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 .
Disposition of Claims
Claims 12, 17-20 and 24-40 are pending in the application. Claims 1-11, 13-16 and 21-23 are cancelled. Claim 12 is withdrawn from consideration due to Applicant’s elections.
Amendments to claim 17, 19-20 and 27, and new claims 29-40, filed on 7/22/2026, have been entered in the above-identified application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 29, 30 and 38-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 29 recites the limitation “each resin-forming component present in the aqueous dipping composition.” There is no clear antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 30 recites the limitation “each polymer with carboxylic acid functional groups present in the aqueous dipping composition.” There is no clear antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 30 recites the limitation “based on one or more monomers.” It is unclear what falls within the scope of polymers that are based on the claimed one or more monomers and what does not.
Claim 38 recites the limitations “each resin-forming component,” and “each polymer with carboxylic acid functional groups.” There is no clear antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Claims 39-40 are rejected because they depend from claim 38.
Claim 38 recites the limitation “based on one or more monomers.” It is unclear what falls within the scope of polymers that are based on the claimed one or more monomers and what does not.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim(s) 17-20, 25, 27 and 29-38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 20150113745 A, see attachment) in view of Shoji (JP2001234143A, see attachment), with evidence from Apcotex (“Apcotex VP150: Technical Data Sheet,” see attachment).
Regarding claims 17, 25, 27, 29-30, 32 and 34, Lee teaches an adhesive composition for a rubber reinforcing material (Abstract). More specifically, the adhesive composition comprises a mixture of an isocyanate resin and a latex, or a mixture of an epoxy, the isocyanate resin, and the latex, thereby providing effects of exhibiting excellent initial adhesiveness and heat-resistant adhesive performance regarding rubber such as polyester fiber or a film, without the use of resorcin-formaldehyde (Abstract and [0007]). The mixture of (a) may be used by mixing isocyanate resin and latex in a weight ratio of 1:3 to 1:19 and mixing it with water to a dry weight of 7 to 30% by weight ([0032] and Table 1). The examiner notes that the disclosed ratios would correspond to initial mixtures consisting of 5 to 25 wt% of the isocyanate resin and 75 to 95 wt% of the latex (by total parts by weight, rather than by dry weight of the aqueous dipping composition). Lee teaches that the isocyanate resin is a blocked isocyanate, and is a product dispersed in water ([0034]). Commercially available products include IL-6 from EMS and DM-6500 from MEISEI Chemical ([0034]). The examiner notes that IL-6 from EMS is also used in applicant’s examples and has a 60% by weight solid content (Table 1). Lee teaches that the latex is VP Latex applied to tire cords, and is styrene-butadiene-vinyl pyridine latex ([0035]). Commercially available products include LM-60 from Denaka, VP-150 from APCOTEX, and VB-1099 from Nippon A & L ([0035]). As evidenced by APCOTEX, VP-150 has a total solids % content of 41% (see the “Product Specifications” table). As calculated by the examiner for compositions having a dry weight of 7 to 30% and consisting of the blocked isocyanate, the latex and added water, the amount by dry weight of the blocked isocyanate would range from about 0.5 to 9.8% based on the total weight of the aqueous dipping composition, and the amount by dry weight of the latex would range from about 4.7 to 27.9% based on the total weight of the aqueous dipping composition (e.g., [25 x 0.6]/[75 + 25 + 52.5] = 9.8%, where 52.5 is the parts by weight of water that would be added to a 3:1 latex:isocyanate mixture to obtain a dip having a total solid content of 30%).
Lee does not explicitly disclose that the dipping composition comprises 4% to 40% by dry weight of at least one rubber latex wherein the rubber latex is not isoprene rubber latex, and wherein the dipping composition comprises 1% to 20% by dry weight of at least one isoprene rubber latex selected from the group consisting of synthetic isoprene rubber latex, non-epoxidized natural rubber latex and combinations thereof, wherein each non-epoxidized natural rubber latex present in the aqueous dipping composition is non-chemically modified or is chemically modified only by one or more modifications selected from the group consisting of pre-vulcanization, grafting, hydroxyl amine modification, and combinations thereof.
