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 amendment filed 12/08/2025 has been entered. Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 17-19 are new additions. Claims 1-19 are pending.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5-6, 8, 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ono et al. (WO 2024/053210 A1), in view of Naruse et al. (US 2023/0202245 A1, English translation for JP 2021187268A), in view of Ebiko (US 2013/0240107 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ono discloses a pneumatic tire to include a tread portion T01t extending in a tire circumferential direction and having an annular shape; a pair of sidewall portions T01w respectively disposed on both sides of the tread portion; and, a pair of bead portions T01b respectively disposed on inner sides of the sidewall portions in a tire radial direction, a bead filler T03 being disposed on an outer periphery of a bead core T02 of each bead portion, a carcass layer T05 being mounted between the pair of bead portions, and, the carcass layer being turned up around the bead core from a tire inner side to a tire outer side, a RF tag 10 – (construed as a transponder) configurable to be placed between the bead filler T03 and another member adjacent to the bead filler T03. It being noted a member adjacent the bead filler T03 is the carcass member T05, see at least figure 1, page 60 paragraph 2 – (construed as being to embedded between the bead filler and the carcass layer, the transponder being in contact with both the carcass layer and the bead filler of one of the bead portions). Additionally, the transponder is configured to have a thickness Gac of 1.5 mm to 3.5 mm, see [0006].
Ono does not explicitly disclose pertinent dimensions of the tag/transponder such as a thickness thereof, or a distance W from an outer surface of the tag/transponder to an outer surface of the bead filler measured in a normal line direction of the carcass layer ranging from 2 mm to 20 mm.
Naruse discloses a pneumatic tire to include a transponder 20 configurable to be disposed between the carcass main body portion and the bead filler, see at least [0034] – (construed as being to embedded between the bead filler and the carcass layer, the transponder being in contact with both the carcass layer and the bead filler of one of the bead portions). Additionally, the transponder is configured to have a thickness Gac of 1.5 mm to 3.5 mm. This being beneficial for improving the communication performance of the transponder and improve the durability of the transponder due to the protective effect based on the coating layer, see [0006].
One of ordinary skill in the art looking to enhance Ono’s Rf tag would appreciate Naruse’s similarly positioned tag/transponder (disposed between the carcass main body and bead filler)). The tag/transponder having a thickness sufficient for improving the communication performance of the transponder and improve the durability of the transponder due to the protective effect based on the coating layer.
Ebiko discloses a pneumatic tire to include a bead filler having a thickness in the tire width direction at the end 6a outward in the tire radial direction is from 0.3 to 2.0 mm, and preferably, the thickness in the tire width direction on the bead core 5 side is from 4.5 to 10.0 mm. This being beneficial for balancing durability and appearance of the bead filler, as well as reducing the weight of the tire, see [0030].
One of ordinary skill in the art looking to enhance Ono’s bead portion would appreciate Ebiko’s bead filler disclosure. The bead filler having a width in the tire width direction of from 0.3 mm to 10.0 mm. Wherein such a configuration offers advantageously reducing the weight of the tire.
Moreover, it is readily seen that for a tag/transponder thickness of 1.0 mm (see Naruse discussion) and a bead filler thickness of 8.0 mm (see Ebiko discussion): a distance W from an outer surface of the transponder to an outer surface of the bead filler measured in a normal line direction of the carcass layer would be 7.0 mm (construed as and overlaps W ranging from 2 mm to 20 mm).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ono’s tag to have a thickness of 1.0 mm as taught by Naruse and the bead filler to have a thickness of 8.0 mm as taught by Ebiko, where doing so provides a means to form a distance W from an outer surface of the transponder to an outer surface of the bead filler measured in a normal line direction of the carcass layer being 6 mm. The tag thickness being beneficial for improving the communication performance of the transponder and improve the durability of the transponder due to the protective effect based on the coating layer. And the bead filler thickness being beneficial for reducing the weight of the tire. Concerning the claimed ranges: it has been held that “in the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art' with sufficient specificity”, then the claimed range is anticipated, see MPEP § 2131.03(II).
