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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
3. Claim(s) 1-3 and 5-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nemoto (EP 2,228,190, newly cited) and further in view of Adamson (WO 03/105509, of record).
Nemoto is directed to a tire construction comprising an innerliner, a sidewall, a carcass, a belt, and a tread (Paragraph 20). Nemoto further states that a plurality of convex portions (corresponds with claimed ridges) is formed on a tire inner surface (tire innerliner) due to the presence of air release grooves on a bladder outer surface (Paragraph 11). More particularly, convex portions associated with air release grooves 52b are spaced a distance L2 between approximately 9.6 mm and 63 mm (Paragraphs 38 and 39). In such an instance, though, the tire of Nemoto is devoid of a transponder or RFID arranged between adjacent ridges.
Adamson is similarly directed to a tire construction and teaches the inclusion of a conventional RFID (well recognized as being IC chip connected to antenna) designed to, among other things, provide data (e.g. temperature, pressure) during tire operation (Page 1, 1st Paragraph). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include a well-known RFID (includes coating 22) in the tire of Nemoto for the reasons detailed above. It is further noted that Adamson teaches the inclusion of an RFID device 10 between a carcass and an innerliner in a region adjacent a radially outer surface of a bead core (bottom right side of Figure 2). The particular placement of an IC chip between adjacent ridges in such a region would have been obvious given that respective ridges are preferably separated by up to 63 mm and a width of said ridges is between 0.4 mm and 1.5 mm (Paragraph 26). This suggests embodiments in which the inner surface is predominantly formed with a ridge free surface (based on spacing between ridges being significantly greater than width of ridges). Absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to position an IC chip between ridges of Nemoto.
It is noted that Tables 1-1 and 1-2 appear to suggest that high ratios between Gac (coating thickness) and Gt (tire thickness) result in high communication performance and such appears to be present in the modified tire of Nemoto since Adamson specifically states that a coating thickness is preferably at least 0.3 mm (Page 5) and thus a total coating thickness is at least 0.6 mm (both sides of device are coated). One of ordinary skill I the art would have recognized such values as being at least 1% of a total thickness. For example, a coating thickness of 0.6 mm would require a total tire thickness (measured along a perpendicular at the height of the device) between approximately 2 mm and 60 mm to satisfy the claimed quantitative relationship. It is evident that a ratio in the modified tire of Nemoto would be greater than 1% and thus, any realized benefits would be expected to be present in said tire.
Regarding claim 2, a distance between adjacent ridges is between 9.6 mm and 63 mm and such essentially fully encompasses the claimed range between 10 mm and 50 mm.
As to claim 3, Nemoto teaches an inclination angle between 20 and 80 degrees with respect to a tire circumferential direction (Paragraph 46).
With respect to claim 5, Nemoto teaches ridge heights between 0.2 mm and 1.2 mm and such is essentially fully encompassed by the claimed range.
Regarding claim 6, a fair reading of Adamson suggests any number of radial and axial placements for the device (as evidenced by exemplary locations in the figures) and such would include the extremely broad range encompassed by the claims. It is emphasized that the claims define radial placements over essentially the entire sidewall height. Additionally, the exact location is a function of where it is desired to measure tire conditions, such as temperature and pressure.
Regarding claim 7, Adamson teaches the known placement of RFID assemblies between the carcass and the innerliner (Page 4, 2nd Paragraph) and such would be applicable to any radial placement within the tire construction.
With respect to claim 8, Adamson teaches a coating thickness of at least 0.02 mm (Page 5, 2nd Paragraph 2) and further states that a thickness of at least 0.2 mm is sufficient to obtain gains in the reading range, with a thickness of at least 0.3 mm being preferred (Page 6, 1st Paragraph). This general disclosure of thickness values suggests any number of ratios (as claimed) that are greater than 1 and such is consistent with the broad range of the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form the modified tire of Nemoto in accordance to the claimed invention absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 9, a coating thickness is preferably at least 0.3 mm and thus a total coating thickness is at least 0.6 mm (both sides of device are coated). One of ordinary skill I the art would have recognized such values as being at least 1% of a total thickness and less than 30% of a total thickness. For example, a coating thickness of 0.8 mm would require a total thickness between approximately 2.7 mm and 80 mm to satisfy the claimed quantitative relationship. It is well recognized that such a range of values would be present in the modified tire of Nemoto.
As to claim 10, any number of materials disclosed by Adamson would be devoid of carbon black (Page 6, 1st Paragraph).
Regarding claim 11, Adamson teaches a coating 22 formed with butadiene rubber (Page 6, 1st Paragraph) and it is well recognized that any number of tire components are conventionally formed with butadiene rubber (topping rubber layers, tread layers, sidewall layers, etc.). This suggests that the coating and an adjacent rubber member can have viscosities on the same order as when one another and in accordance to the broad range of the claimed invention.
With respect to claim 12, the modified tire of Nemoto is formed by placing an RFID in a green tire and vulcanizing said tire by using a bladder formed with grooves, thereby creating a plurality of ridges or convex portions on a tire inner surface.
4. Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nemoto and Adamson as applied in claim 1 above and further in view of Beers (US 5,491,196, newly cited) and Otsuji (US 2003/0094228, newly cited).
Given that preferred ridge heights or depths range between 0.2 mm and 1.2 mm, it reasons that any number of tire constructions would satisfy the claimed quantitative relationship. It is emphasized that using common innerliner thickness values would result in a multitude of tire constructions that satisfy the claimed quantitative relationship and Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for said relationship. For example, using a ridge height of 0.7 mm (middle of disclosed range), an innerliner thickness (in combination with a small topping rubber thickness) would need to be on the order of approximately 0.23 mm- 3.5 mm. These dimensions are well recognized as being consistent with those conventionally used in almost all tire constructions. Similarly, when using a ridge height of 1.2 mm, an innerliner thickness (in combination with a small topping rubber thickness) would need to be on the order of approximately 0.4 mm- 6 mm. Beers (Column 5, Lines 35+) and Otsuji (Paragraph 28) evidence the common thickness values associated with innerliners and carcass topping rubbers and such values would result in a ratio in accordance to the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-12 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
6. 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.
7. 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 21, 2026
Prosecution Insights