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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 01/15/2023, 03/14/2024. And 05/29/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the first mixer, mixing chamber, first filling opening, first ejection opening, second mixer, mixing chamber, second filling opening, second ejection opening (all recited in claims 16, 20-22, and 24-27), and the supply unit (claim 26) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 16-30 are 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.
Claim 16 recites “a mixing chamber” in lines 2 and 10. Presumably, these are two separate mixing chambers, but this is not clear. The Examiner suggests that these recitations be amended to, respectively, “a first mixing chamber” and “a second mixing chamber.”
Claim 16 also recites the term “preferably” in its last line. This renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear if the limitation following this term is required by the claim or is merely optional. For examination on the merits, the limitation following the term “preferably” is interpreted as being optional.
Claim 18 recites “at least one first rotor blade of the first mixing rotors and the second mixing rotors” in line 2-3 and “at least one second rotor blade of the first mixing rotors and the second mixing rotors” in lines 6-7. It is not clear what these rotor blades are given that claim 16 recites “at least two first rotor blades” and “at least two second rotor blades.” The Examiner suggests that claim 18 be amended to recite “a respective rotor blade of the first mixing rotors and the second mixing rotors” and “another respective rotor blade of the first mixing rotors and the second mixing rotors.”
Claim 20 recites “the rotor blade tip” in line 1. This limitation lacks proper antecedent basis in the claim.
Claim 20 also recites “a first rotor blade” in line 2. It is not clear if this is part of the “at least two first rotor blades” of claim 16.
Claim 21 recites “the rotor blade tip” in line 2. This limitation lacks proper antecedent basis in the claim.
Claim 21 also recites “a first rotor blade” in lines 2-3. It is not clear if this is part of the “at least two first rotor blades” of claim 16.
Claim 21 recites “the outer wall of the mixing rotor core” in lines 3 and 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 21 recites “a second rotor blade” in line 5. It is not clear if this is part of the “at least two second rotor blades” of claim 16.
As is clear from the previous rejections, claim 21 is grossly indefinite and requires significant revision for clarity. The Examiner has made an effort to point out all issues with the claim, but more issues may be present. It is the Applicant’s responsibility to ensure that claims are definite.
Claim 24 recites various structures found in claim 16 without proper antecedent basis, including “a first mixer”, “a mixing chamber”, “at least one mixing rotor”, “a first chamber volume”, “a chamber housing”, “a first filling opening”, “a first ejection opening”, “at least two first rotor blades”, “a second mixer”, “a mixing chamber”, “a chamber housing”, “a second filling opening”, “a second ejection opening”, “a mixing rotor core”, and “at least two second mixing blades”, among others. For all of these limitations, it is unclear if they are the same as the structures recited in claim 16 or if they are new structures. Claim 24 requires significant revision for clarity. The Examiner has made an effort to point out all issues with the claim, but more issues may be present. It is the Applicant’s responsibility to ensure that claims are definite.
Claim 24 recites “the blade field speeds” twice. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 24 recites “trans of the rubber mixture” in line 10. It is not clear what is meant by the phrase.
Claim 25 recites “the blade field speeds” four times in the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 26 recites the term “preferably” in line 2. This renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear if the limitation following this term is required by the claim or is merely optional. For examination on the merits, the limitation following the term “preferably” is interpreted as being optional.
Claim 26 also recites “the bottom chamber housing” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 27 recites “the blade field speeds” in lines 11 and 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 28 recites “the silica proportion of the rubber mixture lies in the range of 1 phr to 200 phr and/or less than 0.1 phr soot is present in the rubber mixture, the silica proportion lies in the range of 40 phr to 190 phr.” It is not clear if the two claimed silica proportions are alternatives or if one of them is related to the soot.
Any claim not specifically addressed above is rejected because it depends from one of more indefinite claims.
As stated above, multiple claims require significant revision for clarity. While the Examiner has made an effort to point out every clarity issue in the claims, it is ultimately the Applicant’s responsibility to ensure that the claims are clear and definite.