Regarding claims 2, 17, as previously discussed, modified Ono discloses a maximum thickness t (mm) of the transponder is 1.5 mm – 3.5 mm (taken as 1.0 mm), see Naruse [0006] and the distance W is 0.3 mm to 10.0 mm (taken as 7.0 mm), see Ebiko discussion above, satisfy a relationship of W/t = 7.0 mm (construed as and overlaps 1 ≤ W/t ≤ 10, 6 ≤ W/t ≤ 10). Concerning the claimed ranges: it has been held that “in the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art' with sufficient specificity”, then the claimed range is anticipated, see MPEP § 2131.03(II).
Regarding claims 5-6, 8, 18, modified Ono discloses a carcass cord constituting the carcass layer is a metal cord, see at least Ono page 53 paragraph 2; and wire chafers T14 – (construed as a metal reinforcing layer) is disposed on an outer side of the carcass layer in the bead portion, see at least Ono figure 1, page 53 paragraph 9; and the tag/transponder is disposed on a tire-radial-direction outer side of a turned-up end portion of the carcass layer, see Ono figure 1, and claim 1 rejection; and.
Claims 3, 7, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ono et al. (WO 2024/053210 A1), in view of Naruse et al. (US 2023/0202245 A1, English translation for JP 2021187268A), in view of Ebiko (US 2013/0240107 A1), as applied to claims 1, 6 above, and further in view of at least one of Suita (US 2022/0281269 A1), or Shibata (WO 2024/185192 A1).
Regarding claim 3, while modified Ono discloses the bead filler T03 comprises a first bead filler T031 disposed adjacent to a tire-radial-direction outer side of the bead core and a second bead filler T032 disposed adjacent to a tire-radial-direction outer side of the first bead filler; it does not explicitly disclose the tag/transponder is disposed between a second bead filler and the carcass layer. However, it is considered that one of ordinary skill in the art would readily envision such a configuration. This being done to place the tag/transponder in an area of the bead portion having less stress during tire operation.
Suita discloses a tire to include the use of a RFID Tag 40 which is disposed adjacent a radially outermost bead filler 222 – (construed as a second bead filler) and further where the bead portion in particular the bead filler 222 has portions of less strain (levels 2-3) than others (levels 4-5). It being noted the areas of less strain include portions of the bead filler 222 and carcass main body ply 24. Where levels 2-3 are preferred regions to place the tag due to small strain energies, see at least FIG. 3, [0071] – [0072]. Thus, one of ordinary skill would have good reason to dispose the tag/transponder between the second bead filler and the carcass main layer, as Suita teaches the second bead filler area offers less strain energy.
Shibata discloses a pneumatic tire to include an RFID tag 40 being disposed at a position P18 which is between a second bead filler 2b and the carcass man body layer 5a. This being advantageous for improving the durability of the RF tag, and communication between the RF tag and a reader is less likely to be hindered by the bead core 2a, thereby improving the communication performance of the RF tag, see figure 1, page 45 last paragraph – page 46 first paragraph. Thus, one of ordinary skill would have good reason to dispose the tag/transponder between the second bead filler and the carcass main layer, as Shibata teaches such a configuration improves the durability of the tag/transponder.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ono’s tag/transponder to be disposed between the second bead filler and carcass main layer as claimed taught by Suita and/or Shibata to enhance the durability of tag/transponder.
Regarding claim 7, as previously discussed, the tag is on the upper portion of the second bead filler and the tire include a wire chafer T14 which is turned up around the bead core from a tire inner side to a tire outer side, and the transponder is disposed on a tire-radial-direction outer side of a turned-up end portion of the metal reinforcing layer, see at least Ono figure 1 and rejection of claim 1 discussion.
Claims 4, 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ono et al. (WO 2024/053210 A1), in view of Naruse et al. (US 2023/0202245 A1, English translation for JP 2021187268A), in view of Ebiko (US 2013/0240107 A1), in view of at least one of Suita (US 2022/0281269 A1), or Shibata (WO 2024/185192 A1), as applied to claims 3, 10 above, and further in view of Koda (EP 4116112 B1 – of record).
