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 1.114
A 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 June 30, 2025 has been entered.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 7, 11, 13-14, 31, 33-35 and 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steiner et al (US 2021/0032442) in view of Mastromatteo et al (US 3,678,135) and Takai et al (US 6,031,054).
Regarding claims 1 and 7, Steiner teaches an elastomeric composition comprising:
0 to 30 phr of a polybutadiene (Abstract) which can be a high-cis polybutadiene such as Budene 1223 which has a cis content of 96 %. (Table 1)
20 to 100 phr of a styrene butadiene rubber (Abstract)
A curative agent ([0099])
An antioxidant ([0099])
1 to 20 phr of carbon black ([0090])
90 to 150 phr of silica (Abstract)
A silane coupling agent ([0092])
Steiner teaches that various additive can be incorporated into the composition ([0099]), however fails to teach the incorporation of the recited polymer.
Mastromatteo teaches a rubber composition for use in tire treads (col. 3, lines 20-25) which incorporates ethylene propylene diene polymer (EPDM, Abstract) in a blend with SBR/BR (Abstract). The ratio of the EPDM to the other rubbers in the composition can range from 5:95 to 95:5 (col. 2, lines 10-15) which overlaps the claimed range.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporated the EPDM of Mastromatteo as an additive of Steiner. One would have been motivated to do so in order to receive the expected benefit of providing a vulcanizate with high tensile strength (Mastromatteo, Abstract).
However, modified Steiner fails to teach that the EPDM is epoxy modified.
Takai teaches a rubber composition (col. 10, lines 40-45) which incorporates an epoxidized EPDM polymer (col. 10, lines 40-45).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the EPDM component of modified Steiner be epoxidized as taught by Takai. One would have been motivated to so in order to receive the expected benefit of having excellent coating properties for rubber moldings (Abstract).
Regarding claims 11 and 13-14, modified Steiner teaches that the EPDM has an ethylene: propylene ratio of 20:80 to 80:20 and 2 to 20 wt. % of ethylidene norbornene (Mastromatteo, col. 1, lines 60-70).
Regarding claim 31, Steiner teaches that the silane coupling agent can be bis(triethyoxysilylpropyl)disulfide ([0093]).
Regarding claim 33, Steiner teaches that the composition further comprises 20 to 80 phr of a hydrocarbon resin (Abstract).
Regarding claim 34, Steiner teaches that the composition further comprises a plasticizer (process oil) (Abstract).
Regarding claim 35, Steiner teaches that the composition further contains natural rubber (Abstract).
Regarding claim 37, Steiner teaches a tire tread with the composition of claim 1 (Abstract).
Claim(s) 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steiner et al (US 2021/0032442) in view of Mastromatteo et al (US 3,678,135), Takai et al (US 6,031,054) and Tsou et al (US 2017/0233513).
The discussion regarding Steiner, Mastromatteo and Takai in paragraph 4 above is incorporated here by reference.
Regarding claim 36, modified Steiner fails to teach the glass transition temperature of the EPDM polymer.
Tsou teaches EPDM rubber (Abstract) for use in tire treads ([0003]) which has a glass transition temperature of -2 to -25 C ([0014]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the EPDM rubber of modified Steiner have the glass transition temperature as taught by Tsou. One would have been motivated to do so in order to have the glass transition temperature which would provide wet and dry traction (Tsou, [0014]).
Claim(s) 1 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steiner et al (US 2021/0032442) in view of Pappas (WO 2018/102289).
Regarding claims 1 and 8, Steiner teaches an elastomeric composition comprising:
0 to 30 phr of a polybutadiene (Abstract) which can be a high-cis polybutadiene such as Budene 1223 which has a cis content of 96 %. (Table 1)
20 to 100 phr of a styrene butadiene rubber (Abstract)
A curative agent ([0099])
An antioxidant ([0099])
1 to 20 phr of carbon black ([0090])
90 to 150 phr of silica (Abstract)
A silane coupling agent ([0092])
Steiner teaches that various additive can be incorporated into the composition ([0099]), however fails to teach the incorporation of the recited polymer.
