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 .
This office action is in response to applicant’s amendments filed December 26, 2025. Claims 1 and 3-30 are pending. Claim 2 has been cancelled. Claims 1 and 3-9 have been amended. Claims 21-30 are new. Claims 10-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
All prior rejections are withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments to the clams.
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.
Claims 1,3-9,21-23,25,26,28 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN 109267350A) in view of Anyaogu (US 2017/0130014) and Backer (WO 2013/083748).
Wang teaches fiber treatment compositions of a cord fabric dipping liquid comprising 4-70 parts curing agent such as diphenylmethane diisocyanate blocked by caprolactam, 1-30 parts dry weight crosslinking agent such as bisphenol A epoxy resin , and 3-40 parts dry weight tackifier such as maleic anhydride with 70-96% water (page 3, paragraph 5-page 4, paragraph 3). Wang teaches a liquid latex comprising 20-80 parts latex such as styrene-butadiene latex and water (page 3, paragraph 3, page 4, paragraph 3). Wang teaches dipping the fiber in the cord fabric dipping liquid and then in the liquid latex (page 4, paragraph 6). Example 5 teaches a cord fabric dipping solution comprising 11g aqueous blocked isocyanate/curing agent (aqueous solution having a mass of 50% which is 5.5g water and 5.5g blocked isocyanate), 3.8g dry weight glycidyl ether and 100g water. Example 5 teaches a dipping solution having 165g butyrate latex and 185g water. Examples 1-4 are applied in a single composition. Wang also teaches a composition comprises 6-70parts by dry weight curing agents, 2-30 parts by dry weight crosslinking agents, 3-40 parts by dry weight tackifiers and 20-80 parts by weight of liquid latex and water (page 1, abstract). Wang teaches treating fibers made from aramid, glass, polyester and nylon (page 2, paragraph 6)
Wang does not teach surface modified fillers, maleic anhydride grafted polybutadiene, and amine curing agents.
Anyaogu teaches aqueous adhesive compositions for reinforcing fibers such as aramids, glass, polyesters and polyamides (paragraph 0040) wherein the compositions comprise water (paragraph 0018), maleated polybutadiene and maleic anhydride grafted polybutadiene or molecular weight 3000-6000 and grafting rate of up to about 30% (paragraph 0020,0022-0023), Bisphenol A epoxy resins (paragraph 0044), and curing agents such as diamines (paragraph 0031) and fillers such as carbon black (paragraph 0034-0035,0054). Anyaogu teaches treating by dipping the fibers or cords into the composition (page 0041).
Backer teaches that fillers such as carbon black used in polymer and rubber reinforcing compositions (paragraph 0042(benefit from silane surface modification (paragraphs 0001,0002 such as with aminopropyltriethoxysilane or glycidoxy-propyl-trimethoxysilane to render the filler more reactive to any polymeric matrix to allow coupling between the matrix and filler to improve mechanical performances (paragraph 0082).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the compositions of Wang by combining the cord fabric dipping liquid and the liquid latex composition into a single bath application as both compositions are applied immediately in sequence. Nothing unobvious is seen in combining the compositions of Example 5 into a single dipping solution and applying the composition in a single bath as all the same components are applied to the same fiber surfaces for the benefit adhesion and one bath application is demonstrated in Examples 1-4. "As a general rule, no invention is involved in the broad concept of performing simultaneously operations which have been previously been performed in sequence ." In re Tatincloux and Guy, 108 USPQ 125(CCPA 1955).
It would have been obvious to adjust through routine experimentation the amounts of water, maleic anhydride, epoxy resin, blocked isocyanate, curing agent and latex to the claimed values as Wang teaches similar amounts used for the benefits of solvent, tackifying, crosslinking, curing and adhesion. Wang teaches these components provide an environmentally friendly glue alternative to compositions containing resorcinol, formaldehyde and ammonium hydroxide. Adjustment of well-known components to ranges within the prior art disclosure of close to the ranges would be obvious to arrive at a similar composition for a similar purpose. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties, see Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778F.2d 775,227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.051. As to optimization results, a patent will not be granted based upon the optimization of result effective variables when the optimization is obtained through routine experimentation unless there is a showing of unexpected results which properly rebuts the prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272,276,205 USPQ 215,219 (CCPA 1980). See also In re Woodrufl 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (Fed. Cir. 1990), and In re Aller, 220 F2d 454,456,105 USPQ 233,235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claims 23 and 24, these claims if written in independent form, would not require the presence of imidazole or anhydride curing agents as they are optional alternate embodiments of claim 5 and the examiner has found amine curing agents.