Regarding claims 4, 11, while modified Ono discloses the use of a second bead filler and first bead filler; it does not explicitly disclose a hardness thereof. Koda discloses a tire bead portion having a first apex 62 – (construed as a first bead filler) and second apex 64 – (construed as a second bead filler). Where to suppress movement of the bead core, the hardness H1 of the first apex/filler is harder (83-98) than the second apex/filler (45-65), see [0107], [0094] – (overlaps a hardness of the second bead filler is lower than a hardness of the first bead filler and ranges from 55 to 65).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form modified Ono’s second and first bead filler such that a hardness of the second bead filler is lower than a hardness of the first bead filler and ranges from 45 to 65 as taught by Koda to suppress movement of the bead core. Concerning the claimed ranges: it has been held that “in the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art' with sufficient specificity”, then the claimed range is anticipated, see MPEP § 2131.03(II).
Regarding claims 12-15, modified Ono discloses a carcass cord constituting the carcass layer is a metal cord, see at least Ono page 53 paragraph 2; and wire chafers T14 – (construed as a metal reinforcing layer) is disposed on an outer side of the carcass layer in the bead portion, see at least Ono figure 1, page 53 paragraph 9; and as previously discussed, the tag is on the upper portion of the second bead filler and the tire include a wire chafer T14 which is turned up around the bead core from a tire inner side to a tire outer side, and the transponder is disposed on a tire-radial-direction outer side of a turned-up end portion of the metal reinforcing layer, see at least Ono figure 1 and rejection of claim 1 discussion; and the tag/transponder is disposed on a tire-radial-direction outer side of a turned-up end portion of the carcass layer, see Ono figure 1, and claim 1 rejection.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ono et al. (WO 2024/053210 A1), in view of Naruse et al. (US 2023/0202245 A1, English translation for JP 2021187268A), in view of Ebiko (US 2013/0240107 A1), in view of at least one of Suita (US 2022/0281269 A1), or Shibata (WO 2024/185192 A1), in view of Koda (EP 4116112 B1 – of record), as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Iozia et al. (US 2024/0416601 A1).
Regarding claim 16, while modified Ono discloses the tag is entirely covered by rubber members 50 – (construed as the transponder is entirely covered with a coating layer made of rubber); it does not explicitly disclose an absolute value | w1 - w2 | of a difference between a width w1 on a side of the coating layer in contact with the carcass layer and a width w2 on a side of the coating layer in contact with the bead filler is 0.2 mm or more.
Iozia discloses a tire to include the use of a transponder. The transponder is configured to be entirely covered by rubber strips 6-7. Where the strip 6 – (construed as w1) has a width of 20 mm – 45 mm and the strip 7 – (construed as w2) has a width of 33 mm – 37 mm; and strip 7 is generally smaller than strip 6 between 0.5 mm – 8 mm which allows for easy and economical implementation, see [0009], [0026]. It being noted that strip 6 having the larger width is designed to be attached to a tire body (attachment to an innerliner is used by example) while strip 7 is disposed opposite strip 6. Thus, one of ordinary skill would readily envision covering a tag/transponder with rubber strips having differing widths where the wider portion is affixed to a tire component such as a bead filler. This being advantageous for providing an easy and economical to fix the tag/transponder to a tire component.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form modified Ono’s tag/transponder covering rubbers such that an absolute value | w1 - w2 | of a difference between a width w1 on a side of the coating layer in contact with the carcass layer and a width w2 on a side of the coating layer in contact with the bead filler is 0.5 mm as reasonably suggested by Iozia to provide a mean for easily and economically fixing the tag/transponder to the tire components before vulcanization. Concerning the claimed ranges: it has been held that “in the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art' with sufficient specificity”, then the claimed range is anticipated, see MPEP § 2131.03(II).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ono et al. (WO 2024/053210 A1), in view of Naruse et al. (US 2023/0202245 A1, English translation for JP 2021187268A), in view of Ebiko (US 2013/0240107 A1), in view of at least one of Suita (US 2022/0281269 A1), or Shibata (WO 2024/185192 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Iozia et al. (US 2024/0416601 A1).
