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 . Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on (1 – 23 – 2026) has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments and remarks filed (1 – 23 – 2026) have been fully considered but they are not persuasiveApplicant argues…
Andreas Limper (DE 19635706 A1, hereinafter Limper) does not teach the newly amended feature of the rubber component being at least one of treads, inner liners and sidewalls. Limper does not disclose that these generic strips as having specific, larger, and more irregularly shaped manufacturing components as recited in amended claim 1. In particular, claim 1 recites reworking specific non-compliant components from tire production, namely "treads, inner liners and sidewalls".
Amended claim 1 is explicitly directed to an apparatus for reworking non-vulcanised rubber.
The device of Caretta is for continuously producing an elastomeric composition. The teaching of Shreyas is for the reprocessing of vulcanised rubber, particularly from used tires (see Shreyas, [0001]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to combine a reference for continuously producing an elastomeric composition (Caretta) and a reference for processing vulcanised rubber (Shreyas).
The teachings of Shreyas regarding vulcanised material processing would lead one of ordinary skill away from the subject matter of the present invention, which is focused on non-vulcanised material.
Caretta does not teach the newly amended feature of as-amended recites an apparatus for reworking specific, larger scrap components from tire manufacturing, namely "treads, inner liners and sidewalls". Caretta, in contrast, teaches processing comminuted rubber "crumbs" ([0053]) or general "scraps" ([0144]). Similarly, Shreyas teaches processing comminuted material such as tire rubber granulate ([0010]). There is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation in either reference to modify an apparatus designed for comminuted or granulated material to instead handle large, bulky, and specific manufacturing off-cuts like treads and sidewalls. The technical challenges and solutions for feeding and processing these different types of materials are distinct.
Applicant further argues that none of the other applied references make up for the deficiency of Limper / Limper as modified nor Caretta / Caretta as modified.
This is not found to be persuasive because…
& e.) As noted by applicant in their argument on (Pg. 2) Limper discloses a general process for plasticising, filtering, and conveying high-viscosity polymer melts, such as a rubber mixture. The feedstock for Limper's gear pump is described as melt strips, but not Limper does not disclose these generic strips as having specific, larger, and more irregularly shaped manufacturing components. Accordingly, while the generic strips of Limper nor Caretta may not recite specific treads, inner liners and sidewalls. Applicant has not recited that the specific treads, inner liners and sidewalls have any particular dimensions / size and/or size restriction in place. Additionally, tires do not necessarily have specific, larger, and more irregularly shaped manufacturing components. For instance, the largest tire manufacture by volume in the world is LEGO (300 million tiny rubber tires annually!), fabricates entire tires including the treads, inner liners and sidewalls that are on the scale on inches / mm. As such, applicant’s arguments are found to rely on subject matter that is not claimed, i.e., utilizing a specific, larger, and more irregularly shaped manufacturing components. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., utilizing a specific, larger, and more irregularly shaped manufacturing components) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Additionally, a the sidewall of a tire is fundamentally a strip of rubber / protective layer or sheet of rubber compound covering the side of the tire between the tread and the wheel rim. Accordingly, the case law for the change of size or shape may be recited regarding implementing utilizing a specific, larger, and more irregularly shaped manufacturing rubber strips / sidewalls.
& d.) Applicant’s amendments regarding “An apparatus for reworking of non-vulcanised rubber…” are found within the preamble of the claims. Accordingly, applicant’s arguments rely on language solely recited in preamble recitations in claim(s) 1. When reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation “An apparatus for reworking of non-vulcanised rubber…” is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention, and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02. Additionally, applicant’s claims are directed towards an apparatus. As such, the case law for materials in apparatus not significant. Where, it is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). The manner or method in which a machine is to be utilized is not germane to the issue of patentability of the machine itself, In re Casey 152 USPQ 235.
As noted in applicant’s arguments Caretta is directed towards the fabrication of an elastomeric composition, with Caretta clarifying that the elastomeric composition comprises rubber mixture, (Pg. 1 , lines 12 – 15). While Shreyas similarly also focuses on the preparation of a modified rubber mixture, with Shreyas mixture similarly comprises a recycled rubber from tires or other technical rubber products, especially from the recycling of used tires in the form of tire rubber granulate, ([0011]) and rubber may refer to any product made from vulcanized natural or synthetic rubber, natural rubbers or nitrile rubbers, olefin rubbers, halogen rubbers, silicone rubbers, sulfur rubbers, styrene rubbers and others, as is known to the expert. The vulcanized rubber materials that can be recycled using the invention also include thermoplastic elastomers and thermoplastic vulcanizates. As such, both Caretta and Shreyas composition comprises elastomers in particular natural or synthetic rubber.
This is unpersuasive because as explained above there was not found to be deficiency in Limper / Limper as modified.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show a receiver (not shown) disposed at the same side as the transmitter 211 of the rubber component 8 and configured to receive the electromagnetic signal 21 reflected at the rubber component 8 as described in the specification on ([0086]). Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
A.) Claim(s) 1, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andreas Limper (DE 19635706 A1, hereinafter Limper)Regarding claim 1,
An apparatus for reworking of non-vulcanised rubber or de-vulcanised rubber from a rubber component to produce recycled rubber, the apparatus comprising:
a gear pump arranged to receive the rubber component,
the rubber component being at least one of treads, inner liners and sidewalls and
filter the at least one of treads, inner liners and sidewalls to produce filtered rubber,
the gear pump comprising at least one mesh or grid at its output arranged to filter inhomogeneities; and
a mixer-extruder configured and arranged to receive the filtered rubber from the gear pump, and to homogenize and extrude the filtered rubber to produce recycled rubber.
Limper teaches the following:
([0018]) teaches the device shown in (Fig. 1) comprises a gear pump 1 and a screw machine 2, wherein the screw machine 2 is connected downstream of the gear pump 1. Where the gear pump 1 acts as applicant’s gear pump.
([0018]) teaches that a rubber mixture 3 is first fed to the gear pump 1 in the form of rubber strips 3S or drawn in by the gear pump 1. As such, the rubber component is understood to be rubber strips. Highlighting, while the rubber strips are not specially mentioned to be at least one of treads, inner liners and sidewalls. A sidewall of a tire is understood to fundamentally be a strip of rubber / a protective layer or sheet of rubber covering the side of the tire between the tread and the wheel rim. Accodignly, the case law for the change of size/shape may be recited regarding the rubber strip being sidewall of a tire. Where, the mere scaling up or down of a prior art process capable of being scaled up or down would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled, In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976), MPEP 2144 and/or the court held that the configuration of the claimed container was found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant, In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669,149 USPQ47 (CCPA 1966), MPEP 2143.
& d.) ([0022]) teaches that at the outlet 1A of the gear pump 1, a perforated plate 11, a sieve pack or the like is provided for filtering the rubber mixture 3. As such, filtering is understood to be performed by a sieve / mesh such of the at least one rubber mixture / rubber strips is understood to be disclosed. Highlighting, while Limper may not disclose that the rubber mixture comprises at least one of treads, inner liners and sidewalls. The case law for materials in apparatus not being significant may be recited. Where it is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). The manner or method in which a machine is to be utilized is not germane to the issue of patentability of the machine itself, In re Casey 152 USPQ 235.
([0018]) teaches the device shown in (Fig. 1) comprises a gear pump 1 and a screw machine 2, wherein the screw machine 2 is connected downstream of the gear pump 1. Where the screw machine is understood to be mixer extruder configures and arranged to receive the filtered rubber.
B.) Claim(s) 4 & 6 – 7, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Limper in view of Renato Caretta (EP 1458536 A1, hereinafter Caretta)Regarding claim 4 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the mixer-extruder is configured to add to the filtered rubber at least one element of the group consisting of fillers, polymers, plasticizers and activators, and
to add to the filtered rubber at least one accelerator and
at least one crosslinker to produce the recycled rubber
Regarding Claim 4, Limper teaches the above detailed. Limper is silent on the mixer additives, fillers, polymers, plasticizers and activators, an accelerator and a crosslinker. In analogous art for process and apparatus for continuously producing a rubber composition by means of at least one extruder that comprise a gear pump, Caretta suggest details regarding implementing additives in the rubber composition including fillers, polymers, plasticizers and activators, an accelerator and a crosslinker, and in this regard Caretta teaches the following:
([0108]) teaches that the rubber mixture further comprises at least one reinforcing filler, such as: carbon black, silica, alumina, aluminosilicates, calcium carbonate, kaolin, titanium dioxide, or mixtures thereof. ([0120]) adding that carbon black, was fed together with the granulated rubbers to the feeding hopper of the twin-screw extruder by means of a dedicated gravimetric feeder.
& c.) ([0087]-[0088]) teaches that minor ingredients which are necessary to complete the elastomeric composition, i.e., temperature sensitive minor ingredients such as crosslinking agents, crosslinking accelerators and retardants, activating agents, are metered by means of gravimetric feeders 212 and fed to the extruder 320 through one or more feed hoppers 211. As shown in (Fig. 3) the hoopers 211 are found downstream of the first extruder with its various gears pumps, adding that the various additives and elastomeric composition being combined / mixed into the first hooper 211. ([0122]) adding that sulphur, N-cyclohexyl thiophtaloimide (PVI) and N-tertbutyl mercaptobenzothiazyl sulphenamide (TBBS), i.e., the curatives, were fed to a further feeding hopper of the twin-screw extruder by means of dedicated gravimetric feeders.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus that comprises a gear pump configured to receive and filter strip of rubber and feed it to an extruder configured to homogenize and the filtered rubber composition of Limper. By modifying the extruder and composition such that it provides for adding various additives including reinforcing filler, crosslinking agents, crosslinking accelerators, amongst others to the composition, as taught by Caretta. Highlighting, one would be motivated to provide an extruder that allows for adding various additives including reinforcing filler, crosslinking agents, crosslinking accelerators, amongst others to the composition as it provides for tailoring various properties crosslinking and adhesion, ([0088]).
Regarding claim(s) 6 – 7 as applied to claim 1 and claim 6 respectively,
Wherein the mixer-extruder comprises an extruder head configured to extrude the recycled rubber.
Wherein the extruder head is coupled to an output end of the mixer-extruder.
Regarding Claim(s) 6 – 7, Limper teaches the above detailed. Limper is silent on the mixer-extruder comprises an extruder head configured to extrude, and that the extruder head is coupled an output end of the mixer-extruder. In analogous art as applied above in claim 4, Caretta suggest details regarding extruder comprises an extruder head and that the extruder head is coupled an output end of the mixer-extruder, and in this regard Caretta teaches the following:
& 7a.) (Pg. 16, lines 11-15) teaches that the elastomeric composition can be granulated at the end of the extrusion step by providing the extrusion head with a perforated die plate 210 through which the elastomeric composition is caused to pass.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus that comprises a gear pump configured to receive and filter strip of rubber and feed it to an extruder configured to homogenize and the filtered rubber composition of Limper. Highlighting, one would be motivated to include an extruder head on the output end of the extruder as it provides of implementing a die plate 210 such that cutting may be implemented to obtain the rubber composition in the granular form, ([0072]). Additionally, the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results and/or the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results provides for the recitation of KSR case law. Where, "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143.
C.) Claim(s) 5, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Limper in view of Caretta and in further view of WESTCO
Regarding claim 5 as applied to claim 4,
Wherein the accelerator is at least one of N- Cyclohexyl-2-benzothiazole sulfenamide (CBS) and Zinc dibenzyl dithiocarbonate (ZBEC), and
the crosslinker is sulphur 95%.
