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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 December 21, 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) 15 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grassi et al (US 2015/034644).
Regarding claims 15, Grassi teaches that a sulfur cross linkable ([0262]) rubber mixture is incorporated into a pneumatic tire such as carcasses or belt structures ([0004]) which can incorporate textile strength members ([0346]).
Grassi teaches that the elastomers are a mixture of polyisoprene and styrene-butadiene rubbers ([0224]) and these are the only two components in the elastomer portion of the mixture ([0224]).
Grassi teaches that the mixture contains 0.5 to 10 phr of a methylene acceptor ([0257]) such as Alnovol PN760 ([0247]) (same compound used in applicant’s examples) which is a novolak resin – resorcinol butyl carbamate functionalized phenol formaldehyde resin and 0.5 to 15 phr of a methylene donor ([0238]) such as a melamine resin such as HMMM ([0237]). Grassi teaches that the composition is free from resorcinol (Abstract). Grassi does not teach the addition of an organic metal salt. Grassi teaches that the ratio of the novolak resin to the melamine resin can range from 1:10 and 10:1 ([0258]).
Grassi fails to specifically exemplify the recited tire. However, Grassi discloses each of the components of the tire, and teaches that they are all suitable for use in a tire composition. It is within the ordinary level of skill in the art to make any of the tires suggested by a reference, including selecting materials from a list in a reference. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to prepare any of the tires suggested by Grassi, including the claimed tire. In view of this, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the present invention to use the teachings of Grassi to arrive at the presently claimed invention. It would have been nothing more than using known compounds in a typical manner to achieve predictable results. KSR v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 418, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 18, Grassi teaches that the mixture contains 0.5 to 10 phr of a methylene acceptor ([0257]) such as Alnovol PN760 ([0247]) (same compound used in applicant’s examples) which is a novolak resin – resorcinol butyl carbamate functionalized phenol formaldehyde resin and 0.5 to 15 phr of a methylene donor ([0238]) such as a melamine resin such as HMMM ([0237]). Given these amounts, the total amounts of the two components can be calculated to range from 1 to 25 phr based on 100 phr of the mixture of the butadiene rubber and the isoprene rubber.
Claim(s) 26-28, 30 and 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grassi et al (US 2015/0314644) in view of Peters et al (US 2018/0100057).
The discussion regarding Grassi in paragraph 4 above is incorporated here by reference.
Regarding claims 26-27, Grassi teaches that there is 0.05 to 10 phr of a vulcanization accelerator ([0271]) which includes sulphonamide ([0270]), this can be the only accelerator in the composition ([0269]). Therefore, there is zero phr of any other accelerators.
However, it fails to teach that the accelerator is DCBS.
Peters teaches a rubber composition (Abstract) which incorporates a sulphonamide accelerator such as DCBS ([0093]).
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 DCBS of Peters as the sulphonamide accelerator of Grassi. It would have been nothing more than using a known accelerator in a typical manner to achieve predictable results. KSR v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. _, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 28, Grassi teaches that the mixture contains 0.05 to 10 phr of sulfur ([0262]). Grassi teaches that the elastomers are a mixture of polyisoprene and styrene-butadiene rubbers ([0024]) and these are the only two components in the elastomer portion of the mixture ([0224]).
Regarding claim 30, Grassi teaches that the ratio of the novolac resin to the melamine resin can range from 1:10 and 10:1 ([0258]).
Regarding claim 36, Grassi teaches that the mixture contains 0.5 to 10 phr of a methylene acceptor ([0257]) such as Alnovol PN760 ([0247]) (same compound used in applicant’s examples) which is a novolak resin – resorcinol butyl carbamate functionalized phenol formaldehyde resin and 0.5 to 15 phr of a methylene donor ([0238]) such as a melamine resin such as HMMM ([0237]). Given these amounts, the total amounts of the two components can be calculated to range from 1 to 25 phr based on 100 phr of the mixture of the butadiene rubber and the isoprene rubber.
Response to Arguments
The double patenting rejection set forth in paragraph 8 of the office action mailed on September 25, 2025 is withdrawn in light of applicants’ amendment filed on December 21, 2025.
Applicant's arguments filed December 21, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the reasons set forth below:
Applicant’s argument: Inventive mixture 12 affords a marked improvement in adhesion and markedly shortened t90 and a markedly reduced tan δ.
Examiner’s response: The examiner has considered the data presented in inventive mixture 12. It is noted that the amount of the HMMM is 1.92 phr which is outside the claimed range of 1.2 to 1.8 phr. Therefore, the data presented for inventive mixture 12 is no longer reads on the claimed invention. Actually, there appears to be no examples which are inventive.
Applicant’s argument: Grassi does not designate any narrow numerical combination within its broad ranges as prefer for textile reinforcement, nor does it link a particular donor/acceptor window or ratio to improve dynamic performance.
Examiner’s response: In order to overcome the above rejection in which Grassi teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention, albeit with broader overlapping ranges, applicants need to show the criticality of the claimed range with unexpected results. As none of the data presented is an inventive tire composition, unexpected results over the scope of the claimed invention cannot be determined.
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