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 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.
Claims 16-28 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loubaresse et al. (US PGPub 2014/0200307, hereinafter Loubaresse) in view of Peter (US 5368383, hereinafter Peter ‘383) and Peter (DE10061473, hereinafter Peter ‘473, provided by Applicant).
Regarding claim 16, Loubaresse discloses a device for producing a rubber mixture, the device comprising:
a first mixer comprising a mixing chamber (figure 3, upper mixer) with at least one first mixing rotor (figure 1, blades 112 and 113), wherein the mixing chamber of the first mixer has a first chamber volume (see figures 1 and 3), and is delimited by a chamber housing (see figures 1 and 3), a first filling opening (indicated by arrow leading into mixer) and a first ejection opening (indicated by arrow leading out of mixer), wherein each of the at least one first mixing rotors comprises a mixer rotor core and at least one first rotor blade (see figure 1), wherein the ratio of the total volume of all first rotor blades of all first mixing rotors to the mixing volume of the mixing chamber of the first mixer constitutes a first volume ratio (both described structures would have a volume, and thus such a ratio would exist), and
a second mixer comprising a mixing chamber (figure 3, lower mixer) with at least one second mixing rotor (figure 1, blades 112 and 113), wherein the mixing chamber of the second mixer has a second chamber volume, and is delimited by a chamber housing (see figures 1 and 3), a second filling opening (indicated by arrow leading into mixer) and a second ejection opening (indicated by arrow leading out of mixer), wherein the at least one second mixing rotor has a mixer rotor core and at least one second rotor blade (see figure 1), wherein the ratio of the total volume of all second rotor blades of all second mixing rotors to the mixing volume of the mixing chamber of the second mixer constitutes a second volume ratio (both described structures would have a volume, and thus such a ratio would exist).
Loubaresse does not explicitly disclose at least two first and second rotor blades as recited. Peter ‘383 teaches a device for producing rubber (title) that includes two mixers (figure 1) wherein each mixer contains rotors having a rotor core (see rotors 14 and 20) and at least two rotor blades (see figures 2 and 3). To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have provided the apparatus of Loubaresse with the blades of Peter ‘383 because such a substitution of one known rubber-mixing rotor for another would have provided only the predictable result of mixing rubber, as evidenced by the references. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Loubaresse does not explicitly disclose the ratios as recited. Peter ‘473 teaches a device for producing rubber that includes two mixers wherein the ratio of the second chamber volume of the mixing chamber of the second mixer to the first chamber volume of the mixing chamber of the first mixer lies in the range of 15:1 to 1:1, the ratio of said first volume ratio to said second volume ratio lies in the range of 50:1 to 1:10, preferably in the range of 20:1 to 1:1 (paragraph 0018, “the fill volume of the second mixer is 20 to 60% greater than the fill volume of the first mixer”). The cited text would indicate a ratio of between 6:5 and 5:2, both of which fall within the recites ratio ranges. To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have provided the apparatus of Labouresse with the ratios of Peter ‘483 for the purpose of ensuring that “virtually the entire mixture can be absorbed by the region between the rotors and is situated virtually continuously in this region, with the result that good mixing of the rubber base mixture in the second mixer is ensured even without a die” (Peter ‘473: paragraph 0018).
Further, the examiner has found that the specification contains no disclosure of any unexpected results arising from the recited ratios, and that as such the parameters are arbitrary and therefore obvious. Such unsupported limitations cannot be a basis for patentability, because where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen parameters or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen parameters/variables are critical. See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990) and MPEP 2144.05(III).
With respect to the limitation of the ratios, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have provided the apparatus of Loubaresse with the dimensions recited in the instant claims, which are now considered at most an optimum choice, lacking any disclosed criticality.