Regarding claim 9, while modified Ono discloses the tag is entirely covered by rubber members 50 – (construed as the transponder is entirely covered with a coating layer made of rubber); it does not explicitly disclose an absolute value | w1 - w2 | of a difference between a width w1 on a side of the coating layer in contact with the carcass layer and a width w2 on a side of the coating layer in contact with the bead filler is 0.2 mm or more.
Iozia discloses a tire to include the use of a transponder. The transponder is configured to be entirely covered by rubber strips 6-7. Where the strip 6 – (construed as w1) has a width of 20 mm – 45 mm and the strip 7 – (construed as w2) has a width of 33 mm – 37 mm; and strip 7 is generally smaller than strip 6 between 0.5 mm – 8 mm which allows for easy and economical implementation, see [0009], [0026]. It being noted that strip 6 having the larger width is designed to be attached to a tire body (attachment to an innerliner is used by example) while strip 7 is disposed opposite strip 6. Thus, one of ordinary skill would readily envision covering a tag/transponder with rubber strips having differing widths where the wider portion is affixed to a tire component such as a bead filler. This being advantageous for providing an easy and economical to fix the tag/transponder to a tire component.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form modified Ono’s tag/transponder covering rubbers such that an absolute value | w1 - w2 | of a difference between a width w1 on a side of the coating layer in contact with the carcass layer and a width w2 on a side of the coating layer in contact with the bead filler is 0.5 mm as reasonably suggested by Iozia to provide a mean for easily and economically fixing the tag/transponder to the tire components before vulcanization. Concerning the claimed ranges: it has been held that “in the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art' with sufficient specificity”, then the claimed range is anticipated, see MPEP § 2131.03(II).
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ono et al. (WO 2024/053210 A1), in view of Naruse et al. (US 2023/0202245 A1, English translation for JP 2021187268A), in view of Ebiko (US 2013/0240107 A1), as applied to claims 1, 6 above, and further in view of Ohta (US 2020/0398615 A1).
Regarding claims 18-19, as previously discussed, modified Ono discloses a RF tag 10 – (construed as a transponder) configurable to be placed between the bead filler T03 and another member adjacent to the bead filler T03. It being noted a member adjacent the bead filler T03 is the carcass member T05, see at least figure 1, page 60 paragraph 2 and the use of wire chafers T14 – (construed as a metal reinforcing layer) is disposed on an outer side of the carcass layer in the bead portion and the metal reinforcing layer is turned up around the bead core from a tire inner side to a tire outer side, see at least Ono figure 1, page 53 paragraph 9; it does not explicitly disclose the tag/transponder is disposed on a tire-radial-direction inner side of a radially outermost portion of the metal reinforcing layer, or the transponder is disposed on a tire-radial-direction inner side of a radially outermost portion of a turned-up end portion of the carcass layer. However, it is considered that one of ordinary skill in the art would readily envision such a configuration. As at least Ono and Naruse disclose placing the tag/transponder in any number of positions within the tire to include between carcass ply and bead filler.
In any event, Ohta discloses a tire to include a RFID tag 40, bead filler 22, steel chafer 31 – (construed as a metal reinforcing layer) and carcass ply 23. The tag/transponder is disposed on a tire-radial-direction inner side of a radially outermost portion of the steel chafer/metal reinforcing layer, and the tag/transponder is disposed on a tire-radial-direction inner side of a radially outermost portion of a turned-up end portion of the carcass layer 25. This being advantageous for fixing the tag/transponder in an area of the bead portion which suppresses movement of the tag/transponder, see at least [0145].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to position modified Ono’s tag/transponder on a tire-radial-direction inner side of a radially outermost portion of the metal reinforcing layer and on a tire-radial-direction inner side of a radially outermost portion of a turned-up end portion of the carcass layer as reasonably suggested by Ohta to restrict movement of the tag/transponder.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-19 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CEDRICK S WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571) 272-9776. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday 8:00am-5:00pm.
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 on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/CEDRICK S WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749