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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 08/19/2025 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.
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 non-obviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 7, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LOPEZ et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2012/0309865, hereinafter LOPEZ) in view of RODGERS (U.S. Publication No. 2017/0198122, hereinafter RODGERS).
Regarding claims 1 and 7, LOPEZ teaches a tire wherein the tread of which comprises a rubber composition comprising at least one diene and a reinforcing filler in the amount between 20 and 200 phr (specifically, between 30 and 150 phr) (Abstract; [0023 and 0065]). The diene includes butadiene/styrene copolymers (SBR), isoprene/butadiene/styrene copolymers (SBIR), and etc. [0035]. The composition comprise a mixture of several diene elastomers ([0044]; Claim 7). The isoprene/butadiene/styrene copolymer (SBIR) has a isoprene content of between 15% and 60% by weight [0034] (which is within the claimed range of 30 to 70% by mass).
The composition further comprises a plasticizing agent including hydrocarbon resin [0082 and 0084] in the amount between 5 and 50 phr, more specifically, 10 and 40 phr [0085]. Examples hydrocarbon resin include C5 fraction homopolymer or copolymer resins (Claim 11) and C5 fraction/C9 fraction copolymer resin [0099]. The hydrocarbon resin has a number-average molecular weight (Mn) of between 400 and 2000 g/mol, more preferably between 500 and 1500 g/mol [0088 and 0090] and a polydispersity index (PI) of less than 2 [0091] (PI =Mw/Mn). When the PI is 1, the Mw is between 400 and 2000 g/mol (400 (Mn) x 1 (PI) = 400 g/mol and 2000 (Mn) x 1 (PI)= 2000 g/mol), more preferably between 500 and 1500 g/mol (500 (Mn) x 1 (PI) = 500 g/mol and 1500 (Mn) x 1 (PI)= 1500 g/mol).
The composition is for tires for various vehicles ([0007]; Claim 1).
However, LOPEZ does not specifically teach a hydrogenated resin having softening point of 115oC to 145oC.
In the same field of endeavor of In the same field of endeavor of a elastomer composition for tires and tire components including tire treads [0064-0065], RODGERS teaches the elastomeric composition comprising at least one elastomer and a hydrocarbon polymer additive (HPA). The HPAs are derived from petroleum streams and may be hydrogenated [0029]. The HPA includes dicyclopentadiene-based HPA wherein the dicyclopentadiene HPA include C5 homopolymer and copolymer resin, C9 homopolymer and copolymer resin, and C5/C9 copolymer resin [0009 and 0034]. The HPAs have a weight average molecular weight (Mw) in a range of about 600 g/mole to about 1000 g/mole [0038]. The HPAs have a softening point of from about 80oC to 150oC [0033] (which is within the claimed range of 115oC to 145oC). The products (e.g., tires) comprising the HPAs has desired tire performance characteristics including rolling resistance, traction, wear performance ([0006]; Tables 2-4 [0061-0063]).
Given LOPEZ teaches hydrocarbon resin include C5 fraction homopolymer or copolymer resins (Claim 11) and C5 fraction/C9 fraction copolymer resin [0099] tires for various vehicles/tread (Abstract; [0007]; Claim 1), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have provided the hydrocarbon polymer additive (HPA) of RODGERS with the rubber composition of LOPEZ for the benefit of obtaining desired properties as taught in RODGERS. It is well settled that it is prima facie obvious to combine two ingredients, each of which is targeted by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose. In re Linder 457 F,2d 506,509, 173 USPQ 356, 359 (CCPA 1972).
Regarding claims 4 and 18, the combined disclosures of LOPEZ and RODGERS substantially teaches the present invention, see paragraphs 7-10 above. More specifically, LOPEZ teaches the composition comprises a reinforcing fillers including silica [0057-0058 and 0063-0064] in the amount of between 30 and 150 phr [0066]. Silica can be used alone in the composition [0066], therefore, the amount of silica in the filler would be 100 wt% which would satisfy the claimed range of 80% by mass or more.
The composition is for tires for various vehicles [0007 and 0065].
Regarding claims 6 and 20, the combined disclosures of LOPEZ and RODGERS substantially teaches the present invention, see paragraphs 7-10 above. More specifically, LOPEZ teaches the rubber composition is for tires for various vehicles [0007] and the diene elastomer copolymers is absent modifying agents [0026 and 0033], therefore, the elastomers would not have modified group at the ends of the main chain as claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 4, 6, 7, 18, and 20 under 103(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of LOPEZ et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2012/0309865, hereinafter LOPEZ) in view of RODGERS (U.S. Publication No. 2017/0198122, hereinafter RODGERS) as discussed above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVE V HALL whose telephone number is (571)270-7738. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9 am-5 pm, 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, Joseph Del Sole can be reached at (571) 272-1130. 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.
DEVE V. HALL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1763
/DEVE V HALL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763