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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 2, 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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7, 8, 11-14, 17, 18, and 21-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FR 2127163 (newly cited) and further in view of Tansei (US 4,398,584, newly cited), Maruoka (JP 2008-37314, newly cited), and Myatt (2011/0175778, of record).
As best depicted in Figure 2, FR ‘163 is directed to a heavy duty tire construction comprising a radial carcass ply 10, a bead core 12, bead apex (combination of inner apex 13 and outer apex 18), a chafer 15, and a sidewall 14, wherein carcass turnup end 16 is axially outward of said bead apex and spaced from a main carcass portion. While the figure fails to expressly depict a tread and a belt, it is well recognized that such components represent fundamental components in almost every tire construction. One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected such conventional components to be present in the tire of Fr ‘163.
With further respect to said carcass, FR ‘163 describes the use of metal cords. It is equally well known and conventional, though, to use organic fiber cords to form carcass plies in similar heavy duty tire constructions, as shown for example by Tansei (Column 1, Lines 5-10 and Column 10, Lines 15-20). It is emphasized that metal cords and organic fibers are extensively disclosed as being suitable carcass cord materials in tire constructions, including those designed for heavy duty vehicles. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use organic fiber cords in the carcass of FR ‘163 as it constitutes a well-known and conventional carcass cord material that provides desired reinforcement. It is emphasized that an inventive concept of FR ‘163 is distant from the carcass cord material and the inclusion of organic fiber cords in the tire of FR ‘163 remains consistent with the inventive concept of FR ‘163.
With further respect to said bead apex, FR ‘163 broadly states that inner bead apex 13 has superior mechanical properties (hardness) as compared to outer bead apex 18. While FR ‘163 fails to expressly disclose the complex modulus values of respective apex components, the claimed values are consistent with those that are conventionally used in heavy duty tires having inner and outer bead apex components, as shown for example by Maruoka (Abstract). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form the inner and outer bead apex of FR ‘163 with modulus values in accordance to the claimed invention.
In such an instance, FR ‘163 is silent with respect to the inclusion of an RFID tag.
In any event, it is extremely well known and conventional to include RFID tags in modern day tire constructions in order to provide tire information, both from manufacture/storage and during running (e.g. tire model, temperature, pressure). Myatt provides one example of a modern day tire construction including an RFID tag. More particularly, Myatt teaches positioning said RFID tag in a manner that is extends substantially in a tire circumferential direction (Figure 1 and Paragraphs 42 and 51). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include a conventional RFID tag in the tire of FR ‘163 for the benefits detailed above. In such an instance, an angle between a circumferentially oriented tag and radially oriented carcass cords would be 90 degrees (applicable to claims 8 and 18 as well).
Also, regarding claim 1 (and claims 23 and 24), the claims as currently drafted are directed to a tire construction, as opposed to a wheel assembly comprising a tire and a rim, and as such, limitations pertaining to the rim fail to further define the structure of the claimed tire article. It is further noted, though, that the tire of FR ‘163 has the capability of being mounted on a rim such that the claimed relationship is satisfied (such actually appears to be depicted in Figure 2 of FR ‘163). This is particularly evident based on the location of the carcass turnup end 16 in Figure 2 and the express disclosure of Myatt (Figure 7) to include an RFID tag at an outer end of a bead region. Again, it is emphasized that the tire of FR ‘163 simply has to have the capability of being mounted on a tire such that the claimed relationships are satisfied (although the claimed relationships do in fact appear to be satisfied with a rim suggested by FR ‘163 in Figure 2 as modified by Myatt).
Lastly, regarding claim 1, the rim suggested by FR ‘163 in combination with the teaching by Myatt to include an RFID tag in the vicinity of a radially outer bead region would have suggested a tire that satisfies the claimed quantitative relationship and Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed relationship (lack of comparative examples in which distance LB is less than 1.5 times or more than 8 times a distance LA).
Regarding claims 2 and 12, aramid represents one of the most well-known and conventional organic fiber cord materials used in the tire industry. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to aramid cords as the organic fiber cords suggested by Tansei.
With respect to claims 3, 7, 13, and 17, an outer portion of the bead region in FR ‘163 (such a location is suggested by Myatt) is seen to encompass a multitude of locations that are radially inward of a height associated with the maximum tire section width (such would be recognized as being radially outward of a hypothetical rim).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, a fair reading of FR ‘163 suggests the general inclusion of common belt structures and such would include a conventional band layer (well recognized as protecting underlying working belt layers and limiting growth during manufacturing). It is emphasized that the inventive concept of FR ‘163 is independent of the exact makeup of the belt structure- one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include a conventional band layer in the tire of Bell absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results.
With respect to claims 21 and 22, based on the tires depicted in Figure 2, it appears that a wide variety of wheel assemblies (combination of tire with RFID tag and rim) would satisfy the claimed invention. It is emphasized that Figure 2 depicts (a) a carcass turnup end that is axially inward of and radially adjacent a rim flange and (b) a wide variety of radial positions that are axially adjacent a bead core and chafer and arranged axially outward of a rim flange (even in a non-loaded state).
Regarding claims 23 and 24, as noted above, Myatt specifically motivates one having ordinary skill in the art to include an RFID in a radially outer bead region and such includes a large surface between sidewall 14 and outer bead apex 18 in the tire of FR ‘163.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4, 7, 8, 11-14, 17, 18, and 21-24 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
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 February 9, 2026