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 amendments entered on 4/30/2026 have been accepted. Claims 1, 6, 16-18 are amended. There are no new or canceled claims. Claims 1-19 are pending. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the 112(b) and double patenting rejections previously set forth in the non-final office action mailed 1/30/2026. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the objections previously set forth.
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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirano (JP2004168212A, of record) in view of Yukawa (US2017/0305210A1).
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 9 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).
Hirano does not specifically define what the placement of the differently tuned sound absorbers should be, although Hirano does show that there may be a plurality of differently tuned sound absorbers located in different locations throughout the axial/circumferential directions [see Figs. 1-3]. Yukawa is a pneumatic tire which includes similar resonators as that of the instant application and Hirano (see Yukawa Fig. 10). Yukawa may have multiple resonators which are tuned to different frequencies [0015, Claim 6]. Yukawa teaches that resonators which are tuned to the same frequency are provided circumferentially symmetrically about the axis of the tire [0234]. As in Fig. 11, the resonators “313a” and “313b” are tuned to the same frequency and are located 180deg from each other, and resonators “314a” and 314b” are tuned to the same frequency and are located 180deg from each other [0235-0236]. In other words, Yukawa suggests the placement of the sound absorbers at a location which is 180deg from each other for sound absorbers which are tuned to the same frequencies.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the placement of the differently tuned sound absorbers such that matching sound absorbers are located 180deg from each other, as suggested by Yukawa. One would have been motivated so as to achieve the effect of reducing tire cavity resonance and preventing vibration [Yukawa, 0234, 0236]. And as Hirano may have a plurality of resonators tuned to different frequencies [0044], this would clearly include having at least two of each of the different frequencies (which as modified by Yukawa above would necessarily be spaced out 180deg from each other). 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 claim 2, modified Hirano suggests 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, modified Hirano suggests 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, modified Hirano suggests 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 5, modified Hirano suggest at least one further frequency different from the first and second (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 8, modified Hirano suggests 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 9, modified 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 10, modified Hirano suggests 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, modified Hirano suggests 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, modified Hirano suggests 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 13, modified 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, 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.
Regarding claim 16, modified 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. And further, as modified by Yukawa, it would be obvious so as to have the same frequency resonators circumferentially spaced symmetrically, such that they would necessarily be evenly spaced).
Regarding claims 17-18, modified 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]).
Regarding claim 19, modified Hirano suggests 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims 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. The Examiner agrees that Hirano does not appear to specifically suggest the newly amended feature in claim 1, however newly cited reference Yukawa suggests this feature. See rejections above.
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 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
/KATELYN W SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights