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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mita (JP 2009-137457) and further in view of Adamson (WO 03/105509).
Mita is directed to a tire construction comprising a carcass layer 4, a pair of bead portions 3, a belt assembly 7, a tread 1, a pair of sidewalls 2, and an innerliner 8, wherein a plurality of ridges 8t are arranged on a tire inner surface. In such an instance, though, the tire of Mita 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 Mita for the reasons detailed above. It is further noted that Adamson teaches the inclusion of an RFID device 10 at a tire equatorial plane- when including such a device in the tire of Mita, said device would be arranged between a first ridge directly beneath a groove 9 in a first tire side and a second ridge directly beneath a groove 9 in a second tire side. It is emphasized that the entire region between grooves 9 closest to the equatorial plane of the tire is devoid of ridges and when following the teachings of Adamson, an RFID is placed on a tire equatorial plane.
Regarding claim 2, a distance between adjacent grooves 9 (and thus adjacent ridges) would have been well recognized as falling between 3 mm and 50 mm- these values are well recognized as being consistent with conventional spacings between grooves. Additionally, the claims are directed to absolute dimensions and it is well taken that tire dimensions are highly dependent on the tire size and ultimately the tire intended use. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to space grooves 9, and thus ridges 8t, in the tire of Mita in accordance to the claimed invention.
With respect to claim 4, the claimed ratio corresponds with the following equation: (Gt-Ga)/(Ga + topping rubber thickness). Looking at Table 1 of Mita, exemplary tire constructions have a ratio Gt/Ga of 3.2 and 3.6. Using these values, the claimed ratio can be simplified as follows: (2.2Ga)/(3.2Ga + topping rubber thickness) and (2.6Ga)/(3.6Ga + topping rubber thickness). This in turn would suggest ratios slightly less than 0.6875 and slightly less than 0.722. One of ordinary skill in the art would not have expected the topping rubber thickness to be large enough to result in a claimed ratio less than 0.2.
As to claim 5, the claimed range is consistent with the general dimensions of tire innerliners and the general disclosure of Gt=(1.5-3)Ga. More particularly, a ridge height corresponds with Gt-Ga or 0.5Ga-2Ga. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found the claimed range obvious absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results.
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 Mita 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 Mita.
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.
4. Claim(s) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shiromizu (JP 2010-143257) and further in view of Adamson.
As best depicted in Figures 1 and 7, Shiromizu is directed to a tire construction comprising a carcass 10, a belt 12, an innerliner 16, a bead core 24, a bead apex or filler 26, and a pair of sidewalls 6, wherein said innerliner includes a plurality of spaced apart ridges 82b in a region 86 that is adjacent a radially outer surface of said bead core. In such an instance, though, the tire of Shiromizu 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 Shiromizu 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 4 mm and a width of said ridges is preferably at least 1 mm. 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 Shiromizu.
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 Shiromizu 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 Shiromizu 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 preferably as large as 4 mm.
As to claim 3, Figure 7, for example, depicts an inclination angle that is considerably greater than 20 degrees with respect to a circumferential direction. More particularly, Figure 7 generally depicts an inclination angle on the order of 45 degrees (consistent with the general disclosure of Shiromizu to incline the ridges with respect to the circumferential direction).
Regarding claim 4, given that preferred ridge heights H range between 0.3 mm and 3 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 1.6 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 0.50 mm-8 mm. These dimensions are well recognized as being consistent with those conventionally used in almost all tire constructions.
With respect to claim 5, Shiromizu teaches preferred ridge heights H between 0.3 mm and 3 mm and such fully encompasses 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.
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 Shiromizu 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 Shiromizu.
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 Shiromizu 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 46 on a tire inner surface.
Conclusion
5. 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 5, 2026