Regarding the teachings of Wang of blocked isocyanate, this meets the claimed limitation blocked isocyanates and also curing agent. Since applicant allows 1-8 parts blocked isocyanate and an additional 0.1-1 part curing agent, the disclosed concentration of 6-9 parts of curing agent which is the same isocyanate would meet applicant’s claims.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the compositions of Wang by incorporating maleic anhydride grafted polybutadiene, amine curing agents and filler at the claimed amounts because Anyaogu teaches combining the maleic anhydride grafted polybutadiene as polyelectrolytes, amine curing agents as curatives and fillers for enhanced performance in fiber adhesive compositions applied to similar polyester, polyamide, glass and aramid substrates. Wang invites the inclusion of curing agents and maleic anhydrides into the fiber adhesive compositions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the fillers with the claimed ɣ-aminopropyltriethoxysilane or ɣ-glycidoxy-propyl trimethoxysilane in the claimed amounts as Backer teaches the silanes render the carbon black filler more reactive to any polymeric matrix to allow coupling between the matrix of similar rubbers and filler to improve mechanical performances and adjusting the amount to arrive at the desired reinforcement property would be obvious through routine experimentation.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN 109267350A) in view of Anyaogu (US 2017/0130014) and Backer (WO 2013/083748) and further in view of DiMascio II (US 2006/0147711)
Wang, Anyaogu and Backer are relied upon as set forth above.
Wang, Anyaogu and Backer do not teach polyamide curing agents.
DiMascio II teaches tire cord treatments comprise bisphenol A epoxy resins, and curing agents selected from polyamines, polyamides (paragraphs 0007 and 0011).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the compositions of Wang, Anyaogu and Backer by using polyamide curing agents as DiMascio II teaches they are effective in curing tire cord treatment compositions which result in improved cord penetration and treatment uniformity.
Claims 27 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN 109267350A) in view of Anyaogu (US 2017/0130014) and Backer (WO 2013/083748) and further in view of Sakamoto (JP 2012111888A).
Wang, Anyaogu and Backer are relied upon as set forth above.
Wang, Anyaogu and Backer do not teach deionized water or the rubber latex solids content.
Sakamoto teaches similar rubber compositions for tire cords comprise styrene-butadiene rubber latex and carbon black fillers wherein the solids content of the rubber latex is preferably 20-80%, more preferably 30-60% (page 5, paragraph 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the tire cord treating compositions of Wang, Anyaogu and Backer by incorporating the claimed solids content of rubber latex as Sakamoto teaches these amounts are most preferred in similar tire cord treatment compositions. It would have been further obvious to use deionized water as the solvent as Sakamoto teaches using deionized water as the solvent for the compositions and Wang invites the inclusion of water as a solvent. Substituting deionized water for water would be obvious as Sakamoto teaches deionized water as effective for producing the treatment compositions with similar components.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections above are overcome. The surface modified filler is taught by Backer for the benefit of improving the reactivity of the filler with the matrix which would provide one of ordinary skill in the art motivation to surface treat the filler and provide the treatment with reinforcing properties. Applying the same blocked isocyanate into the same composition would provide the same functions even if they are not explicitly disclosed in the prior art. Applicant claim is to a composition comprising the claimed components and the prior art together teaches these components are all conventional and effective in treating tire cords. The claims are not method claims regarding the method of dip application but rather a composition comprising the listed components therefor the two-step dipping is not relevant to the composition claim nor is the functional role of the blocked isocyanate as the presence of the same compound in the same composition allows for that functional role as it is a property or capability of the compound. The examiner reiterates the composition is not a method of application. Applicant has provided no evidence commensurate in scope with the claims in the form of experimental data comparing the prior art to the claimed composition to demonstrate unexpected results. It is not persuasive to argue unexpected results, the results must be demonstrated. Applicant’s arguments are conclusory statements not supported by factual evidence, see In re Lindner, 457 F.2d 506, 173 USPQ 356 (CCPA 1972).
Anyaogu doesn’t not need to teach all the components such as blocked isocyanates and latex as these elements are already taught by Wang. Combining the individual components of the prior art references to arrive at a composition for treating tire cords is obvious as all the claimed components are known to be used in these compositions for the individual benefits recited above. Combining separate components all taught to be effective for treating tire cords for adhesiveness and reinforcing benefits is obvious. It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose, see In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846,850,205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980). Adjusting the filler concentration to maximize reinforcement property is obvious through routine experimentation.
.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMINA S KHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5573. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-5:30pm EST.
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, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached at 571-272-2817. 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.
/AMINA S KHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights