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 12-13, 17-20 and 24-28 are pending in the application. Claims 1-11, 14-16 and 21-23 are cancelled. Claims 12-13 are withdrawn from consideration due to Applicant’s elections.
Amendments to claim 17, and new claims 27-28, filed on 1/2/2026, have been entered in the above-identified application.
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 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2020/0010741 A1) in view of Sasaki ‘480 (JP 2010275480 A, see attachment).
Regarding claims 17, 25 and 27, Kim teaches an eco-friendly adhesive composition for a rubber reinforcing material, and a method for manufacturing a rubber reinforcing material using the same, and more particularly to an adhesive composition which has excellent adhesive strength even without containing resorcinol and formaldehyde, and a method for manufacturing a rubber reinforcing material using the same ([0001]). A rubber composite (an elastomeric article) can be made of a rubber reinforcing material and a rubber (at least one elastomeric compound) ([0060]). Here, an example of a rubber reinforcing material is a "tire cord" (a textile reinforcing material), and an example of a rubber composite is a "tire" ([0060]).
An embodiment provides a method for manufacturing a rubber reinforcing material, including: ….a second coating step of a base substrate in which a first coated base substrate is dipped in a second coating liquid and dried to form a second coating layer on the first coating layer ([0023]). The second coating liquid (a dipping composition) includes 0.5 to 4.0% by weight of the epoxy compound, 1.0 to 8.0% by weight of the isocyanate compound, 1.7 to 22% by weight of the rubber latex, 1.0 to 8.0% by weight of the polyurethane dispersion (PUD) resin, 0.1 to 2.0% by weight of the amine compound, and 69 to 92% by weight of the solvent, based on the total weight of the second coating liquid ([0024] and [0099]). The second coating layer is cured at a temperature of 200 to 260° C. for 30 to 150 seconds ([0121]). By this heat treatment, a second coating layer is stably formed on a first coating layer ([0121]). The examiner notes that Kim also teaches an adhesive composition that has an identical composition and would meet the claimed heat treated dipping composition limitation ([0013] and [0147]).
As the isocyanate compound, a blocked isocyanate compound may be used ([0062]). The rubber latex includes at least one of a vinylpyridine-styrene-butadiene copolymer latex, a modified latex in which a vinylpyridine-styrene-butadiene copolymer is modified with a carboxyl group, a styrene-butadiene latex, and a modified latex thereof, natural rubber latex, an acrylic acid ester copolymer-based latex, a butyl rubber latex, and a chloroprene rubber latex ([0020]).
Kim 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.
However, Sasaki ‘480 teaches an adhesive composition that includes a natural rubber latex deproteinized to a total nitrogen content of 0.12-0.30 mass% and a butadiene-styrene-vinylpyridine terpolymer rubber latex (Abstract). The mass ratio of the rubber components in the deproteinized natural rubber latex to the rubber components in the butadiene-styrene-vinylpyridine latex is preferably 10/90-70/30, and more preferably 30/70-50/50 ([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 included a deproteinized natural rubber latex in the rubber latex of Kim in a deproteinized natural rubber latex to butadiene-styrene-vinylpyridine latex ratio of 10/90 to 70/30 (and more preferably 30/70 to 50/50) in order to obtain an adhesive composition with appropriate flexibility and sufficient adhesive force for use in rubber products such as tires, conveyor belts, hoses and air springs, wherein the adhesive may also suppress a decrease in adhesive force at a high temperature (Sasaki ‘480: [0008], [0025] and [0048]).
The examiner notes that the dipping composition of Kim in view of Sasaki ‘480 can therefore comprise 1.7 to 22% by weight of the rubber latex, with the rubber latex comprising about 10 to 70 weight percent deproteinized natural rubber latex and from about 30 to 90 weight percent of butadiene-styrene-vinylpyridine latex. In this case, as calculated by the examiner, the dipping composition would comprise deproteinized natural rubber latex in amounts by weight ranging from 0.17% to 15.4% (e.g., 0.1 x 1.7 = 0.17), which overlaps with the claimed range of 1% to 20%. The dipping composition would also comprise butadiene-styrene-vinylpyridine latex in amounts by weight ranging from 0.51% to 19.8%, which overlaps with the claimed range of 4% to 40%.
Regarding claims 18-19, as noted above, Kim teaches that an example of a rubber composite is a "tire" ([0060]). Sasaki ‘480 teaches a nylon cord in the Examples ([0028]). Sasaki ‘480 teaches that the adhesive composition of the present invention is an adhesive composition that can suppress a decrease in adhesive force at a high temperature and is used for adhesion between industrial fiber and rubber, and can be suitably used for all rubber products such as tires, conveyor belts, hoses, and air springs ([0048]).