Regarding Claim 5, Limper as modified by Caretta teaches the above detailed including utilizing zinc compounds crosslinking activators (([0087] –[0088]). Limper as modified by Caretta is silent on implementing CBS or ZBEC as the crosslinking activators. In analogous art for an accelerator for rubber compounds, Westco suggest details regarding ZBEC, and in this regard Westco teaches the following:
(Pg. 2) teaches that ZBEC is also known as Zinc dibenzyl dithiocarbonate and is a dithiocarbonate accelerator for rubber compounds. It is typically used to replace more conventional dithiocarbonates in compounds to reduce or eliminate the generation of potentially hazardous nitrosamines during the vulcanization process.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus that comprises a gear pump configured to receive and filter strip of rubber and feed it to an extruder configured to homogenize and the filtered rubber composition of Limper. By further augmenting the composition such to utilize a specific zinc compound, namely ZBEC, as taught by Westco. Highlighting, one would be motivated to implement ZBEC as it provides for an accelerator for rubber compounds, (Pg. 2). Additionally, the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results and/or the choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success allows for the recitation of KSR case law. Where, "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Furthermore, as detailed by Westco, ZBEC is a known material in the art for accomplishing a known task, i.e. rubber accelerator, as such the case law for known material in the art may be recited. Where, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)
D.) Claim(s) 19, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Limper in view of Caretta in view of Mancosh
Regarding claim 19 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the mixer-extruder comprises a mixer configured to allow an additive to be added to the filtered rubber.
Regarding Claim(s) 19, Limper is silent on utilizing a mixer configured to allow an additive to be added to the filtered rubber. In analogous art for process and apparatus for continuously producing a rubber composition by means of at least one extruder that comprise a gear pump, Caretta suggest details regarding implementing a means for allowing an additive to be added to the filtered rubber, Caretta suggest details regarding implementing a means for allowing an additive to be added to the filtered rubber via gravimetric, and in this regard Caretta teaches the following:
([0087]-[0088]) teaches that Minor ingredients which are necessary to complete the elastomeric composition, i.e., temperature sensitive minor ingredients such as crosslinking agents, crosslinking accelerators and retardants, activating agents, are metered by means of gravimetric feeders 212 and fed to the extruder 320 through one or more feed hoppers 211. As shown in (Fig. 3) the hoopers 211 are found downstream of the first extruder with its various gear’s pumps, adding that the various additives and elastomeric composition being combined / mixed into the first hooper 211.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus that comprises a gear pump configured to receive and filter strip of rubber and feed it to an extruder configured to homogenize and the filtered rubber composition of Limper. By further augmenting the extruder to include gravimetric feeders, as taught by Caretta. Highlighting, one would be motivated to include gravimetric feed devices with the extruder as it provides for implementing various additives to the elastomeric composition, ([0087]-[0088]).Regarding Claim(s) 19, Limper as modified by Caretta is silent on gravimetric feeders being a mixer. In analogous for an extruder that utilizes gravimetric feeders, Mancosh suggest details gravimetric feeders being a mixer, and in this regard Mancosh teaches the following:
([0047]) teaches that a secondary feeder 160 that dispenses additional materials (e.g., additives, such as colorants) into the extruder 102 for mixing with the base polymer; and an extrusion die 140 for forming a composite extrusion with a pre-determined profile. ([0060]) teaches that he secondary feeder 160 can include a loss-in-weight gravimetric feeder 166 for dispensing fibers; and a multiple feeder array 162, e.g., volumetric auger feeders, for dispensing multiple colorants (or other additives) into the extruder.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus that comprises a gear pump configured to receive and filter strip of rubber and feed it to an extruder configured to homogenize and the filtered rubber composition of Limper. By further augmenting the extruder to include gravimetric feed devices that comprise mixers, as taught by Mancosh. Highlighting, one would be motivated to include gravimetric feed devices that comprise mixers as it provides for mixing several additives at once prior to adding them to the extruder for further mixing with the base components, ([0060]).
