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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on May 11, 2026 has been entered.
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.
4. Claim(s) 25, 26, and 28-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adamson (WO 03105511, of record) and further in view of Nagahashi (JP 2021-84619, of record), Hoffmann (EP 0279372, of record) and Hijikata (JP 06238770, of record).
As best depicted in Figure 2, Adamson is directed to a tire construction (and associated method) including an electronic device 10 (radio frequency device) arranged on a tire innerliner (Paragraph 18). It is noted that Adamson refers to innerliner 15 in Paragraph 18 but fails to include this reference character in Figure 2. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize an innermost tire component as being an innerliner and thus, Adamson is seen to teach an arrangement in accordance to the claimed invention. See the modified Figure 2 below.
PNG
media_image1.png
472
595
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In such an instance, though, Adamson fails to specifically depict a circumferential location of an innerliner splice (results from folding innerliner and overlapping ends) in relation to a location of the electronic device.
Nagahashi is similarly directed to a tire construction comprising an electronic device 20. More particularly, said device is positioned a distance greater than 10 mm from a splice region Q of a tire component, for example a tire innerliner, in order to promote tire durability. It is particularly evident from Figure 3 of Nagahashi that electronic device 20 is positioned less than 90 degrees from an innerliner splice (either splice portion Q is just outside of a region S3). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include a conventional splice in the innerliner of Adamson and further, position electronic device 10 at a location that is less than 90 degrees from said splice for the benefits detailed above.
With further respect to claim 25, while Adamson is silent with respect to the application of a mold release agent, it is extremely well known and conventional to include such an agent to a green tire and subsequently store said green tire (facilitates removal of a tire after molding from a bladder), as shown for example by Hoffmann (Page 3, Lines 25-30). Furthermore, it is extremely well known and conventional to store green tires in a vertical orientation, as shown for example by Hijikata (JP 06238770). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to apply a mold release agent to the green tire of Adamson and store a tire in a vertical orientation given that such processing is consistent with conventional tire manufacturing.
Lastly, regarding claim 25, it is evident that a splice Q in Nagahashi, such as an innerliner splice, can be positioned at a highest point of the tire. It is emphasized that in the configuration depicted in Figure 3 of Nagahashi a splice portion Q is in fact present at a highest point of the tire and given that such a splice is described as being associated with either the carcass or the innerliner, it is seen that Nagahashi does in fact teach a tire construction in which an innerliner splice Q is present at a highest point of the tire.
Regarding claims 28 and 29, the “zone” can be arbitrarily selected and satisfy the claimed invention. It is emphasized that any circumferential extension can be arbitrarily selected to constitute the claimed “zone”.
With respect to claim 30, Nagahashi teaches an electronic device that is circumferentially spaced from an innerliner splice.
As to claims 31-33, Nagahashi depicts an electronic device positioned in accordance to the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant's arguments filed May 11, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Figure 3 of Nagahashi is simply a schematic equatorial cross-section of the tire showing circumferential positions of various splice portions Q relative to the transponder 20 and the region S3. More particularly, Nagahashi does not discuss storage, does not depict the tire in a storage orientation, and does not identify any splice portion as being the highest point.
It cannot be argued that Figure 3 of Nagahashi depicts a tire construction having a plurality of circumferentially spaced splice regions. Additionally, it cannot be argued that the configuration depicted in Figure 3 does in fact include a splice portion Q at a highest point of the tire (radially outermost point of the tire given that Figure 3 depicts a plurality of splice portions Q that are circumferentially spaced). It is agreed that there is no indication that such a configuration corresponds with a storage condition. It is emphasized, though, that when storing a tire of Nagahashi, there are a finite number of predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success and such is deemed to support an “obvious to try rationale”. Additionally, it is recognized that what would have been “obvious to try” would have been to vary all parameters or try each of numerous possible choices until one possibly arrived at a successful result, where the prior art gave either no indication of which parameters were critical or no direction as to which of many possible choices is likely to be successful (see MPEP 2145). In such an instance, given the presence of a plurality of circumferentially spaced splice portions, it reasons that a plurality of splice portions would necessarily be present in an upper half of a vertically oriented tire construction (independent of whether or not the tire depicted in Figure 3 is in a storage condition, it is evident that 5 of the 8 splice portions are located at or above a line that demarcates a lower and upper tire region). The specific placement of an innerliner splice at a highest point would have been obvious in light of the obvious to try rationale detailed above.
Applicant also argues that residual release agent applied before vulcanization can penetrate small fissures or cracks in the tire material near the innerliner joint, causing premature detachment or cracking of the innerliner that would compromise impermeability of the tire. Applicant also states that this is especially important near the splice closest to the electronic device. First, it is noted that Nagahashi specifically teaches that an electronic device is spaced apart by at least 10 mm from a carcass splice or an innerliner splice. Second, Applicant’s original specification states that if release agent were to accumulate it “could” end up penetrating into the joint and cause premature formation of detachments or cracks. Thus, there is a suggestion that the identified problems may or may not be present when the location of the innerliner splice is varied. It is unclear what additional factors separate from the innerliner splice location might contribute to the presence of the aforementioned problems. For example, are said problems only present with certain innerliner thickness values or are said problems only present when a butt joint is used at respective splice regions, as opposed to an overlapped arrangement, or are said problems only present when a certain minimum amount of overlap is present at the splice regions ? Thus, it is unclear if the claimed configuration unexpectedly results in an improved tire construction (lack of comparative examples in which an innerliner splice is positioned at locations not present at a highest point of the tire). It is emphasized that Applicant’s original specification fails to include any experimentation that indicates a circumferential position of the innerliner joint during storage affects the tire durability or innerliner integrity (and as detailed above, it would have been obvious to try to manufacture a tire in which the innerliner splice (in a storage condition) is located at a highest point).
Applicant further contends that there is one specific orientation out of the full 360 degrees of possible circumferential positions for the innerliner joint and not half of all the possible storage orientations as asserted by the Office. First, reference to half of all the possible storage orientations was simply made in response to Applicant’s statement that the one specific orientation of the claims eliminated the buildup of release agent due to gravity. In essence, it appears that any innerliner splice placement in an upper half of the tire would in fact eliminate the buildup of release agent due to gravity (simply a statement to counter the position that the singular orientation of the claims unexpectedly results in an improved tire construction). Second, as set forth above, given the presence of a plurality of circumferentially spaced splice portions, it reasons that a plurality of splice portions would necessarily be present in an upper half of a vertically oriented tire construction and the specific placement of an innerliner splice at a highest point would have been obvious in light of the obvious to try rationale.
Applicant argues that Adamson itself says nothing whatsoever about splices, splice positions, or innerliner construction. It is well recognized that tire components, including tire innerliners, are conventionally formed with splice regions (consistent with the known manner of forming tire components). This position is supported by the exemplary tire construction in Figure 3 of Nagahashi comprising 8 equally spaced splice portions. Thus, contrary to Applicant’s statement, the Examiner has in fact provided documentary evidence in the form of Nagahashi to support the conventional circumferential spacing of splice portions (equal splice spacing, for example, promotes equal weight distribution).
Conclusion
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN R FISCHER whose telephone number is (571)272-1215. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 5:30-2:00.
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.
Justin Fischer
/JUSTIN R FISCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749 May 26, 2026
Prosecution Insights