However, Shoji teaches an adhesive treatment agent that at least contains a rubber latex as a matrix component and sodium lignosulfonate in an amount of 0.5-10 wt.% of the rubber latex (Abstract). Specific examples of the contained rubber latex include a natural rubber latex, a styrene-butadiene copolymer rubber latex, an acrylonitrile-butadiene copolymer rubber latex, a chloroprene rubber latex, and a vinylpyridine-styrene-butadiene ternary copolymer rubber latex, and these can be used alone or as a mixture, but from the viewpoint of heat resistance and adhesiveness, a rubber latex in which the vinylpyridine-styrene-butadiene ternary copolymer rubber latex accounts for 50% by weight or more of 100% by weight of the solid content of the rubber latex is preferably used ([0025]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have provided, as the latex of Lee, a rubber latex that is a mixture of a vinylpyridine-styrene-butadiene copolymer rubber latex with a latex such as natural rubber latex, wherein the vinylpyridine-styrene-butadiene ternary copolymer rubber latex accounts for 50% by weight or more of 100% by weight of the solid content of the rubber latex, because Shoji suggests that such latex mixtures can be used as substitutes for latexes of the individual polymers alone and would provide desirable heat resistance and adhesiveness properties in adhesion treatment agent dipping compositions applied to synthetic fiber cords ([0025] and [0001]).
The examiner notes that the dipping composition of Lee in view of Shoji would therefore comprise a vinylpyridine-styrene-butadiene copolymer latex, a blocked isocyanate and a non-epoxidized natural rubber latex in the claimed amounts. These amounts would also overlap with the claimed amounts in the event that sodium lignosulfonate is included in amounts of 0.5-10 wt.% of the rubber latex.
Regarding claims 18-19, Lee teaches rubber reinforced materials such as high-performance tires or hoses and belts ([0005] and [0045]).
Regarding claim 20, Lee teaches polyester fiber (Abstract).
Regarding claim 31, as calculated by the examiner, the dry weight ratio of a total amount of rubber latex to a total amount of resin-forming components (e.g., blocked isocyanate) in Lee’s composition may range from about 2.1 to 13 (e.g., [75 x 0.41]/[25 x 0.6] = 2).
Regarding claim 33, in another embodiment, Lee teaches that a mixture of (b) may include latex in a weight ratio of 1:3 to 1:19 compared to a mixture of epoxy resin and isocyanate resin ([0009] and [0064]). The mixture of the epoxy resin and the isocyanate resin may have a weight ratio of 1:0.2 to 1:3 ([0009]). The composition may be mixed with water so that the dry weight of the final adhesive composition is 7 to 30% by weight ([0040] and [0033]). As calculated by the examiner for compositions having a dry weight of 7 to 30% and consisting of the latex and, for instance, a 1:1 by weight mixture of the epoxy resin and the isocyanate resin, the amount by dry weight of the epoxy would range from 0.4 to 7.4% based on the total weight of the aqueous dipping composition, the amount by dry weight of the blocked isocyanate would range from about 0.2 to 4.4% based on the total weight of the aqueous dipping composition, and the amount by dry weight of the latex would range from about 4.2 to 27.2% based on the total weight of the aqueous dipping composition (e.g., [12.5 x 0.6]/[75 + 12.5 +12.5 + 69.2] = 4.4%, where 69.2 is the parts by weight of water that would be present in a 3:1 latex:(epoxy + isocyanate) dip having a total solid content of 30%). In addition, Shoji teaches rubber latexes that may be a mixture of vinylpyridine-styrene-butadiene ternary copolymer rubber latex with a rubber such as natural rubber, wherein the vinylpyridine-styrene-butadiene ternary copolymer rubber latex accounts for 50% by weight or more of 100% by weight of the solid content of the rubber latex. Therefore, the ratios taught by Lee in view of Shoji would overlap with the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 35, Shoji teaches that specific examples of the contained rubber latex include a natural rubber latex, a styrene-butadiene copolymer rubber latex, an acrylonitrile-butadiene copolymer rubber latex, a chloroprene rubber latex, and a vinylpyridine-styrene-butadiene ternary copolymer rubber latex, and these can be used alone or as a mixture, but from the viewpoint of heat resistance and adhesiveness, a rubber latex in which the vinylpyridine-styrene-butadiene ternary copolymer rubber latex accounts for 50% by weight or more of 100% by weight of the solid content of the rubber latex is preferably used ([0025]). The examiner notes that when the rubber latex comprises a natural rubber latex and a styrene-butadiene copolymer rubber latex in combination with 50% by solid weight or more of vinylpyridine-styrene-butadiene ternary copolymer rubber latex, the claimed limitations, including the claimed dry weight percentage for rubber latex that is not isoprene rubber latex, would be met by Lee in view of Shoji.
Regarding claims 36-37, with respect to the claimed properties, the examiner notes that the composition of Lee in view of Shoji discussed above is the same as or is substantially the same as that disclosed by applicant. Thus, it is the position of the Office that the composition of Lee in view of Shoji would provide the claimed properties as the same compounds necessarily have the same properties. In the alternative, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to expect that the claimed properties would be so provided, as the references teach the same or very similar materials as the claimed structure, and as the properties cannot be separated from the materials. Therefore, Lee in view of Shoji meets the claimed limitations, absent an objective showing to the contrary.