E.) Claim(s) 1, 4 & 6 – 7, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caretta in view of Shreyas et al. (EP 3178628 B1, hereinafter Shreyas)Regarding claim 1,
An apparatus for reworking of non-vulcanised rubber or de-vulcanised rubber from a rubber component to produce recycled rubber, the apparatus comprising:
a gear pump arranged to receive the rubber component,
the rubber component being at least one of treads, inner liners and sidewalls and
filter the at least one of treads, inner liners and sidewalls to produce filtered rubber,
the gear pump comprising at least one mesh or grid at its output arranged to filter inhomogeneities; and
a mixer-extruder configured and arranged to receive the filtered rubber from the gear pump, and to homogenize and extrude the filtered rubber to produce recycled rubber.
Caretta teaches the following:
([0058]) teaches that in order to impart to the extruded material a pressure sufficient to pass said filtering body 115, preferably the extruder 110 is provided with a gear pump 116. Preferably, said gear pump 116 is placed upstream of the filtering body 111. Where the gear pump 116 acts as applicant’s gear pump.
([0053]) teaches that the rubber base material is supplied from manufacturers and then comminuted to smaller irregular particles sizes. ([0144]) teaches that a further advantage of the present invention consists in that the presence of at least one stirring device in the production process of an elastomeric composition avoids the production of scraps, even during a recipe changing, since said scraps can be advantageously recycled.
([0058]) teaches that in order to impart to the extruded material a pressure sufficient to pass said filtering body 115, preferably the extruder 110 is provided with a gear pump 116. Preferably, said gear pump 116 is placed upstream of the filtering body 111. Where the filtering body 115 acts as applicant’s filter.
([0057]) teaches that a filtering body 115 (e.g., a screen filter) is placed downstream of the extruder screw (not shown). As such, the filtering body is understood to comprise a mesh. ([0091]) notes that the completed elastomeric composition is filtered to eliminate any possible aggregates, metal particles or other impurities by means of a filtering body 115. As such, the filtering body 115 is understood to be arranged to filter inhomogeneities in the completed elastomeric composition.
([0096]) teaches as illustrated in (Fig. 5) the production plant 500 according to the present invention, the intermediate elastomeric composition in the subdivided form H exiting from the first extruder 110 is directly fed to the second extruder 320 and no stirring device 130 is provided between the two extruders 110, 320.
Regarding Claim(s) 1, Caretta is silent on the rubber components being a recycled component. In analogous art for a series of tandem extruders, ([0037]) that comprise a gear pump, ([0036]) utilized to reprocess rubber, Shreyas suggest details regarding the initial rubber being component being a recycled component, and in this regard, Shreyas teaches the following:
([0010]) teaches that the rubber is a crushed rubber material, for example scrap rubber from tires or other technical rubber products, in particular from the processing of old tires in the form of tire rubber granulate, tire rubber flour, i.e. powder or so-called "tire buffer", grindings from tire retreading. Alternatively, any other waste rubber may be used which is suitably comminuted to the extent necessary to refine the starting particles before use in a masterbatch for this invention. As such, the use of a rubber component being a tire, in which a tire is understood to comprise the various components of at least one of treads, inner liners and sidewalls is understood to be disclosed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus that comprises a gear pump configured to receive and filter the rubber and accelerators including zinc compounds to produce filtered rubber and a mixer-extruder configured to homogenize and extrude the filtered rubber of Caretta. By modifying the composition to include crushed rubber material, for example scrap rubber from tires or other technical rubber product, as taught by Shreyas. Highlighting, one would be motivated to include scrap rubber from tires or other technical rubber product as it provides for the recycling of rubber materials and including or thermoplastic elastomers and thermoplastic vulcanizates, ([0011]). Accordingly, the use of a known material in a known environment provides for the recitation of known material in the art. Where, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), MPEP 2144.07.Regarding claim 4 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the mixer-extruder is configured to add to the filtered rubber at least one element of the group consisting of fillers, polymers, plasticizers and activators, and
to add to the filtered rubber at least one accelerator and
at least one crosslinker to produce the recycled rubber.
