DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s response of October 1, 2025 has been fully considered. Claim 1 is amended and claims 1-19 are pending.
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 .
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.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al. (US 9,890,267) in view of Tashima (WO 2019/235075). For convenience, the citations below for Tashima are taken from an English language machine translation included previously.
Regarding claims 1, 3, 4, 7-10, 13, and 19, Tanaka et al. teaches a rubber composition for a tire soft stiffener comprising (Abstract; Col. 18, lines 1-10) 100 phr of natural rubber (Tables 1 and 2; Col. 10, lines 40-41), at least one carbon black coupling agent in a preferable amount of 0.05 to 2 parts by weight and a total blend amount of 0.05 to 20 parts by weight (Col. 10, lines 10-21), and carbon black (Col. 1, lines 15-20). The carbon black coupling agents are a bismaleimide that can be N,N′-1,2-phenylenedimaleimide, N,N′-1,3-phenylenedimaleimide, or N,N′-1,4-phenylenedimaleimide (Col. 7, lines 62-65); and an alkylidene hydrazide such as 3-hydroxy-N-(1,3-dimethylpropylidene)-2-naphthoic hydrazide (Col. 8, lines 49-50).
Tanaka et al. does not teach that the carbon black is present in 35 to 45 parts by mass, has a nitrogen adsorption specific surface area of less than 40 m2/g, or a compressed oil absorption amount of 60 ml/100 g or more. However, Tashima teaches a rubber composition for a tire (Page 1, line 11) comprising a diene rubber (Page 2, lines 29-35) and 5 to 50 parts by mass of carbon black that can be GPF for example (Page 8, lines 13-20). GPF carbon black is the same as N660, which has a nitrogen adsorption specific surface area of 35 m2/g and a compressed oil absorption of 74 mL/100 g (see, Wang et al., Carbon Black, Encyclopedia of Polymer Science and Technology, page 67). Tanaka et al. and Tashima are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor as that of the instant invention, namely that of rubber compositions for tires. At the time of the filing of the instant invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use from 5 to 50 parts by mass of GPF grade carbon black, as taught by Tashima, in the composition, as taught by Tanaka et al., and would have been motivated to do so to further improve the reinforcing property of the rubber composition.
Regarding claim 2, Tanaka et al. teaches that the hydrazide compound can be, for example, 3-hydroxy-N-(1,3-dimethylpropylidene)-2-naphthoic hydrazide (Col. 8, lines 49-50). Simply modifying the R1 variable by one carbon atom will produce the claimed 3-hydroxy-N-(1,3-dimethylbutylidene)-2-naphthoic hydrazide. R1 is taught to contain from 1 to 18 carbon atoms (Col. 8, lines 25-30).
Regarding claims 5, 11, 14, and 16, Tanaka et al. does not require silica as a filler (Examples contain no silica).
Regarding claims 6, 12, 15, 17, and 18, Tanaka et al. teaches that the composition contains 3 parts by mass of zinc oxide (Col. 16, line 46).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 1, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the statement in the instant specification regarding that “it is preferable to use SRF, GPF, and FEF grade carbon black” is for the purpose of achieving superior low heat build-up and wear resistance and does not admit that these grades satisfy the claimed carbon black properties of a nitrogen adsorption specific surface area of less than 40 m2/g and a compressed oil adsorption number of 60 ml/100 g or more. This argument is unpersuasive. As stated in the above rejection, GPF grade carbon black, which is N660, has a N2SA of 35 m2/g and a COAN of 74 ml/100 g. Therefore, the rejection of record does meet the claimed limitations.
Applicant also argues that the references are not analogous art because the invention disclosed in Tashima is directed to improvement of ice performance of tire treads and Tanaka et al. is directed to rubber compositions for soft stiffeners. Applicant states that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to apply the carbon black of Tashima to the invention of Tanaka et al. This argument is unpersuasive. Applicant’s claims are all directed simply to a rubber composition and then later, to a tire comprising the rubber composition. There is no claim limitation of how or where the rubber composition must be used within the tire, or, aside from claim 19, that the rubber composition even be used in a tire at all. Tanaka et al. and Tashima both teach rubber compositions that comprise diene-based rubbers such as natural rubber, carbon black as a filler, and that are used in tire construction. These references do not have to be directed to the same portion of a tire in order to be analogous art. Therefore, this argument is unpersuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELA C SCOTT whose telephone number is (571)270-3303. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30-5:00, 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, Mark Eashoo can be reached at 571-272-1197. 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.
/ANGELA C SCOTT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767