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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/06/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The claim recites, “The rubber composition of claim 1, and the natural rubber is present in an amount of from 75 phr to 90 phr,” the claim depends on claim 1 which does not recite “natural rubber” therefore renders the claim unclear and indefinite. Given claim 1 recites, “polyisoprene” the examiner construes the meaning of “natural rubber” is for the term “polyisoprene.” For art purposes, the term “natural rubber” will be interpreted as “polyisoprene” of Claim 1 until further clarification.
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 1-8 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2021/115677 in view of WO 2020/175344.
To further advance the prosecution of this invention, EICHHORST et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0411613), which is an English equivalent of WO 2021/115677 will be used in the rejection and KAMIMOTO et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0119623, hereinafter KAMIMOTO), which is an English equivalent of WO 2020/175344 will be used in the rejection.
Regarding claims 1-4, EICHHORST teaches a sulfur-crosslinkable rubber mixture and to a pneumatic vehicle tire [0062-0064] comprising at least one rubber component made of sulfur-vulcanized rubber mixture. The rubber mixture contains 10-60 parts by weight, based on 100 parts by weight of the total rubbers in the mixture of at least one functionalized polybutadiene A, up to 90 phr of at least one further diene rubber (polyisoprene [0025 and 0027-0028]) (which is within the claimed range of 70 phr to 95 phr), and 30-350 phr of at least one filler (silica; [0032 and 0035]) (Abstract; [0010-0015]). More specifically, the rubber mixture contains 10 to 60 phr of at least one functionalized polybutadiene [0024] and 50 to 150 phr of silica [0036]. A wide variety of different silicas including precipitated silica having a CTAB surface area of 30 to 350 m2/g [0035].
For improvement of processability and for binding of the silica to the diene rubber in silica-containing mixtures, using at least one silane coupling agent in amounts of 1-15 phf (parts by weight, based on 100 parts by weight of silica) in the rubber mixture [0037-0039]. In Table 2 [0083], the amount of silane coupling agent is 9 phr and 11.4 phr (which is within the claimed range of 8 phr to 15 phr of silane). The vulcanization of the rubber mixture is conducted in the presence of sulfur and/sulfur donors with the aid of vulcanization accelerators [0049] including sulfenamide accelerator [0050]. In Tables 1 and 2 [0077 and 0083], the amount of accelerator is 1.6 phr, 1.8 phr, and 1.9 phr (which is within the claimed range of less than 3 phr).
The rubber mixture is used for the production of pneumatic vehicle tires including truck tires [0058].
However, EICHHORST does not specifically teach wherein the silica has a BET surface area within a range of 260 m2/g and 350 m2/g.
In the same field of endeavor of vulcanized rubber composition (Abstract), KAMIMOTO teaches the rubber composition contains silica [0087], more specifically, the silica has a BET specific surface area of 20 to 400 m2/g [0088 and 0185]. The silica provides the rubber composition excellent abrasion resistance [0004, 0095, and 0187]. The vulcanized rubber composition is used to manufacture a tire [0094 and 0272].
Given EICHHORST teaches the rubber mixture for pneumatic vehicle tires comprising silica, more specifically a wide variety of different silicas [0035], it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have provided the silica of KAMIMOTO with the rubber mixture of EICHHORST for the benefit of obtaining a tire/rubber composition having excellent abrasion resistance as taught by KAMIMOTO. 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).
However, EICHHORST does not explicitly preferred embodiments of the amounts of the components.
As discussed above (see paragraph 10), EICHHORST teaches the rubber mixture contains 10-60 parts by weight, based on 100 parts by weight of the total rubbers in the mixture of at least one functionalized polybutadiene A, up to 90 phr of at least one further diene rubber (polyisoprene [0025 and 0027-0028]), and 30-350 phr of at least one filler (silica; [0032 and 0035]) (Abstract; [0010-0015]). More specifically, the rubber mixture contains 10 to 60 phr of at least one functionalized polybutadiene [0024], 50 to 150 phr of silica [0036], and at least one silane coupling agent in amounts of 1-15 phf (parts by weight, based on 100 parts by weight of silica) in the rubber mixture [0037-0039].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art was made to select the portion of the prior art's range which is within the range of applicant's claims because it has been held to be obvious to select a value in a known range by optimization for the best results. 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, 627 F.2d 272,276,205 USPQ 215,219 (CCPA 1980). See also In re Woodruff 919 F.2d 1575, 1578,16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (Fed. Cir. 1990), and In re AIIer, 220 F.2d 454,456,105 USPQ 233,235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 5, EICHHORST teaches the rubber mixture comprises optional fillers including carbon black [0032-0033]. Given the carbon black is an optional component, the position is taken that carbon black is not a required filler, therefore the rubber mixture is absent any carbon black which would read on less than 10 phr of carbon black as claimed.
Regarding claim 6, EICHHORST teaches the rubber mixture comprises a further diene rubber including natural and/or synthetic polyisoprene [0025-0027] which has a 99% by weight of natural rubber [0028].
Regarding claim 7, EICHHORST teaches the rubber mixture comprises functionalized polybutadiene having a glass transition temperature of -100oC to -60oC ([0019]; Claim 22).
Regarding claim 8, EICHHORST teaches the rubber mixture contains 10-60 parts by weight, based on 100 parts by weight of the total rubbers in the mixture of at least one functionalized polybutadiene A, up to 90 phr of at least one further diene rubber (polyisoprene [0025 and 0027-0028]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art was made to select the portion of the prior art's range which is within the range of applicant's claims because it has been held to be obvious to select a value in a known range by optimization for the best results. 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, 627 F.2d 272,276,205 USPQ 215,219 (CCPA 1980). See also In re Woodruff 919 F.2d 1575, 1578,16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (Fed. Cir. 1990), and In re AIIer, 220 F.2d 454,456,105 USPQ 233,235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 15, EICHHORST teaches the rubber mixtures can further contain customary additives [0041] including f) resins in the amount of 3 to 150 phr [0046-0047] (which reads on ii) less than 10 phr od resin) and plasticizers (oil) in an amount of 1 to 300 phr [0040].
