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 .
Election/Restrictions
Group II-IV (claims 18-20) are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6/2/2025.
Species (b), (c), (e) and (f) (claims 5-6) are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected species.
Claim status
The claims filed on 8/12/2026 has been entered. No claim(s) is/are currently amended. Claim(s) 1-11 and 13-20 is/are pending with claim(s) 5-6 and 18-20 withdrawn from consideration. Claim(s) 1-4, 7-11 and 13-17 is/are under examination in this office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's argument filed on 8/12/2026, with respect to 112(b) rejection has been fully considered and is persuasive. The 112(b) rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant's argument filed on 8/12/2026, with respect to 103 rejection has been fully considered but is not persuasive.
Applicant argued that The Office Action does not explain why a person of ordinary skill would have reasonably expected these disparate technologies to function together in a unified tire-to-antidegradant manufacturing process. In particular, the rejection appears to assume that Cheng's benzene-synthesis process would operate predictably using Trapp's tire-derived syngas merely because Cheng broadly states that syngas may originate from various carbon resources. However, Trapp itself recognizes variability and processing challenges associated with waste-derived syngas, while Cheng emphasizes the sensitivity of aromatic synthesis to catalyst and process conditions. These disclosures undermine the assumption that all syngas streams are interchangeable or that downstream catalytic performance would remain predictable when supplied with tire-derived syngas.
In response, the 103 rejection explicitly stated that each of the claimed intermediate product (e.g., syngas) can be made based on the prior art teaching. For example, the 103 rejection clearly states that Trapp teaches producing syngas from shredded tires; and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use shredded tires to make the syngas. It is true that Trapp teaches challenges; but the challenges does not prevent one of ordinary skill in the art to make syngas from shredded tires. The claimed limitation is about converting shredded tires to syngas, not about challenges.
Applicant argued that while the Examiner has shown individual process steps, the rejection does not sufficiently establish that combining tire gasification, syngas conditioning, benzene synthesis, aniline synthesis, and tire-additive synthesis into a single sequential reactor system would have been a predictable variation with a reasonable expectation of success. The Office Action identifies a pathway by which the claim can be reconstructed from the prior art, but it does not adequately explain why a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to create the specific claimed tire-to-antidegradant process or reasonably expected that the integrated process would successfully operate as claimed.
In response, since the prior arts teach all of the claimed steps, the whole process is prima facie obvious. It is the applicant’s burden to show why the combination of the prior arts would not have a reasonable expectation of success.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 7-11 and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nandi et al (US 20150045584 A1) in view of Hattori et al (US 20150315125 A1), Cheng et al. (“Bifunctional Catalysts for One-Step Conversion of Syngas into Aromatics with Excellent Selectivity and Stability Chem 3, 334–347, August 10, 2017 ª 2017 Elsevier Inc.), and Trapp et al (US 20200248083 A1).
Regarding claims 1-4, 7, 10-11, Nandi teaches a process for the manufacture of 4-aminodiphenylamine (4-ADPA), which is used to make N-(1,3-dimethylbutyl)-N'-phenyl para-phenylenediamine (6PPD), used as antioxidants and antiozonants for rubber products, especially in tire manufacture [abstract, 0002].
The examiner submits that the antioxidants and antiozonants read on the recited tire-forming additive in claim 1 and anti-degradant in claim 2; the 4-aminodiphenylamine reads on the recited anti-degradant in claim 3; the N-(1,3-dimethylbutyl)-N'-phenyl para-phenylenediamine (6PPD) is equivalent to the recited N-(1,3-dimethylbutyl)-N'phenyl-1,4-benzenediamine in claim 4.
Nandi teaches that 4-ADPA is synthesized from aniline [abstract, 0003, 0015].
Nandi does not teach that the aniline is synthesized from the at least one of the benzene and the alkyl-substituted benzene.
In the same field of endeavor, Hattori teaches a method of synthesizing substances for tire rubber [abstract] comprising synthesizing nitrobenzene from benzene followed by synthesizing aniline from nitrobenzene [0145-0146]. This reads on the recited synthesizing at least one of aniline and an alkyl-substituted aniline in claims 1 and 10.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use Hattori’s method to synthesize the aniline, as it is expressly disclosed as being useful in this capacity.
Hattori does not teach synthesizing at least one of benzene and an alkyl-substituted benzene, from carbon monoxide and hydrogen in the syngas.
Cheng teaches synthesizing aromatics such as benzene from syngas using zeolite catalyst; and the syngas is a mixture of carbon monoxide and hydrogen [p. 334, under “Summary” and “Introduction”]. The syngas can be produced from various carbon resources, even waste [Introduction]. Chen teaches adjusting the CO/H2 molar ratio in the syngas to obtain selectivity of aromatics, based on different syngas resources [P336 Fig. 1; P337 Fig. 2; P337 last full para.]. Therefore, the recited “conditioning the syngas by adjusting an H₂/CO molar ratio to a composition suitable for benzene synthesis” is obvious; and the syngas with the right CO/H2 molar ratio meets the claimed “conditioned syngas”.