Pappas teaches a rubber composition for use in tire treads ([0018]) which incorporate a diene elastomer such as butadiene rubbers ([0027]) and SBR ([0028]) as well as epoxidized butyl rubber ([0022]). The amount of the non-epoxidized rubber can range from 0 to 90 phr ([0024]) and therefore, the epoxidized rubber can be calculated to range from 100 to 10 phr.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the epoxidized butyl rubber of Pappas as an additive of Steiner. It would be nothing more than using known compounds in a typical manner to achieve predictable results. KSR v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. _, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim(s) 15, 16 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steiner et al (US 2021/0032442) in view of Pappas (WO 2018/102289) and Waddell et al (US 2007/0179251).
The discussion regarding Steiner and Pappas in paragraph 6 above is incorporated here by reference.
Regarding claims 15, 16 and 21, modified Steiner teaches the epoxidized butyl rubber, however, fails to teach the structure of the butyl rubber.
Waddell teaches a rubber for use in tire treads ([0005]) which contains 70 to 99.5 wt. % of isoolefin, 0.5 to 30 wt. % of a styrenic monomer and 0.2 to 30 % by weight of a multiolefin ([0023]). The isoolefin can be isobutylene ([0024]), the styrenic monomer is p-methyl styrene ([0020]) and the multiolefin is isoprene ([0024]) giving the butyl rubber of poly (isobutylene-co-para-methyl styrene-co-isoprene). This butyl rubber can be halogenated ([0045]) with bromine ([0045]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the poly (isobutylene-co-para-methyl styrene-co-isoprene) of Waddell as the butyl rubber of modified Steiner. One would have been motivated to do so in order to receive the expected benefit of improved carcass adhesion and flexibility while maintaining air impermeability (Waddell, [0005]).
Claim(s) 1, 3, 16, 20, 25 and 29is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steiner et al (US 2021/0032442) in view of Ishikawa et al (US 6,310,158) with evidence provided by Minagawa et al (US 2001/0007892).
Regarding claims 1, 3, 16, 20, 25 and 29, Steiner teaches an elastomeric composition comprising:
0 to 30 phr of a polybutadiene (Abstract) which can be a high-cis polybutadiene such as Budene 1223 which has a cis content of 96 %. (Table 1)
20 to 100 phr of a styrene butadiene rubber (Abstract)
A curative agent ([0099])
An antioxidant ([0099])
1 to 20 phr of carbon black ([0090])
90 to 150 phr of silica (Abstract)
A silane coupling agent ([0092])
Steiner teaches that various additive can be incorporated into the composition ([0099]), however fails to teach the incorporation of the recited polymer.
Ishikawa teaches a rubber composition for use in tire applications is a blend of diene rubber and a butyl rubber which is modified with a mercaptobenzothiazole group (col. 2, formula (I), Example 1). The mercaptobenzothiazole group has a sulfur in the chemical structure. The butyl rubber is Exxpro 90-10 (Example 1). Exxpro 90-10 is brominated isobutylene/p-methyl styrene copolymer (Minagawa, [0029]). The rubber component contains 3 to 100 parts by weight of the butyl rubber (col. 2, lines 45-55).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the butyl rubber which is modified with a mercaptobenzothiazole group of Ishikawa be an additive of the Steiner rubber composition. One would have been motivated to do so in order to receive the expected benefit of having excellent weather resistance (Ishikawa, col. 1, lines 55-60).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 30 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
The claim objections set forth in paragraph 4 and the 35 USC 112 rejections set forth in paragraph 5 of the previous office action dated March 31, 2025 are withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendment filed on June 30, 2025.
Applicant's arguments filed June 30, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the reasons set forth below.
Applicant’s argument: Steiner fails to teach the functionalized polymer as presently recited.
Examiner’s response: This is remedied by numerous newly presented secondary references which do teach the functionalized polymer.
Applicant’s argument: Tanabe fails to teach the recited functionalized polymer. Wang fails to teach the recited functionalized polymer.
Examiner’s response: These references are no longer used in the above rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DORIS L LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-3872. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am - 5 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, Arrie Lanee Reuther can be reached at 571-270-7026. 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.
DORIS L. LEE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1764
/DORIS L LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764