Caretta teaches the following:
([0103]) teaches that minor ingredients include various components including synthetic resins, such as alpha-methyl styrene resins, cumarone resins, amongst others that are added to the extruder. Where the minor ingredients are understood to comprise various additives, activators and polymers.
& c.) ([0087]-[0088]) teaches that minor ingredients which are necessary to complete the elastomeric composition, i.e., temperature sensitive minor ingredients such as crosslinking agents, crosslinking accelerators and retardants, activating agents, are metered by means of gravimetric feeders 212 and fed to the extruder 320 through one or more feed hoppers 211. As shown in (Fig. 3) the hoopers 211 are found downstream of the first extruder with its various gears pumps, adding that the various additives and elastomeric composition being combined / mixed into the first hooper 211. ([0122]) adding that sulphur, N-cyclohexyl thiophtaloimide (PVI) and N-tertbutyl mercaptobenzothiazyl sulphenamide (TBBS), i.e., the curatives, were fed to a further feeding hopper of the twin-screw extruder by means of dedicated gravimetric feeders.
Regarding claim(s) 6 – 7 as applied to claim 1 and claim 6 respectively,
Wherein the mixer-extruder comprises an extruder head configured to extrude the recycled rubber.
Wherein the extruder head is coupled to an output end of the mixer-extruder.
Caretta teaches the following:
& 7a.) (Pg. 16, lines 11-15) teaches that the elastomeric composition can be granulated at the end of the extrusion step by providing the extrusion head with a perforated die plate 210 through which the elastomeric composition is caused to pass.
F.) Claim(s) 5, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caretta as modified by Shreyas in further view of WESTCO ZBEC Accelerator (2017, hereinafter WESTCO)Regarding claim 5 as applied to claim 4,
Wherein the accelerator is at least one of N- Cyclohexyl-2-benzothiazole sulfenamide (CBS) and Zinc dibenzyl dithiocarbonate (ZBEC), and
the crosslinker is sulphur 95%.
Caretta teaches the following:
(Pg. 20) teaches crosslinking accelerators include sulfonamides. (Pg. 21) teaches that crosslinking activators include zinc compounds e.g. (ZnO, ZnCO3, fatty acid zinc salts).
(Pg. 24, lines 26-30) teaches that insoluble sulphur… i.e. the curatives, were fed to a further feeding hopper of the twin-screw extruder by means of dedicated gravimetric feeders.
Regarding Claim 5, Caretta as modified by Shreyas teaches the above detailed including utilizing zinc compounds crosslinking activators. Caretta as modified by Shreyas is silent on implementing CBS or ZBEC as the crosslinking activators. In analogous art for an accelerator for rubber compounds, Westco suggest details regarding ZBEC, and in this regard Westco teaches the following:
(Pg. 2) teaches that ZBEC is also known as Zinc dibenzyl dithiocarbonate and is a dithiocarbonate accelerator for rubber compounds. It is typically used to replace more conventional dithiocarbonates in compounds to reduce or eliminate the generation of potentially hazardous nitrosamines during the vulcanization process.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus that comprises a gear pump configured to receive and filter the rubber and accelerators including zinc compounds to produce filtered rubber and a mixer-extruder configured to homogenize and extrude the filtered rubber of Caretta. By modifying the composition such to utilize a specific zinc compound, namely ZBEC, as taught by Westco. Highlighting, one would be motivated to implementing of ZBEC as it provides for an accelerator for rubber compounds, (Pg. 2). Additionally, the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results and/or the choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success allows for the recitation of KSR case law. Where, "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Furthermore, as detailed by Westco, ZBEC is a known material in the art for accomplishing a known task, i.e., rubber accelerator, as such the case law for known material in the art may be recited. Where, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
G.) Claim(s) 19, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Renato Caretta in view of Shreyas in further view of Mancosh et al. (US 20080093763 A1, hereinafter Mancosh)
Regarding claim 19 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the mixer-extruder comprises a mixer configured to allow an additive to be added to the filtered rubber.
