Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/291,758

RUBBER COMPOSITION FOR INNER LINER

Final Rejection §103
Filed
May 06, 2021
Examiner
FISCHER, JUSTIN R
Art Unit
1749
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Apollo Tyres Global R&D B.V.
OA Round
7 (Final)
44%
Grant Probability
Moderate
8-9
OA Rounds
3y 5m
To Grant
47%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 44% of resolved cases
44%
Career Allow Rate
724 granted / 1626 resolved
-20.5% vs TC avg
Minimal +3% lift
Without
With
+2.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 5m
Avg Prosecution
106 currently pending
Career history
1732
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
69.8%
+29.8% vs TC avg
§102
15.8%
-24.2% vs TC avg
§112
11.6%
-28.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1626 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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. 3. Claim(s) 1, 20, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugimoto (EP 2,345,693, newly cited) and further in view of Tanabe (JP 2017-110161, of record). Sugimoto teaches a tire innerliner comprising 70-99 phr of halogenated butyl rubber, 1-30 phr of modified natural rubber, 5-80 phr of carbon black (reinforcing filler), and 5-100 phr of silica (reinforcing filler) (Paragraphs 1, 27-29, 33, and 37). In such an instance, though, the innerliner composition of Sugimoto is devoid of a terpolymer resin including ethylene, acrylic ester, and maleic anhydride (claimed resin). Tanabe is similarly directed to tire rubber compositions and teaches the inclusion of the claimed terpolymers (3-28 phr) to promote low heat buildup properties. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include said terpolymer in the innerliner composition of Sugimoto for the benefits detailed above. It is further noted that Sugimoto includes the following language: The rubber composition can be used for a structural member constituting a pneumatic tire. Examples of the structural member include a tire tread portion, a sidewall portion, a bead portion, and a carcass portion. This language suggests that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include the claimed terpolymer in any number of tire components, including the innerliner composition of Sugimoto (benefit of improved heat buildup properties would have been desired in a tire innerliner). A fair reading of Tanabe does not limit the tire components to the exemplary tire components of Tanabe. 4. Claim(s) 21 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugimoto and Tanabe as applied in claim 1 above and further in view of Sandstrom (US 4,790,365, of record). As detailed above, Sugimoto is directed to an innerliner composition comprising halogenated butyl rubber and a minor portion of natural rubber. The composition of Sugimoto, however, is devoid of syndiotactic polybutadiene (SPBD). Sandstrom is similarly directed to a tire innerliner composition (Column 5, Lines 5+). Sandstrom states that compositions with large loadings of synthetic rubbers (e.g. butyl rubber compositions) demonstrate inferior green strength and to combat that, teaches the inclusion of 2.5-15 phr of SPBD. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to include SPBD in the innerliner composition of Sugimoto, as taught by Sandstrom, for the benefits detailed above. Response to Arguments 5. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 20-23 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 September 9, 2025
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 06, 2021
Application Filed
Jul 18, 2023
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Oct 24, 2023
Response Filed
Oct 27, 2023
Final Rejection — §103
Dec 11, 2023
Interview Requested
Feb 05, 2024
Interview Requested
Feb 12, 2024
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Feb 12, 2024
Examiner Interview Summary
Apr 29, 2024
Request for Continued Examination
Apr 30, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
May 02, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Sep 09, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 09, 2024
Response Filed
Sep 12, 2024
Final Rejection — §103
Nov 13, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 13, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 06, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Feb 10, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 11, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Apr 25, 2025
Interview Requested
May 02, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
May 02, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
May 14, 2025
Response Filed
May 22, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jul 31, 2025
Interview Requested
Aug 06, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Aug 07, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Aug 27, 2025
Response Filed
Sep 09, 2025
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600178
TUBELESS TIRE INSERT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600842
TYRE AND ELASTOMERIC COMPOUND FOR TYRE, COMPRISING CROSS-LINKED PHENOLIC RESINS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594792
Tire With Pressure Zero Sidewall Hoop Rings and Method of Manufacture
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12583259
PNEUMATIC TIRE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12576675
TIRE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

8-9
Expected OA Rounds
44%
Grant Probability
47%
With Interview (+2.6%)
3y 5m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1626 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month