DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s amendment dated 19 August 2025 is hereby acknowledged. Claims 1-8 and 15-20 as amended are pending. All outstanding objections and rejections made in the previous Office Action, and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior office action.
New grounds of rejection set forth below are necessitated by applicant’s amendment filed on 19 August 2025. For this reason, the present action is properly made final.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: the word “catalys” should be amended to “catalyst”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1, 5-7, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2012-077134 A (“Hasekawa”) in view of US 2013/0289165 (“De Landtsheer”) and US 2014/0124113 (“Miyazaki”).
A partial machine translation of JP 2012-077134 A is enclosed.
As to claims 1 and 7, Hasekawa teaches a rubber composition for a cap tread of a tire (para. 0008), thus the portion of a tread to be in contact with a road surface. Hasekawa teaches a diene rubber composition containing natural rubber and polybutadiene rubber (para. 0021), and specifically exemplifies the use of BR1250H, a tin modified polybutadiene (para. 0043; table 1).
Hasekawa teaches the use of carbon black, exemplifying the use of 40 parts of carbon black per 100 parts of diene rubber (table 1). Further, Hasekawa teaches a range of 35 to 60 parts by weight of carbon black to provide abrasion resistance with processability.
While not exemplified with tin modified butadiene rubber, Hasekawa teaches the utility of 0 to 15 parts by weight of silica, which overlaps the recited range (para. 0018). Hasekawa teaches the use of these amounts for abrasion resistance and low heat buildup (para. 0018). Hasekawa teaches that the silica should also include silane coupling agent (para. 0018). As such, the recited amount of silica and silane coupling agent are obvious modifications suggested by Hasekawa.
Hasekawa does not teach a compound of formula (1) or (2). De Landtsheer teaches general compositions of diene rubber mainly based on natural rubber predominantly carbon black (abstract), and teaches the utility of a hydrazide to provide improvement in the dispersion of carbon black (para. 0011), thus reducing hysteresis. Hasekawa teaches a general formula I (para. 0033) with R groups including the recited A groups of claim 1 (para. 0035), specifically preferring phthalic dihydrazide, isophthalic dihydrazide, terephthalic dihydrazide, succinic dihydrazide, adipic dihydrazide, azelaic dihydrazide, sebacic dihydrazide, dodecanoic dihydrazide as required by claim 7 and which are within the definition of claim 1. As such, it would be an obvious modification to incorporate the dihydrazide compounds of De Landtsheer into the composition of Hasekawa in order to improve dispersibility of carbon black and reduce hysteresis.
Hasekawa teaches a cap tread, but does not discuss base rubber. However, Miyazaki teaches that tire treads may have a two layer structure of an outer cap tread and inner surface layer called a base tread (para. 0079); thus, the use of a cap tread rubber as an outer surface (in contact with road) in conjunction with a base tread is an obvious modification known in the art of tire treads.
As to claim 5, Hasekawa teaches the use of carbon black having a BET specific surface area, which is a nitrogen specific surface area in the recited range (see table 3). While not exemplified, Hasekawa teaches the use of BET surface area of silica being 90 to 220 m2/g for tear resistance and abrasion resistance (para. 0029), and other examples of Hasekawa exemplify silica having such a surface are of 205 m2/g (para. 0043). As such, the use of fillers, including in the recited surface area, are an obvious modification suggested by Hasekawa.
As to claim 6, Hasekawa does not exemplify the recited proportion of natural rubber and tin modified polybutadiene rubber. Hasekawa suggests, however, using 50 to 100 parts of natural rubber to 0 to 50 parts of polybutadiene rubber, preferably 60 to 80 parts of natural rubber and 20 to 40 parts of polybutadiene rubber (para. 0021), which largely overlap the recited range. Therefore, it would be an obvious modification to use tin modified polybutadiene rubber, including in the recited range, as these are considered to be preferred ranges of the two rubbers by Hasekawa.
As to claim 15, Hasekawa does not discuss use in a heavy duty tire. However, Miyazaki suggests compositions mainly containing isoprene based rubbers, such as natural rubbers, are suitable for heavy duty tires (paras. 0003-0004), and as such, the use of the compositions of Hasekawa for such tires is an obvious end use suggested by Miyazaki.