Regarding claim 38, Lee in view of Shoji meets the claimed limitations in the same manner applied above to claims 17, 19, 20, 29 and 31-32.
Claim(s) 24, 26, 28, 30 and 39-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 20150113745 A, see attachment) in view of Shoji (JP2001234143A, see attachment), with evidence from Apcotex (“Apcotex VP150: Technical Data Sheet,” see attachment), as applied to claims 17, 20 and 38 above, further in view of Solomon et al. (US Patent No. 3,968,295).
Regarding claims 24 and 26, Lee in view of Shoji remains as applied above.
Lee in view of Shoji does not explicitly disclose wherein the coated textile reinforcing material is cellulose.
However, Solomon teaches that new cord dip compositions may be applied to any of the fibrous reinforcing materials used in manufacture of rubber goods, including the natural fibers such as cotton, linen, silk, and wool, but is preferably applied to continuous filament synthetic materials such as rayon, nylon, polyester, polyvinyl alcohol, as well as inorganic filaments such as glass or steel (col. 3, lines 17-23).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have included cotton or rayon fibers in or as a base substrate of Lee in view of Shoji because Solomon suggests that use of these fibers as fibrous reinforcing materials in the manufacture of rubber goods, such as tire cords, is known (and, in the case of rayon, is preferable) (col. 3, lines 17-23 and Example 7).
Regarding claim 28, Lee in view of Shoji does not explicitly disclose wherein the synthetic isoprene rubber latex is cis-1,4-polyisoprene rubber latex or 3,4-polyisoprene rubber latex.
However, Solomon teaches new cord dip compositions that contain an adhesive rubber latex and a copolymer made from one or more esters of acrylic acid or of a substituted acrylic acid together with free acrylic acid or a substituted acrylic acid and preferably an amide of acrylic acid or of a substituted acrylic acid (Abstract). The adhesive rubber latex may be the natural rubber latex of commerce, or a comparable diene polymer latex such as a latex of true synthetic rubber (cis 1,4 polyisoprene), or any of a great many kinds of latex of an adhesive vulcanizable synthetic elastomer (col. 2, lines 28-32).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have substituted synthetic rubber (cis 1,4 polyisoprene) for the natural rubber in the composition of Lee in view of Shoji because Solomon teaches that synthetic rubber (cis 1,4 polyisoprene) is comparable and may be chosen as an alternative to natural rubber latex for use as cord dip coatings (Abstract and [0019]).
Regarding claim 30, Lee in view of Shoji remains as applied, teaching the claimed limitations. In addition, or in the alternative, Solomon teaches an acrylic ester copolymer containing acrylic acid and methylol acrylamide (Abstract and col. 2, lines 40-65).
Regarding claim 39, modified Lee remains as applied above, teaching the claimed limitations, including cellulose. In addition, with respect to styrene-butadiene rubber latex, Shoji teaches that specific examples of the contained rubber latex include a natural rubber latex, a styrene-butadiene copolymer rubber latex, an acrylonitrile-butadiene copolymer rubber latex, a chloroprene rubber latex, and a vinylpyridine-styrene-butadiene ternary copolymer rubber latex, and these can be used alone or as a mixture, but from the viewpoint of heat resistance and adhesiveness, a rubber latex in which the vinylpyridine-styrene-butadiene ternary copolymer rubber latex accounts for 50% by weight or more of 100% by weight of the solid content of the rubber latex is preferably used ([0025]). The examiner notes that when the rubber latex comprises a natural rubber latex and a styrene-butadiene copolymer rubber latex in combination with 50% by weight or more of vinylpyridine-styrene-butadiene ternary copolymer rubber latex, the claimed limitations, including the claimed dry weight percentage for rubber latex that is not isoprene rubber latex, would be met by modified Lee.
Regarding claim 40, with respect to the claimed properties, the examiner notes that the composition of modified Lee discussed above is the same as or is substantially the same as that disclosed by applicant. Thus, it is the position of the Office that the composition of modified Lee would have the claimed properties as the same compounds necessarily have the same properties. In the alternative, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to expect that the claimed properties would be so provided, as the references teach the same or very similar materials as the claimed structure, and as the properties cannot be separated from the materials. Therefore, modified Lee meets the claimed limitations, absent an objective showing to the contrary.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 17-20 and 24-40 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 Kevin Worrell whose telephone number is (571)270-7728. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached on 571-270-7692. 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.
/Kevin Worrell/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights