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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of the elects Group I, claim 1-4, in the reply filed on 2/25/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the feature of polymer chain corresponding to a maximum peak (L) has a degree of adsorption onto silica of less than 40%. This is not found persuasive because Atsushi (US20200010579, herein Atsushi) teaches the conjugated diene polymer has two or more peaks in a molecular weight distribution curve obtained by measurement with gel permeation chromatography [0023], wherein, the molecular weight distribution curve contains a peak (A) having a peak molecular weight of 500,000 to 2,500,000 [0058], overlaps the maximum peak (L) molecular weight range; and a peak (B) having a peak molecular weight of 150,000 to 600,000 [0058] overlaps the finally detected peak (Z) molecular weight range. Atsushi further teaches the third peak with peak molecular weight of the peak except the peak (A) and the peak (B) is preferably 50,000 to 200,000 [0064]. Hence, the three peaks as taught by Atsushi can meet the claimed the conjugated diene polymer has a molecular weight distribution curve of three peaks, and peaks (A) and (B), overlaps the claimed range of the claimed peaks (L) and (Z). Furthermore, the silica adsorption percentage is based upon the molecular weight distribution curve contains a peak (A) having a peak molecular weight of 500,000 to 2,500,000 [0058], which can lead to the claimed the degree of adsorption of the polymer chain corresponding to the maximum peak (L) onto silica, as this degree is based on the equation of degree of adsorption (%) of polymer chain corresponding to maximum peak (L) onto silica=[1−(P2×P3)/(P1×P4)]×100 (I) [Instant App. US20230374182; 0331], based upon the maximum peak (L) obtained from the styrene-based column and silica-based column, wherein, the maximum peak (L) is determined by the specificity of the conjugated diene polymer.
Additionally, the claim 1 is open to the polymer chain corresponding to a maximum peak (L) has a degree of adsorption onto silica of less than 40%, which indicates that the polymer chain corresponding to a maximum peak (L) has a degree of adsorption onto silica can be 0%. Hence, it is noted that the conjugated diene polymer does not make the contribution to the prior art.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atsushi (US20200010579, herein Atsushi).
Regarding Claims 1-2: Atsushi teaches polymerization of the modified conjugated diene polymer [0098], wherein, the conjugated diene polymer is formed by the reaction of example 11 [0433], including: 1,3-butadiene, styrene, cyclohexane, and polar substances consisting of tetrahydrofuran (THF), 2,2-bis(2-oxolanyl)propane (BOP), and n-butyllithium, silicon tetrachloride [0425-0428]. Atsushi further teaches solvent include, but are not limited to, hexane, cyclohexane [0116], addition of a polar compound is effective, for example, for improving the polymerization rate, the polar compound include tetrahydrofuran (THF), 2,2-bis(2-oxolanyl)propane (BOP) and tetramethylethylenediamine [0182], polar substances piperidine [0361]. Because both the hexane, cyclohexane [0116] as taught by Atsushi are known in the art to be useful as solvent for polymerization, at the time of the invention a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select both of the hexane, cyclohexane, and would have been motivated to do so because both compounds individually are known to be effective inert solvent used in the conjugated diene polymer polymerization and modification process.
Furthermore, because both the tetrahydrofuran (THF), 2,2-bis(2-oxolanyl)propane (BOP) and tetramethylethylenediamine [0182], polar substances piperidine [0361] as taught by Atsushi are known in the art to be useful as polar compound during polymerization to control microstructure (cis/trans ratio, vinyl bond content) of the conjugated diene polymer [0107], at the time of the invention a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select both of the tetramethylethylenediamine, piperidine, and would have been motivated to do so because both compounds individually are known to be effective to control microstructure (cis/trans ratio, vinyl bond content) of the conjugated diene polymer [0107]. (see MPEP 2144.06).
The above teaching from Atsushi can collectively lead to the production 11 [0369] with the reaction of hexane, cyclohexane, tetramethylethylenediamine, 1,3-butadiene, styrene, piperidine, butyllithium, methanol, silicon tetrachloride [Instant App. US20230374182; 0359 and 0369], hence, can further lead to the specific conjugated diene polymer formation with the claimed molecular weight distribution.
Moreover, Atsushi explicitly teaches the conjugated diene polymer has two or more peaks in a molecular weight distribution curve obtained by measurement with gel permeation chromatography [0023], wherein, the molecular weight distribution curve contains a peak (A) having a peak molecular weight of 500,000 to 2,500,000 [0058], overlaps the maximum peak (L) molecular weight range; and a peak (B) having a peak molecular weight of 150,000 to 600,000 [0058] overlaps the finally detected peak (Z) molecular weight range. Atsushi further teaches the third peak with peak molecular weight of the peak except the peak (A) and the peak (B) is preferably 50,000 to 200,000 [0064]. Hence, the three peaks as taught by Atsushi can collectively meet the claimed conjugated diene polymer has a molecular weight distribution curve of three peaks, and peaks (A) and (B), overlaps the claimed range of the claimed peaks (L) and (Z). Furthermore, the silica adsorption percentage is based upon the molecular weight distribution curve contains a peak (A) having a peak molecular weight of 500,000 to 2,500,000 [0058], which can lead to the claimed the degree of adsorption of the polymer chain corresponding to the maximum peak (L) onto silica, as this degree is based on the equation of degree of adsorption (%) of polymer chain corresponding to maximum peak (L) onto silica=[1−(P2×P3)/(P1×P4)]×100 (I) [Instant App. US20230374182; 0331], based upon the maximum peak (L) obtained from the styrene-based column and silica-based column, wherein, the maximum peak (L) is determined by the specificity of the conjugated diene polymer as set forth above.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the peak area ranges by loading of a polymerization initiator and the selection of the coupling agent [0062], further apply into the composition formation process, because doing so would lead to the desired molecular weight range, which is affected by the molecular weight optimization, and further lead the balance between processability and abrasion resistance [0064], as taught by Atsushi.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding Claims 3-4: Atsushi teaches active ends of the conjugated diene polymer react with the coupling agent [0213], the active ends read on the terminal modifying group; Atsushi further teaches the conjugated diene polymer modified with the coupling agent of silicon tetrachloride [0224-0226], wherein, the silicon tetrachloride as a coupling agent can effectively links the polymer chains, collectively meet the polymer chains having an active terminal may be at least partially reacted with a coupling agent to form coupled polymer chains [Instant App. US20230374182; 0119], wherein, the coupling agent include, silicon tetrachloride [Instant App. US20230374182; 0200], which further collectively indicate the active ends of the conjugated diene polymer reacted with silicon tetrachloride, hence, can lead to the coupled chains formation.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Zhen Liu whose telephone number is (703)756-4782. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 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, Mark Eashoo can be reached on (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.
/Z.L./
Examiner, Art Unit 1767
/MARK EASHOO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1767
Prosecution Insights