Regarding claims 16 and 17, EICHHORST teaches the rubber mixture is used for the production of pneumatic vehicle tires including truck tires [0058]. More specifically, the pneumatic vehicle tire having the rubber mixture is arranged radially both outside and inside in the tread (cap/base construction) [0060].
Claims 9-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2021/115677 in view of WO 2020/175344 in further view of ITO (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0079936, hereinafter ITO).
To further advance the prosecution of this invention, EICHHORST et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0411613), which is an English equivalent of WO 2021/115677 will be used in the rejection and KAMIMOTO et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0119623, hereinafter KAMIMOTO), which is an English equivalent of WO 2020/175344 will be used in the rejection.
Regarding claims 9-12, the combined disclosures of EICHHORST and KAMIMOTO substantially teaches the present invention, see paragraphs 8-15 above. More specifically, EICHHORST teaches the rubber mixtures can further contain customary additives [0041] including f) resins in the amount of 3 to 150 phr [0046-0047].
However, the combined disclosures fail to teach a resin selected from terpene resins and terpene phenol resins.
In the same field of endeavor of tread rubber composition and a pneumatic tire (Abstract; [0001]) including tire for heavy load vehicles such as trucks and buses, light trucks, or two-wheeled vehicles [0114], ITO teaches the rubber composition contains a resin in order to provide good wet grip performance after thermal damage [0056]. The amount of resin is 5 parts to 50 parts [0057 and 0068]. The resin include terpene phenol resins [0062] and terpene resins [0058] which include polyterpene resins [0059-0060] such as pinene resin (β-pinene) [0061]. The weight average molecular weight (Mw) of the terpene resins is 1,000 to 5,000 [0063] and a softening point of180oC or less [0066].
Given EICHHORST teaches the rubber mixtures contains resins [0041], it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have provided the polyterpene resins of ITO with the combined disclosures of EICHHORST and KAMIMOTO for the benefit of obtaining good wet grip performance after thermal damage of pneumatic tires as taught by ITO. 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).
Regarding claim 14, EICHHORST teaches the rubber mixtures comprises silane coupling agents including 3-mercaptopropyltriethoxysilane, 3,3’-bis(triethoxysilylpropyl)tetrasulfide (TESPT), and etc. [0039].
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2021/115677 in view of WO 2020/175344 in further view of MAUS (U.S. Publication No. 2009/0114333, hereinafter MAUS).
To further advance the prosecution of this invention, EICHHORST et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0411613), which is an English equivalent of WO 2021/115677 will be used in the rejection and KAMIMOTO et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0119623, hereinafter KAMIMOTO), which is an English equivalent of WO 2020/175344 will be used in the rejection.
Regarding claim 18, the combined disclosures of EICHHORST and KAMIMOTO substantially teaches the present invention, see paragraphs 8-15 above. More specifically, EICHHORST teaches the rubber mixture is used for the production of pneumatic vehicle tires including truck tires [0058] and KAMIMOTO teaches the vulcanized rubber composition is used to manufacture a tire [0094 and 0272].
However, the combined disclosures of EICHHORST and KAMIMOTO do not teach wherein the tire is a 22.5 inch truck tire.
In the same field of endeavor of pneumatic tires, MAUS teaches a pneumatic tire can be used for a commercial truck tire having nominal bead diameter of 22.5 inches (88 mm) or greater [0011 and 0033]. The tire construction provides increasing bead durability under heavy loads or high heat conditions as seen in commercial vehicles [0033].
Given EICHHORST teaches the rubber mixture is used for the production of pneumatic vehicle tires including truck tires [0058] and KAMIMOTO teaches the vulcanized rubber composition is used to manufacture a tire [0094 and 0272], it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have provided a commercial truck tire having nominal bead diameter of 22.5 inches (88 mm) or greater of MAUS with the combined disclosures of EICHHORST and KAMIMOTO for the benefit of increasing bead durability under heavy loads or high heat conditions as taught by MAUS. 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).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2021/115677 in view of WO 2020/175344 in further view of MAUS (U.S. Publication No. 2009/0114333, hereinafter MAUS) as evidence by LECLERC (U.S. Publication No. 2005/0000739, hereinafter LECLERC).
To further advance the prosecution of this invention, EICHHORST et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0411613), which is an English equivalent of WO 2021/115677 will be used in the rejection and KAMIMOTO et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0119623, hereinafter KAMIMOTO), which is an English equivalent of WO 2020/175344 will be used in the rejection.
Regarding claim 19, the combined disclosures of EICHHORST, KAMIMOTO, and MAUS substantially teaches the present invention, see paragraphs 8-15 and 29-34 above.
More specifically, EICHHORST teaches the rubber mixture is used for the production of pneumatic vehicle tires including truck tires [0058] and KAMIMOTO teaches the vulcanized rubber composition is used to manufacture a tire [0094 and 0272]. As evidenced by LECLERC [0001], a semi-trailer is an industrial, truck, and two-wheeled tire vehicle as shown in Fig-1 and Fig-2 below. Therefore, the rubber composition of the combined disclosures of EICHHORST, KAMIMOTO, and MAUS can be used for those types of vehicle tires as disclosed by LECLERC.
PNG
media_image1.png
363
478
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-12 and 14-19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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