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 07/14/2025 has been entered. Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 1-3 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, 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyazaki (US 2010/0032071 A1), in view of Giannini et al. (US 2020/0055335 A1 – of record).
Regarding claim 1, Miyazaki discloses a tire to include a clinch and composition thereof, see [0013] – (construed as a tire comprising a clinch apex composed of a rubber composition for a clinch apex). The composition to include butadiene rubber (modified BR) and natural rubber (NR), see [0083], where the amount of butadiene rubber in the rubber composition is greater than the amount of natural rubber, see Table 3 examples. The composition to further include a complex elastic modulus E* measured at (70° C and 2% strain which is sufficiently close to the claimed 1% strain that one would expect similar complex elastic modulus values) is 4.5 MPa to 9.0 MPa, see at least [0104]; and tan δ (70° C and 2% strain which is sufficiently close to the claimed 1% strain that one would expect similar loss tangent values) of 0.03 – 0.11, see at least [0105]. It being noted, the applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for a difference in strain of 1% over a strain of 2%. Thus, the E* (70° C) of 4.5 MPa to 9.0 MPa and tan δ (70° C) of 0.03 to 9.0 – (corresponds to and overlaps the claimed ranges of E* of 7.0 – 10.0 MPa and tan δ of 0.08 or less). It being readily seen that for a E* of 9 MPa and tan δ of 0.08 that Tan δ (70° C) / E*(70° C) * 1000 = 8.89 – (corresponds to and overlaps the claimed Equation (1): Tan δ (70°C)/E*(70°C) * 1000 ≤ 10.0).
Miyazaki does not explicitly disclose the claimed tan δ 100° C. However, it is very well known in the art that tan δ values measured at 100° C are indicative of rolling resistance. In any event, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Miyazaki as claimed since: Giannini discloses it is common to value tire rubber compositions having a balance between dynamic modulus and hysteresis (main contributor to rolling resistance). And forms a rubber composition measuring tan δ at 100°C by example of 0.05, see [0412], Table 9b – (corresponds to the claimed 0.05 or less of tan δ at 100°C). Concerning the claimed conditions of 0.5% strain; the applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for difference in strain conditions. Moreover, 0.051 is sufficiently close to 0.05 when accounting for rounding that one would expect the same benefit per value to apply). And as Giannini does not explicitly disclose a particular strain condition one would at least envision using the common condition (dynamic strain 2%) of Miyazaki. This being sufficiently close to the claimed 0.5% strain that one would expect the composition to provide similar beneficial properties. Further one would consider such a tan δ value, as Giannini measures tan δ at 70° with similar values (0.098) as Miyazaki and at 100° to form a beneficial composition having a lower dependence of the dynamic modulus on the temperature as an indication of stability of the performance of the tire in high difficulty conditions, see [0415] – [0416]. 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' a prima facie case of obviousness exists”, see MPEP § 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 3, modified Miyazaki discloses the butadiene rubber is supplied in an amount of 15% - 80% by mass and includes 1.2-syndiotactic polybutadiene crystal, see at least Miyazaki [0088] - [0089] – (corresponds to and overlaps the claimed rubber composition comprises 40% by mass or more of the butadiene rubber) and the butadiene rubber comprises a butadiene rubber comprising 1.2-syndiotactic polybutadiene crystal (SPB)).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyazaki (US 2010/0032071 A1), in view of Giannini et al. (US 2020/0055335 A1 – of record), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hamamura (US 2018/0290491 A1 – of record).
Regarding claim 2, while modified Miyazaki discloses the composition uses carbon black in the amount of per 100 parts by mass of rubber being at least 35 to 80 parts by mass, see Miyazaki [0094] – (corresponds to and overlaps the rubber composition for a clinch apex comprises 40 to 55 parts by mass of carbon black); it does not disclose the DBP oil absorption of carbon black in the rubber composition. However, such compositions are well known in the art. Here Hamamura discloses carbon black is provided in a rubber composition suitable for use in a clinch component, see abstract and [0067]. The carbon black comprises 50 parts by mass or more of a carbon black having a DBP oil absorption of 90 mL/100 g or more, see abstract – (corresponds to and overlaps the claimed 40 to 55 parts by mass of carbon black having a DBP oil absorption of 110 ml/100 g or more based on 100 parts by mass of a rubber component). And a content percentage of carbon black in the rubber composition is 31%, see Table 1 Example 3 – (corresponds to and overlaps the claimed content percentage of carbon black in the rubber composition is 26.0 to 32.0% by mass). Hamamura discloses such a carbon black contributes to sufficient grip force, good fuel efficiency and weather resistance, see [0028], [0031].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust modified Miyazaki’s clinch carbon black composition as claimed since: Hamamura discloses such a carbon black composition provides a benefit of sufficient grip force, good fuel efficiency and weather resistance
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3 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