Claim(s) 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2012-077134 A (“Hasekawa”) in view of US 2013/0289165 (“De Landtsheer”) and US 2014/0124113 (“Miyazaki”) as applied to claim 1, further as evidenced by JP 2012-144642 A (“Hirabayashi”).
As to claims 2-4, Hasekawa teaches BR1250H formed using a lithium catalyst (para. 0043), but does not discuss an organolithium catalyst, nor the cis content. However, Hasekawa teaches the use of BR1250H (para. 0155), which as evidenced by Hirabayashi, para. 0040, is polymerized with an organolithium catalyst with a cis content in the recited range of claims 3 and 4.
Claim(s) 8, 16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2012-077134 A (“Hasekawa”) in view of US 2013/0289165 (“De Landtsheer”).
As to claims 8, 16, and 20, Hasekawa teaches a rubber composition for a cap tread of a tire as required by claims 8 and 16 (para. 0008), thus the portion of a tread to be in contact with a road surface. Hasekawa teaches a diene rubber composition containing natural rubber and polybutadiene rubber (para. 0021), and specifically exemplifies the use of BR1250H, a tin modified polybutadiene (para. 0043; table 1).
Hasekawa teaches the use of carbon black, exemplifying the use of 40 parts of carbon black per 100 parts of diene rubber (table 1). Further, Hasekawa teaches a range of 35 to 60 parts by weight of carbon black to provide abrasion resistance with processability.
While not exemplified with tin modified butadiene rubber, Hasekawa teaches the utility of 0 to 15 parts by weight of silica, which overlaps the recited range (para. 0018). Hasekawa teaches the use of these amounts for abrasion resistance and low heat buildup (para. 0018). Hasekawa teaches that the silica should also include silane coupling agent (para. 0018). As such, the recited amount of silica and silane coupling agent are obvious modifications suggested by Hasekawa.
Hasekawa does not teach a compound of formula (2). De Landtsheer teaches general compositions of diene rubber mainly based on natural rubber predominantly carbon black (abstract), and teaches the utility of a hydrazide to provide improvement in the dispersion of carbon black (para. 0011), thus reducing hysteresis. Hasekawa teaches a general formula I (para. 0033) with R groups including the recited A groups of claim 1 (para. 0035), specifically preferring phthalic dihydrazide, isophthalic dihydrazide, terephthalic dihydrazide, succinic dihydrazide, adipic dihydrazide, azelaic dihydrazide, sebacic dihydrazide, dodecanoic dihydrazide as required by claim 20 and which are within the definition of claim 8. As such, it would be an obvious modification to incorporate the dihydrazide compounds of De Landtsheer into the composition of Hasekawa in order to improve dispersibility of carbon black and reduce hysteresis.
As to claim 18, Hasekawa teaches the use of carbon black having a BET specific surface area, which is a nitrogen specific surface area in the recited range (see table 3). While not exemplified, Hasekawa teaches the use of BET surface area of silica being 90 to 220 m2/g for tear resistance and abrasion resistance (para. 0029), and other examples of Hasekawa exemplify silica having such a surface are of 205 m2/g (para. 0043). As such, the use of fillers, including in the recited surface area, are an obvious modification suggested by Hasekawa.
As to claim 19, Hasekawa does not exemplify the recited proportion of natural rubber and tin modified polybutadiene rubber. Hasekawa suggests, however, using 50 to 100 parts of natural rubber to 0 to 50 parts of polybutadiene rubber, preferably 60 to 80 parts of natural rubber and 20 to 40 parts of polybutadiene rubber (para. 0021), which largely overlap the recited range. Therefore, it would be an obvious modification to use tin modified polybutadiene rubber, including in the recited range, as these are considered to be preferred ranges of the two rubbers by Hasekawa.
Claim(s) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2012-077134 A (“Hasekawa”) in view of US 2013/0289165 (“De Landtsheer”) as applied to claim 8, further as evidenced by JP 2012-144642 A (“Hirabayashi”).
As to claim 8, Hasekawa teaches BR1250H formed using a lithium catalyst (para. 0043), but does not discuss an organolithium catalyst, nor the cis content. However, Hasekawa teaches the use of BR1250H (para. 0155), which as evidenced by Hirabayashi, para. 0040, is polymerized with an organolithium catalyst with a cis content in the recited range of claim 17.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-8 and 15-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KREGG T BROOKS whose telephone number is (313)446-4888. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9 am to 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, Arrie 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.
/KREGG T BROOKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764