Regarding claim 17, Loubaresse does not explicitly disclose the ratios as recited. Peter ‘473 teaches a device for producing rubber that includes two mixers wherein the ratio of said first volume ratio to said second volume ratio lies in the range of 5:1 to 1:10. (paragraph 0018, “the fill volume of the second mixer is 20 to 60% greater than the fill volume of the first mixer”). The cited text would indicate a ratio of between 6:5 and 5:2, both of which fall within the recites ratio ranges. To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have provided the apparatus of Labouresse with the ratios of Peter ‘483 for the purpose of ensuring that “virtually the entire mixture can be absorbed by the region between the rotors and is situated virtually continuously in this region, with the result that good mixing of the rubber base mixture in the second mixer is ensured even without a die” (Peter ‘473: paragraph 0018).
Further, the Examiner has found that the specification contains no disclosure of any unexpected results arising from the recited ratios, and that as such the parameters are arbitrary and therefore obvious. Such unsupported limitations cannot be a basis for patentability, because where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen parameters or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen parameters/variables are critical. See In re Woodruff, supra and MPEP 2144.05(III).
With respect to the limitation of the ratios, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have provided the apparatus of Loubaresse with the dimensions recited in the instant claims, which are now considered at most an optimum choice, lacking any disclosed criticality.
Regarding claims 18 and 19, Loubaresse is silent to the ratios as recited. Peter ‘383 teaches a device for producing rubber that includes two mixers wherein at least one first rotor blade of the first mixing rotors and the second mixing rotors has a first aspect ratio formed from the height of one of the first rotor blades to the effective diameter of said one first rotor blade in the range of 50:1 to 1:10; and at least one second rotor blade of the first mixing rotors and the second mixing rotors has a second aspect ratio, wherein the second aspect ratio formed from the height of one of the second rotor blades to the effective diameter of said one second rotor blade lies in the range of 50:1 to 1:10 and wherein the ratio of the first aspect ratio to the second aspect ratio lies in the range of 100:1 to 1:10 (see figures 3 and 4). Given the similarity of these figures to figure 1 of the instant disclosure, one of ordinary skill in the art would immediately understand that the blades of Peter fit within the extremely broad ratios of claims 18 and 19. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the apparatus of Loubaresse with the ratios of Peter ‘383 because such a simple substitution of known elements would have provided only the expected result of mixing rubber, as evidenced by the references. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), supra.
Further, the Examiner has found that the specification contains no disclosure of any unexpected results arising from the recited ratios, and that as such the parameters are arbitrary and therefore obvious. Such unsupported limitations cannot be a basis for patentability, because where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen parameters or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen parameters/variables are critical. See In re Woodruff, supra and MPEP 2144.05(III).
With respect to the limitation of the ratios, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have provided the apparatus of Loubaresse with the dimensions recited in the instant claims, which are now considered at most an optimum choice, lacking any disclosed criticality.
Regarding claim 20, Loubaresse is silent to the ratios as recited. Peter ‘383 teaches a device for producing rubber that includes two mixers wherein a ratio of the minimum distance between the rotor blade tip of a first rotor blade and an inner wall of the chamber housing of the first mixer to the minimum distance between the rotor blade tip of a second rotor blade and the inner wall of the chamber housing of the second mixer lies in the range of 10:1 to 1:50. (see figures 1, 3, and 4). Given the similarity of these figures to figure 1 of the instant disclosure, one of ordinary skill in the art would immediately understand that the blades of Peter fit within the extremely broad ratios of claim 20. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the apparatus of Loubaresse with the ratios of Peter ‘383 because such a simple substitution of known elements would have provided only the expected result of mixing rubber, as evidenced by the references. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), supra.
Further, the Examiner has found that the specification contains no disclosure of any unexpected results arising from the recited ratios, and that as such the parameters are arbitrary and therefore obvious. Such unsupported limitations cannot be a basis for patentability, because where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen parameters or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen parameters/variables are critical. See In re Woodruff, supra and MPEP 2144.05(III).
With respect to the limitation of the ratios, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have provided the apparatus of Loubaresse with the dimensions recited in the instant claims, which are now considered at most an optimum choice, lacking any disclosed criticality.
