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
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0210881 (Miyazaki) in view of US 2014/0275331 (Kondo).
Regarding claim 1, Miyazaki discloses a tire comprising a tread at least partially comprising a tread rubber composition containing, based on 100% by mass of a rubber component therein, 60% by mass or more of a styrene-butadiene rubber (see paragraph 0033) having a styrene content of 35% by mass or more (see paragraphs 0032, 0137), as recited in the claim, and a vinyl content of 46% by mass or more (see paragraph 0137), which is within the claimed range of 45% mass or higher. Miyazaki also discloses the composition may include polybutadiene rubber of any type, including those commonly used in the tire industry (see paragraph 0034). In the analogous field of rubber compositions for tires, Kondo teaches that the use of polybutadiene rubber having a cis content of 50% by mass or lower helps to improve the dispersibility of filler and improves balance between rolling resistance and durability (see paragraph 0031). It therefore would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use a low cis polybutadiene rubber in the Miyazaki rubber composition in order to achieve improved filler dispersibility and improved balance between rolling resistance and durability, as taught by Kondo.
Miyazaki also discloses a rubber composition comprising, per 100 parts by mass of a rubber component therein, 30-150 parts by mass of carbon black (see paragraph 0013), which overlaps the claimed range of 10-50 parts by mass. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
The rubber composition of Miyazaki also comprises, per 100 parts by mass of a rubber component therein, 20-75 parts by mass of an oil (see paragraph 0093), which overlaps the claimed range of 5-30 parts by mass. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Miyazaki does not disclose the complex modulus of the rubber composition measured at temperatures of -30° C and -10° C, or the tan δ measured at 0° C or 30° C; however, the reference teaches all the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts made by a substantially similar process. Moreover, the original specification does not identify a feature that results in the claimed effect or physical property outside of the presence of the claimed components in the claimed amounts. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties would naturally arise and be achieved by a composition with all the claimed ingredients. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Thus, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (see MPEP 2112.01).
Regarding claim 2, Miyazaki does not disclose the complex modulus of the rubber composition measured at temperatures of -30° C and -10° C; however, the reference teaches all the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts made by a substantially similar process. Moreover, the original specification does not identify a feature that results in the claimed effect or physical property outside of the presence of the claimed components in the claimed amounts. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties would naturally arise and be achieved by a composition with all the claimed ingredients. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Thus, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (see MPEP 2112.01).
Regarding claim 3, Miyazaki does not disclose the complex modulus of the rubber composition measured at temperatures of -30° C and -10° C; however, the reference teaches all the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts made by a substantially similar process. Moreover, the original specification does not identify a feature that results in the claimed effect or physical property outside of the presence of the claimed components in the claimed amounts. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties would naturally arise and be achieved by a composition with all the claimed ingredients. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Thus, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (see MPEP 2112.01).
Regarding claim 4, Miyazaki does not disclose the tan δ measured at 0° C or 30° C, therefore a ratio cannot be determined; however, the reference teaches all the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts made by a substantially similar process. Moreover, the original specification does not identify a feature that results in the claimed effect or physical property outside of the presence of the claimed components in the claimed amounts. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties would naturally arise and be achieved by a composition with all the claimed ingredients. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Thus, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (see MPEP 2112.01).
Regarding claim 5, Miyazaki does not disclose the tan δ measured at 0° C or 30° C, therefore a ratio cannot be determined; however, the reference teaches all the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts made by a substantially similar process. Moreover, the original specification does not identify a feature that results in the claimed effect or physical property outside of the presence of the claimed components in the claimed amounts. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties would naturally arise and be achieved by a composition with all the claimed ingredients. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Thus, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (see MPEP 2112.01).
Regarding claim 6, Miyazaki also discloses an embodiment where the tread rubber composition contains, based on 100% by mass of the rubber component therein, 60% by mass or more of a styrene-butadiene rubber (see paragraph 0033) having a styrene content of 35% by mass or more (see paragraphs 0032, 0137), as recited in the claim, and a vinyl content of 46% by mass or more (see paragraph 0137), which is within the claimed range of 45% mass or higher.
Regarding claim 8, the references also disclose that the polybutadiene rubber may be a modified polybutadiene rubber (see Kondo paragraph 0031).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments 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 WENDY L BOSS whose telephone number is (571)272-7466. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-6:30.
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.
/WENDY L BOSS/Examiner, Art Unit 1749
/JUSTIN R FISCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749