The examiner submits that the above teaching by Cheng reads on claims 7 and 11.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use Cheng’ conditioned syngas to make the benzene, as it is expressly disclosed as being useful in this capacity.
Cheng does not teach converting at least one of shredded tires and rubber-containing components of shredded tires to syngas.
In the same field of endeavor, Trapp teaches a process of producing syngas from post-consumer tires [0016-0017]. The tires are shredded [0036]. Shredded tires are generally recognized as a waste. Cheng teaches that the syngas source can be waste, as stated above.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use shredded tires to make the syngas, as it is expressly disclosed as being useful in this capacity.
Even though no reference individually teach the recited limitation “wherein each synthesis step is performed in a sequential reactor system fluidly connected to the preceding step”, the combination of Trapp, Cheng, Hattori, and Nandi would obviously lead to this limitation, because the combination of Trapp, Cheng, Hattori, and Nandi requires putting each of the individual processes together, each of the individual processes becoming individual steps; and these steps must be performed in a sequential reactor system fluidly connected to the preceding step because each preceding step makes the product recited in the subsequent step; and all the product must be transferred from one step to another as a fluid.
Regarding claim 8, Cheng teaches that the catalyst system is Zn-ZrO2 nanoparticles and H-ZSM-5 zeolite [p. 334 under “Summary”]. The Zn-ZrO2 reads on the claimed zinc-based catalyst.
Regarding claim 9, Cheng teaches that the aromatics are produced by re-forming of naphtha [p. 335, first para.]. Since the starting material is syngas as stated above, the process comprises converting syngas into naphtha followed by re-formation of naphtha into the aromatics (e.g., benzene).
Regarding claim 13, Trapp teaches reducing sulfur content in the syngas, resulting purified syngas stream suitable for manufacture of chemicals [0182]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to reduce a sulfur content of the syngas in order to obtain purified syngas stream suitable for manufacture of chemicals.
Regarding claim 14, Trapp teaches separating ash from the syngas [0124, 0184].
Regarding claim 15, Trapp teaching using post-consumer waste tires for recycle [0002-0003], which read on the claimed end of life tires.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nandi in view of Hattori, Cheng and Trapp as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Willigenburg (US 20200399546 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Nandi in view of Hattori, Cheng and Trapp teaches the method in claim 1. Nandi in view of Hattori, Cheng and Trapp does not teach synthesizing a rubber polymer from syngas and combining the rubber polymer with the tire-forming additive.
Willigenburg teaches synthesizing butadiene (1,3-butadiene) from naphtha [0040, 0043, 0046, 0085]; whereas naphtha can be obtained from syngas [0027].
Hattori teaches synthesis of styrene butadiene rubber (SBR) from 1,3-butadiene [0169].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to synthesize 1,3-butadiene from syngas according to Willigenburg; and then synthesizing SBR polymer from 1,3-butadiene according to Hattori, because Willigenburg and Hattori disclosed that the methods are suitable for making 1,3-butadiene and SBR polymer, respectively.
Nandi teaches using additives such as 4-ADPA and 6PPD in rubber products, especially for tires, as stated above. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the additives taught by Nandi with the SBR polymer.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nandi in view of Hattori, Cheng and Trapp as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Kim (US 20200010741A1) and Kriegel et al. (US 20090246430A1).
Regarding claim 17, Nandi in view of Hattori, Cheng and Trapp teaches the method in claim 1. Nandi in view of Hattori, Cheng and Trapp does not teach synthesizing a reinforcing material from syngas and combining the reinforcing material with a rubber composition derived from the tire-forming additive and a rubber-forming polymer.
Hattori further teaches that fillers may be included in rubber compositions used to form tires [0113).
In the same field of endeavor, Kim teaches that polyester fibers such as PET are used as reinforcing material in tires [0002).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to select polyester fibers such as PET as the reinforcing material in the tire rubber of Nandi in view of Hattori, Cheng and Trapp, as Kim expressively teaches polyester fibers such as PET are as being useful in this capacity. It has been established that selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obvious (Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)). See MPEP 2144.07.
Kim does not teach that the polyester fibers such as PET are formed from Syngas.
In the same field of endeavor, Kriegel teaches a bio-based PET [Abstract] formed by a process including steps of converting syngas to p-xylene, and oxidizing p-xylene to terephthalic acid [0025], to take advantage of a production method reliant on renewable resources rather than petroleum [0006].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to form the PET fibers by first producing terephthalic acid from syngas to take advantage of a production method reliant on renewable resources rather than petroleum.
Hattori teaches (SBR) as a rubber-forming polymer for tires as stated above. Nandi teaches 4-ADPA and 6PPD as tire-forming additives as stated above. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the polyester fibers such as PET derived from syngas as the reinforcing material with the tire-forming additive taught by Nandi and the rubber-forming polymer taught by Hattori in tires.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIANGTIAN XU whose telephone number is (571)270-1621. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday.
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, Robert Jones can be reached on (571) 270-7733. 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.
/JIANGTIAN XU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762
Prosecution Insights