Regarding claim 21, Loubaresse discloses mixers having two rotors (see figure 1), but is silent to the ratios as recited. Peter ‘383 teaches a device for producing rubber that includes two mixers wherein the first and second mixers each have two mixing rotors, wherein the ratio of the minimum distance between the rotor blade tip of a first rotor blade of a mixing rotor of the first mixer and the outer wall of the mixing rotor core of the other mixing rotor of the first mixer to the minimum distance between the rotor blade tip of a second rotor blade of a mixing rotor of the second mixer and the outer wall of the mixing rotor core of the other mixing rotor of the second mixer lies in the range of 50:1 to 1.01:1 (see figures 1, 3, and 4). Given the similarity of these figures to figure 1 of the instant disclosure, one of ordinary skill in the art would immediately understand that the blades of Peter fit within the extremely broad ratios of claim 21. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the apparatus of Loubaresse with the ratios of Peter ‘383 because such a simple substitution of known elements would have provided only the expected result of mixing rubber, as evidenced by the references. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), supra.
Further, the Examiner has found that the specification contains no disclosure of any unexpected results arising from the recited ratios, and that as such the parameters are arbitrary and therefore obvious. Such unsupported limitations cannot be a basis for patentability, because where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen parameters or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen parameters/variables are critical. See In re Woodruff, supra and MPEP 2144.05(III).
With respect to the limitation of the ratios, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have provided the apparatus of Loubaresse with the dimensions recited in the instant claims, which are now considered at most an optimum choice, lacking any disclosed criticality.
Regarding claim 22, Loubaresse discloses an apparatus that produces non-vulcanized (paragraph 0057 indicates that vulcanization systems are introduced after the mixers) vehicle tire components (paragraph 0002), but does not explicitly disclose the ratios as recited. It is noted that what the device produces is an intended use of the device that does not affect its structure. Peter ‘473 teaches a device for producing rubber that includes two mixers wherein the volume ratio of the second chamber volume of the mixing chamber of the second mixer to the first chamber volume of the mixing chamber of the first mixer lies in the range of 14:1 to 1.1:1 (paragraph 0018, “the fill volume of the second mixer is 20 to 60% greater than the fill volume of the first mixer”). The cited text would indicate a ratio of between 6:5 and 5:2, both of which fall within the recites ratio ranges. To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have provided the apparatus of Labouresse with the ratios of Peter ‘483 for the purpose of ensuring that “virtually the entire mixture can be absorbed by the region between the rotors and is situated virtually continuously in this region, with the result that good mixing of the rubber base mixture in the second mixer is ensured even without a die” (Peter ‘473: paragraph 0018).
Further, the examiner has found that the specification contains no disclosure of any unexpected results arising from the recited ratios, and that as such the parameters are arbitrary and therefore obvious. Such unsupported limitations cannot be a basis for patentability, because where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen parameters or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen parameters/variables are critical. See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990) and MPEP 2144.05(III).
With respect to the limitation of the ratios, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have provided the apparatus of Loubaresse with the dimensions recited in the instant claims, which are now considered at most an optimum choice, lacking any disclosed criticality.
Regarding claim 23, Loubaresse discloses a device that is configured to produce a rubber mixture or for producing non-vulcanized vehicle tire components and/or a vehicle tire (see paragraphs 0002 and 0057, as cited above).
Regarding claim 24, Loubaresse discloses a first and second mixers configured to mix of a rubber mixture in a first mixer, wherein the first mixer has a mixing chamber and at least one mixing rotor in the mixing chamber of the first mixer (figure 3, step C), transport the rubber mixture mixed in the first mixer into a second mixer (step D and transport indicated by arrows), wherein the second mixer has a mixing chamber and at least one mixing rotor in the mixing chamber of the second mixer (see figure 3), and mix of the rubber mixture mixed in the first mixer in the second mixer (figure 3, the devices labeled “mixer” are used for mixing the rubber). With respect to the blade field speeds, this is a method of operating the device that is not related to its structure. As held in In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967), “the manner or method in which such machine is utilized is not germane to the issue of patentability of the machine itself.” Nonetheless, the apparatus disclosed in Loubaresse contains all the necessary structure to provide the blade field speeds of the present application, and thus the claims are met.