Caretta teaches the following:
([0087]-[0088]) teaches that Minor ingredients which are necessary to complete the elastomeric composition, i.e., temperature sensitive minor ingredients such as crosslinking agents, crosslinking accelerators and retardants, activating agents, are metered by means of gravimetric feeders 212 and fed to the extruder 320 through one or more feed hoppers 211. As shown in (Fig. 3) the hoopers 211 are found downstream of the first extruder with its various gear’s pumps, adding that the various additives and elastomeric composition being combined / mixed into the first hooper 211.
Regarding claim 19, Caretta as modified by Shreyas teaches the above detailed. Caretta as modified by Shreyas is silent on gravimetric feeders being a mixer. In analogous for an extruder that utilizes gravimetric feeders, Mancosh suggest details gravimetric feeders being a mixer, and in this regard Mancosh teaches the following:
([0047]) teaches that a secondary feeder 160 that dispenses additional materials (e.g., additives, such as colorants) into the extruder 102 for mixing with the base polymer; and an extrusion die 140 for forming a composite extrusion with a pre-determined profile. ([0060]) teaches that he secondary feeder 160 can include a loss-in-weight gravimetric feeder 166 for dispensing fibers; and a multiple feeder array 162, e.g., volumetric auger feeders, for dispensing multiple colorants (or other additives) into the extruder.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus that comprises a gear pump configured to receive and filter the rubber and accelerators including zinc compounds to produce filtered rubber and a mixer-extruder configured to homogenize and extrude the filtered rubber of Caretta as modified by Shreyas. By further augmenting the extruder to include gravimetric feed devices that comprise mixers, as taught by Mancosh. Highlighting, one would be motivated to include gravimetric feed devices that comprise mixers as it provides for mixing several additives at once prior to adding them to the extruder for further mixing with the base components, ([0060]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Richard et al. (US 2819493 A) – teaches in the (Abstract) that the primary object of the present invention is to provide an improved method for the manufacture of films by the so-called dry extrusion process. 1n this process thermoplastic material, in the absence of any volatile liquid, is raised to a temperature at which it has the fluidity necessary for successful extrusion and is extruded through a die-orifice of substantially rectangular cross-section.
Kalwar Klaus (DE 3233416 C3) – teaches in the (Abstract) that the extruder for processing plastics materials is equipped with an apparatus for material feeding, which is arranged upstream of a barrel (1) which has a die (2) at the discharge end. A feed mechanism (4) is provided for each type of raw material which is fed to the screw (3), the said feed mechanisms being connected to one another in vertical planes (5) by flanges (6) and bolts (7). The feed mechanisms have a housing (9), in which there is provided a pair of rolls (8), which are mounted rotatably about horizontal axes, can be driven and define a feed gap for the respective raw material.
Jui-Chuah Chen (US 5259751 A) – teaches in the (Abstract) a mechanism for forming plastic board including a base, a chamber and a passage formed in the base, a pump disposed in the chamber, a housing disposed above the base and including a passage for supplying plastic materials to the chamber.
Prandini et al. (US 20170361555 A1) – teaches in the (Abstract) A process for producing tyres including building a green tyre having two bead structures. Each bead structure includes a bead filler. The bead filler or another rigid component of the green tyre includes a final elastomeric compound produced by the following.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andrés E. Behrens Jr. whose telephone number is (571)-272-9096. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 7:30 AM-5:30 PM.
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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached on (571)-270-7001. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/Andrés E. Behrens Jr./Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/JaMel M Nelson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743