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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
3. Claim(s) 16-19, 22, 23, and 25-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gornard (FR 3063732, of record) and further in view of Araujo Da Silva (US 9,394,380, of record). It is initially noted that US 2021/0130578 will be relied upon in the rejection below as it constitutes an English equivalent of FR ‘732.
Gornard is directed to a tire composition including 100 phr of a random copolymer (and thus the sole elastomer) comprising ethylene units and conjugated diene units, a peroxide (claimed radical polymerization initiator), a polyfunctional acrylate (claimed co-crosslinking agent), and a reinforcing filler, such as silica (Paragraphs 10-12, 45, and 82). In such an instance, though, the composition of Gornard is not based on a 1,3 dipolar compound having a specific formula.
Araujo Da Silva is similarly directed to a tire composition and teaches the use of a 1,3 dipolar compound in order to reduce hysteresis (Column 1, Lines 9-17, Column 2, Lines 23+, and Columns 7 and 8). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include said 1,3 dipolar compound in the tire composition of Gornard for the benefits detailed above, there being a reasonable expectation of success when modifying the tire composition of Gornard with Araujo De Silva (benefits would be expected to be present since diene component is present in the compositions of Gornard and Araujo De Silva).
Also, regarding claim 16 (and claim 21), a reinforcing filler loading can vary between 5 phr and 65 phr (Paragraph 80) and such fully encompasses the broad range of the claimed invention (given that the composition can include carbon black and/or silica).
Lastly, regarding claim 16, Araujo De Silva teaches a preferred loading between 0.01 mol percent and 5 mol percent (Column 9, Lines 30+) and such fully encompasses the claimed range.
With respect to claims 17-19, see Columns 7 and 8 of Araujo Da Silva.
With respect to claims 22 and 23, the tire composition of Gornard includes coupling agents, such as polyorganosiloxanes (Paragraph 93).
As to claim 25, the tire composition of Gornard includes the claimed peroxides (Paragraph 75).
Regarding claim 26, Gornard teaches a ratio if at least 8% (Paragraph 78).
With respect to claims 27 and 28, Gornard teaches the claimed co-crosslinking agent (Paragraphs 16-21).
As to claim 29, Gornard teaches a loading between 5 and 40 phr (Paragraph 71).
Regarding claims 30 and 31, the general disclosure of a tire tread composition by Gornard would be recognized as encompassing pneumatic or non-pneumatic tire constructions.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant's arguments filed April 28, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that DaSilva is silent with respect to what specific fillers would be acceptable for use with its modified polymers or in what amounts. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Da Silva specifically teaches the modification of polymers (unsaturated diene elastomers or saturated diene elastomers) designed for tire components in order to reduce hysteresis (Column 1, Lines 5-20 and Column 2, Lines 23-28). More particularly, Da Silva states that such a modification provides good filler interaction, whether it is carbon black or an inorganic filler, and such is beneficial for the polymer properties (Column 1, Lines 20-30 and Column 2, Lines 39-42). Thus, there is a reasonable expectation of success when imparting a modification in the tire rubber composition of Gornard, which includes carbon black and/or silica, in view of Da Silva.
Applicant contends that Da Silva provides an amount of 1,3-dipolar compound in relation to the polymers of Da Silva but fails to teach any amounts of 1,3-dipolar compound in the broader context of a rubber composition. This argument is not entirely understood since the claims require a molar equivalent in relation to the monomer units constituting the copolymer and Da Silva similarly teaches a molar equivalent in relation to the copolymer.
Applicant further agues that Da Silva fails to specifically teach a copolymer of ethylene units and 1,3-diene units, wherein the ethylene units in the copolymer represent more than 50 mol of monomer units of the copolymer. It is emphasized that the pending rejection involves the modification of a copolymer taught by Gornard, which does in fact satisfy the claimed invention. Furthermore, Da Silva specifically states that the disclosed modification promotes hysteresis reduction in both unsaturated diene-based elastomers and saturated diene-based elastomers. Again, there is a reasonable expectation of success when modifying a wide variety of elastomer materials (unsaturated or saturated) filled with any number of reinforcing fillers, including the ethylene-butadiene copolymer of Gornard filled with carbon black and/or silica.
In regards to the crosslinking system, such is present in the composition of Gornard and nothing in Da Silva suggests that the disclosed modification is in operable with said crosslinking system. In fact, as detailed above, there is in fact a reasonable expectation of success when modifying the elastomeric materials of Gornard in view of Da Silva (no evidence that the disclosed benefits of Da Silva would not be realized with specific crosslinking systems).
Conclusion
5. 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.
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN R FISCHER whose telephone number is (571)272-1215. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 5:30-2:00.
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, Katelyn Smith can be reached at 571-270-5545. 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.
Justin Fischer
/JUSTIN R FISCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749 May 11, 2026
Prosecution Insights