Regarding claim 20, Kim teaches that the rubber composite can be made of a rubber reinforcing material and a rubber ([0060]). Kim also teaches wherein a base substrate includes a polyester ([0025]; also see [0023]). Sasaki ‘480 teaches a nylon cord in the Examples ([0028]).
Claim(s) 24 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2020/0010741 A1) in view of Sasaki ‘480 (JP 2010275480 A, see attachment), as applied to claim 20 above, further in view of Salort et al. (US 2017/0247517 A1).
Regarding claims 24 and 26, Sasaki ‘480 remains as applied above.
Sasaki ‘480 does not explicitly disclose wherein the coated textile reinforcing material is cellulose.
However, Salort teaches that treated and dried fabric or fiber may be used to impart tensile strength to rubber products, such as tires, air springs, flexible couplings, power transmission belts, conveyor belts, and fluid routing hoses (Abstract). The fabric or fiber may comprise a natural or synthetic material fiber comprising at least one selected from the group consisting of cellulose, nylon, polyethylene, polyester, rayon, nylon, vinyl, polyamide, polyketone, poly-pphenylene-benzobisoxazole ("PBO"), aramid, and carbon fibers, and combinations thereof ([0019]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have used a cellulose fabric or fiber in or as a base substrate of Sasaki ‘480 because Salort teaches that such materials can be used to impart tensile strength to rubber products such as tires, air springs, flexible couplings, power transmission belts, conveyor belts, and fluid routing hoses (Abstract and [0019]).
Claim(s) 17-20, 25 and 27-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2020/0010741 A1) in view of O'Rourke et al. (US 2007/0077443 A1).
Regarding claims 17, 25 and 27-28, Kim teaches an eco-friendly adhesive composition for a rubber reinforcing material, and a method for manufacturing a rubber reinforcing material using the same, and more particularly to an adhesive composition which has excellent adhesive strength even without containing resorcinol and formaldehyde, and a method for manufacturing a rubber reinforcing material using the same ([0001]). A rubber composite (an elastomeric article) can be made of a rubber reinforcing material and a rubber (at least one elastomeric compound) ([0060]). Here, an example of a rubber reinforcing material is a "tire cord" (a textile reinforcing material), and an example of a rubber composite is a "tire" ([0060]).
An embodiment provides a method for manufacturing a rubber reinforcing material, including: ….a second coating step of a base substrate in which a first coated base substrate is dipped in a second coating liquid and dried to form a second coating layer on the first coating layer ([0023]). The second coating liquid (a dipping composition) includes 0.5 to 4.0% by weight of the epoxy compound, 1.0 to 8.0% by weight of the isocyanate compound, 1.7 to 22% by weight of the rubber latex, 1.0 to 8.0% by weight of the polyurethane dispersion (PUD) resin, 0.1 to 2.0% by weight of the amine compound, and 69 to 92% by weight of the solvent, based on the total weight of the second coating liquid ([0024] and [0099]). The second coating layer is cured at a temperature of 200 to 260° C. for 30 to 150 seconds ([0121]). By this heat treatment, a second coating layer is stably formed on a first coating layer ([0121]). The examiner notes that Kim also teaches an adhesive composition that has an identical composition and would meet the claimed heat treated dipping composition limitation ([0013] and [0147]).
As the isocyanate compound, a blocked isocyanate compound may be used ([0062]). The rubber latex includes at least one of a vinylpyridine-styrene-butadiene copolymer latex, a modified latex in which a vinylpyridine-styrene-butadiene copolymer is modified with a carboxyl group, a styrene-butadiene latex, and a modified latex thereof, natural rubber latex, an acrylic acid ester copolymer-based latex, a butyl rubber latex, and a chloroprene rubber latex ([0020]).
Kim 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.
However, O'Rourke teaches that an ester component (described as adhesion promoters) can be added to an elastomer composition prior to cross-linking or vulcanization, for subsequent interaction with the resin treated substrate formed from the elastomer composition ([0027], Abstract and [0051]). The adhesion promoters are especially effective in compositions in which the rubber is cis-polyisoprene, either natural or synthetic, and in blends containing at least 25% by weight of cis-polyisoprene with other rubbers ([0093]). Preferably the rubber, if a blend, contains at least 40% and more preferably at least 60% by weight of cis-polyisoprene ([0093]). Examples of other rubbers which may be blended with cis-polyisoprene include poly-1,3-butadiene, copolymers of 1,3-butadiene with other monomers, for example styrene, acrylonitrile, isobutylene and methyl methacrylate, ethylene/propylene/diene terpolymers, and halogen-containing rubbers such as chlorobutyl, bromobutyl and chloroprene rubbers ([0093]).
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 at least 25% by weight of either natural or synthetic
cis-polyisoprene in the rubber latex blends of Kim, in combination with a copolymer of 1,3-butadiene, in order to obtain compositions that can be provided with unexpectedly increased adhesion to another rubber or elastomer layer as well as to metal or polymeric cord (O'Rourke: Abstract, [0047] and the paragraphs cited above).
