequencies of the sound absorbers (and thus the noise absorbing properties of the tire overall) may be adjusted by modifying the size of the Helmholtz sound absorbers, the precise interval would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date. As such, without showing unexpected results, the interval cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the specific resonance frequencies of a first and second absorber in Hirano so as to obtain the desired balance in noise suppression frequencies (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).” Given that Hirano discloses a pneumatic tire with a plurality of Helmholtz sound absorbers, where there may be 2 types of frequencies, and where the details for modifying the absorber frequency via absorber size are laid out, one of ordinary skill in the art would have optimized the sound absorption properties of the tire and have landed upon the specific claimed frequencies.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS F SCHNEIDER whose telephone number is (571)272-4857. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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.
/T.F.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1749
/JUSTIN R FISCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749