It is noted that the structures and ratios set forth in claim 24 are largely redundant from claim 16, and those limitations have been addressed above.
Regarding claim 25, the blade field speeds are deemed to be a method of operating the device that is not related to its structure. As held in In re Casey, supra, “the manner or method in which such machine is utilized is not germane to the issue of patentability of the machine itself.” Nonetheless, the apparatus disclosed in Loubaresse contains all the necessary structure to provide the blade field speeds of the present application, and thus the claims are met.
Regarding claim 26, Loubaresse discloses the second mixer has a supply unit for supplying rubber mixture constituents to the bottom chamber housing (see arrows in figure 3), preferably a supply unit for supplying vulcanization agents to the mixing chamber of the second mixer, wherein between usage steps A) to C), or during usage steps A) and/or C), vulcanization agents are transferred to the mixing chamber of the second mixer so that a non-vulcanized finished rubber mixture is produced during usage step C). It is noted that the term “preferably” renders the limitations related to vulcanization agents optional, and thus the claim is met.
Regarding claim 27, Loubaresse discloses a method for producing non-vulcanized vehicle tire components comprising:
providing rubber mixture constituents (figure 3, step A), mixing the rubber mixture constituents into a basic rubber mixture using a first mixer (figure 3, step C and D);
mixing of the basic rubber mixture with vulcanization agents and further rubber mixture constituents to produce a finished rubber mixture in a second mixer (figure 3, within lower mixer);
shaping and cutting the finished rubber mixture to produce non-vulcanized vehicle tire components (paragraph 0041); and
vulcanizing one or more of the vehicle tire components together with further tire components to produce a vehicle tire (paragraph 0002).
Loubaresse is silent to blade field speeds. Peter ‘383 teaches a method for producing tire components including two mixers (figure 1) wherein the blade field speeds acting on the rubber mixture in the mixing chamber of the second mixer are lower than the blade field speeds acting on the rubber mixture in the mixing chamber of the first mixer (column 3, lines 34-37, “the final mixer 4 is operated at a comparatively slower speed”; claim 11). To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have provided the method of Loubaresse with the slower speed in the second mixer of Peter ‘383 for the purpose of producing a tire composition having the desired properties.
Regarding claim 28, Loubaresse discloses the rubber mixture comprises silica, wherein the silica proportion of the rubber mixture lies in the range of 1 phr to 200 phr and/or less than 0.1 phr soot is present in the rubber mixture, the silica proportion lies in the range of 40 phr to 190 phr (paragraph 0038).
Regarding claim 30, Loubaresse discloses the rubber mixture comprises at least one rubber selected from the group consisting of IIR, EPDM, NR, IR, SBR, SSBR and BR (paragraph 0033).
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loubaresse et al. (US PGPub 2014/0200307, hereinafter Loubaresse) in view of Peter (US 5368383, hereinafter Peter ‘383) and Peter (DE10061473, hereinafter Peter ‘473, provided by Applicant), as applied to claim 27 above, and further in view of Kayser et al. (US PGPub 2002/0019473, hereinafter Kayser).
Regarding claim 29, Loubaresse is silent to silanes as recited. Kayser teaches a method of producing a tire compound (title) including a rubber mixture comprising one or more silanes, wherein the silane proportion of the rubber mixture lies in the range of 0.01 phr to 50 phr (paragraph 0043). To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have provided the method of Loubaresse with the silane of Kayser for the purpose of improving the properties of the final mixture (paragraphs 0015 and 0016).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The cited prior art generally discloses mixing apparatuses and methods for tire compositions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARC C HOWELL whose telephone number is (571)272-9834. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5.
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, Claire Wang can be reached at 571-270-1051. 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.
/MARC C HOWELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774