The examiner notes that the dipping composition of Kim in view of O'Rourke can therefore comprise 1.7 to 22% by weight of the rubber latex, with the rubber latex blend comprising at least 25% by weight of cis-polyisoprene and up to 75% by weight of butadiene-styrene-vinylpyridine latex. In this case, as calculated by the examiner, the dipping composition would comprise cis-polyisoprene in amounts by weight ranging from 0.425% to less than 22% (e.g., 0.25 x 1.7 = 0.425), which overlaps with the claimed range of 1% to 20%. The dipping composition would also comprise butadiene-styrene-vinylpyridine latex in amounts by weight ranging from greater than 0 to 16.5%, which overlaps with the claimed range of 4% to 40%.
Regarding claims 18-19, as noted above, Kim teaches that an example of a rubber composite is a "tire" ([0060]). O'Rourke teaches that, upon vulcanization of the elastomer and/or rubber composition at a temperature ranging from 100° C. to 200° C., the composition can be used for various purposes ([0098]). For example, the vulcanized rubber composition may be in the form of a tire, belt, hose, motor mount, gasket and air spring ([0098]).
Regarding claim 20, Kim teaches that the rubber composite can be made of a rubber reinforcing material and a rubber ([0060]). Kim also teaches wherein a base substrate includes a polyester ([0025]; also see [0023]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends the following: “Kim is primarily based on the use of a polyurethane dispersion (PUD) in the adhesive composition, and that according to the teaching of Kim, a sufficient initial adhesion could not be achieved without the use of PUD. Specifically, Kim provides that "an epoxy compound, an isocyanate compound, and a rubber latex were used without using resorcinol and formaldehyde" did not exhibit "satisfactory initial adhesive strength and heat -resistant adhesive strength." See paragraph [0177]. Accordingly, Kim teaches that sufficient initial adhesion could not be achieved without the use of PUD. However, the inventors of the present disclosure have unexpectedly discovered that combination of non-isoprene rubber and isoprene rubber led to increased initial and even aged adhesion compared to a recipe, which doesn't contain the combination of PUD, and an amine reaction agent taught to be needed in Kim.”
Regarding these contentions, the examiner notes that applicant’s arguments and evidence are not commensurate with the scope of the claims. The heat-treated dipping composition, as claimed in independent claim 17, may comprise additional components such as PUD. Therefore, it is unclear how applicant’s evidence demonstrates that the claimed invention would have led to unexpectedly improved results when compared to the prior art.
Applicant contends the following: “Moreover, the present invention has demonstrated particular advantages related to adhesion after aging (aged adhesion) and improved coverage as evidence by the examples of the present Application. Indeed, the examples of the Specification showed that the presence of isoprene rubber latex in the dipping composition of the invention significantly improved the aged adhesion force and aged coverage properties (see Specification at p. 18, ln 20 top. 26, ln 5). For instance, inventive Example 2 including isoprene rubber latex compared to a corresponding Example 1 (Reference) that does not contain isoprene rubber, showed an aged adhesion force after 72 h that is about twice as high (see Specification at Table 3, "Aged adhesion force (72 h)", 129.5 vs 64.8) and an aged coverage that is more than about three times as high (see Specification at Table 3, "Aged coverage (72 h)", 4.7 vs 1.5). The increased aged adhesion force and aged coverage achieved with the composition of the invention has also been shown for other Examples/Reference Examples (see Specification, at Table 7) and also for longer time periods (see Specification, at Table 5, "Aged adhesion force (4 months)," 104.0 vs. 64.9; "Aged coverage (4 months)", 4.5 vs. 1.5). These results of the claimed invention are indeed unexpected over Kim and Nabih because there is no guidance in either of the reference that would suggest the claimed combination of rubbers would achieve a significantly improved aged adhesion force and improved aged coverage properties. Additionally, dependent claims 24 and 25 further support a position of non-obviousness based on unexpected properties, distinguishable from the disclosure of Kim and Nabih, reciting that the "coated textile reinforcing material is combined with the elastomeric compound."
Regarding these contentions, Applicant’s Tables 1, 4 and 6 show that the latex/resin and dip solid % values for applicant’s reference examples 1, 3 and 5 are different from applicant’s Examples 2, 4 and 6-7. In addition, applicant’s Tables 3, 5 and 7 show that the initial coverage in reference examples 1, 3 and 5 are lower than the corresponding initial coverage in Examples 2, 4 and 6-7. As these values would be expected to affect the aged coverage and the aged adhesion force, it is unclear how applicant’s evidence demonstrates that the claimed invention would have led to unexpectedly improved results when compared to the prior art.
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