DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The 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 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunn (WO 99/29522) in view of Pavageau (US 20190375926).
Regarding claim 1, Dunn discloses a pneumatic tire (see Fig. 1; pg 4, lines 16-23), comprising:
a tread portion extending in a tire circumferential direction and having an annular shape (see tread);
a pair of sidewall portions disposed on both sides of the tread portion (see sidewalls 23);
and a pair of bead portions disposed on an inner side in a tire radial direction of the sidewall portions (see annular beads 12);
the tire being embedded with a transponder covered with a covering layer (see transponder system 30 embedded in crown of the tire; pg 4, lines 3-4).
As to a modulus M50 (20° C.) at 50% deformation at 20° C. of the covering layer being in a range of from 0.4 MPa to 1.5 MPa, Dunn discloses the chip and antenna have an insulating rubber with 50% modulus of 65 to 80 psi (0.4 to 0.6 MPa; pg 8, lines 28-31). Dunn does not expressly disclose the temperature; however, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date for the measurement to be taken at ambient temperature and that 20C is substantially equal to ambient temperatures. Examiner notes that it is conventional in the art for ambient temperature to be used when the measurement temperature is not specified.
Dunn does not disclose the modulus M50 at 100C or the ratio of the modulus M50 at 20C vs the modulus M50 at 100C. In the same field of endeavor of tires, Pavageau discloses a rubber composition for rubber components in tires ([0001,0124]). Pavageau discloses that in order to be used in tires, the rubber should have a stiffness that does not change very much as a function of temperature and discloses that the ratio of moduli at 50% measured at 23C and at 100C should be less than or equal to 2 ([0134-0136,0142]). Pavageau discloses the ratio relates to the change in the stiffness as a function of temperature ([0142]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have configured the covering layer with M50 20C/100C satisfying the claimed 1.0 to 2.5 range in since Pavageau discloses the rubber used in tires should have a stiffness that does not change very much as a function of temperature with a 50% modulus ratio at 23C/100C less than 2.0 ([0134-0136,0142]).
Regarding claim 11, the transponder comprises an IC substrate that stores data (see chip 28) and helical antenna (26; pg 7, line 7).
Claims 1, 4, 8, 9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Destraves (FR3059605, with English equivalent US 20200079159) in view of Dunn (WO 99/29522) and Pavageau (US 20190375926).
Regarding claim 1, Destraves discloses:
A pneumatic tire (see tire, [0065], Fig. 4), comprising:
a tread portion extending in a tire circumferential direction and having an annular shape (tread 89);
a pair of sidewall portions disposed on both sides of the tread portion (sidewalls 83);
and a pair of bead portions disposed on an inner side in a tire radial direction of the sidewall portions (beads 84);
the tire being embedded with a transponder covered with a covering layer (see radiofrequency transponder embedded in mass 112; [0064], Fig. 3; embedded at various locations, Fig. 5);
Destraves is silent as to a modulus M50 (20° C.) at 50% deformation at 20° C. of the covering layer being in a range of from 0.4 MPa to 1.5 MPa. In the same field of endeavor of tires, Dunn discloses a chip and antenna covered with an insulating rubber and that the rubber must have properties which are consistent with its use in the tire. (pg 8, lines 26-28). In particular, Dunn discloses a rubber as having a 50% modulus of 65 to 80 psi (0.4 to 0.6 MPa; pg 8, lines 26-31). While Dunn does not expressly disclose the temperature, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date for the measurement to be taken at ambient temperature and that 20C is substantially equal to ambient/room temperatures. Examiner notes that it is conventional in the art for ambient temperature to be used when the measurement temperature is not specified.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to have configured the covering rubber of Destraves with 50% modulus of 0.4 to 1.5 MPa since Dunn discloses providing a covering rubber for a chip/antenna with a 50% modulus of 0.4 to 0.6 MPa (pg 8, lines 26-31). One would have been motivated to ensure the rubber has properties that are consistent with the tire (pg 8, lines 28) and to employ a 50% modulus known to be suitable for covering transponders embedded in a tire.
Destraves does not disclose the ratio of the modulus M50 at 20C vs the modulus M50 at 100C. In the same field of endeavor of tires, Pavageau discloses a rubber composition for rubber components in tires ([0001,0124]). Pavageau discloses that in order to be used in tires, the rubber should have a stiffness that does not change very much as a function of temperature and discloses that the ratio of moduli at 50% measured at 23C and at 100C should be less than or equal to 2 ([0134-0136,0142]). Pavageau discloses the ratio relates to the change in the stiffness as a function of temperature ([0142]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have configured the covering layer with M50 20C/100C satisfying the claimed 1.0 to 2.5 range in since Pavageau discloses the rubber used in tires should have a stiffness that does not change very much as a function of temperature with a 50% modulus ratio at 23C/100C less than 2.0 ([0134-0136,0142]).
Regarding claim 4, Destraves teaches a relative dielectric permittivity of less than 6.5 ([0064]).
Regarding claim 8, Destraves teaches the transponder is spaced from carcass ply end 881 by at least 10 mm, preferably at least 15 mm ([0021]). The carcass ply end 881 extends above the bead core (Fig. 5) and thus the transponder would be at least 15 mm from the bead core. Also, Fig. 5 shows the transponder 100 as inwards of the tire maximum width position.
Regarding claim 9, Destraves clearly illustrates the transponder as embedded within the bead portion at a distance of 1 mm or more from the tire surface (Fig. 5, see transponder 100 in between apex layers 91 and 92). Examiner notes that the transponder is spaced from the carcass ply end 881 by at least 10 mm ([0021]) and that the helical antenna has outside diameter of 1.4 mm ([0055])--the rubber layers surrounding the transponder are clearly thicker than the transponder (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 11, Destraves teaches the transponder has a chip on a circuit board and a helical antenna ([0054-0055]).
Claims 2, 3, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Destraves (FR3059605, with English equivalent US 20200079159) in view of Dunn (WO 99/29522) and Pavageau (US 20190375926) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tsuji (JP2007-230261, with English machine translation).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Destraves discloses the transponder as embedded in the bead portion with sidewall rubber member located outwards in the tire width direction from the transponder (Fig. 5). Destraves does not disclose the storage modulus at 2MPa to 12MPa or the storage modulus relationship relative a rubber member having a largest storage modulus of rubber members located on the outer side in the tire width direction of the transponder. It would have been obvious, however, to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have configured the covering layer with modulus as claimed since Tsuji, similarly directed towards a tire with transponder, teaches that, generally, the dynamic elastic modulus of a side rubber part is about 5 to 7 MPa and that the dynamic modulus of a coating rubber composition should be about 2 to 12 MPa, preferably 4 to 7 MPa, so that the tire does not break when the sidewall flexes ([0010])--these values lie within the 2 to 12 MPa range of claim 2 and also satisfy the moduli ratio (moduli 4 to 7 / moduli 5 to 7 = 0.6 to 1.4).
Regarding claim 10, Destraves does not expressly disclose the thickness of the covering layer; however, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to have configured the layer with thickness of 0.5 to 3.0 mm since Tsuji, similarly directed towards a tire with transponder, teaches configuring the rubber covering layer with thickness of 0.5 to 2 mm to enable communication and enhance durability ([0012,0013]).
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Destraves (FR3059605, with English equivalent US 20200079159) in view of Dunn (WO 99/29522) and Pavageau (US 20190375926) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Balnis (US 20170368874).
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Destraves discloses the covering layer as made of elastomer but is silent as to the particular composition. In the same field of endeavor of tire transponders, Balnis discloses a rubber composition for covering a radio device inside tires wherein Balnis discloses the composition as comprising 25 phr or more, including 25 to 40 phr, of non-reinforcing filler ([0048]). The non-reinforcing fillers include a number of white fillers such as titanium dioxide; carbonates including calcium carbonate; and talc ([0049]). Balnis discloses the rubber composition provides improved readability of the radio device ([0081]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have configured covering layer of Destraves with the rubber composition disclosed by Balnis, said composition comprising 25 phr or more of a non-reinforcing filler that includes calcium carbonate, for the purpose of improving readability of the transponder ([0048,0049,0081]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Destraves (FR3059605, with English equivalent US 20200079159) in view of Dunn (WO 99/29522) and Pavageau (US 20190375926) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Battocchio (US 20130112324).
Regarding claim 13, Destraves does not disclose the transponder's circumferential position relative to a splice; however, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have configured the transponder's center as 10 mm or more away from a splice since Battocchio, similarly directed towards a tire with transponder, teaches positioning a transponder diametrically opposed to a weld 16 (i.e., splice) of a sidewall component to ensure a good quality of remote radio communication with the transponder ([0057], see Figs. 2, 3). Examiner notes that conventional vehicle tires have circumferences that are orders of magnitude larger than 10 mm and thus the transponder would be further away from the splice by at least 10 mm.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT C DYE whose telephone number is (571)270-7059. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at (571) 270-3614. 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.
/ROBERT C DYE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619