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 without traverse of Group I (claims 16-29), diene rubber comprises styrene-butadiene rubber (claim 17), and wherein the organic cationic moiety comprises a quaternary ammonium (claim 21) in the reply filed on 05/11/2026 is acknowledged.
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.
Claim 21 is 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. The claim recites, “the diene rubber-silica compound of claim 19, wherein the organic cationic moiety,” is indefinite because claim 19 does not recite “the organic cationic moiety.” Claim 21 should depend on claim 20.
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.
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 non-obviousness.
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 16-22 and 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MILLER (U.S. Publication No. 2017/0247532, hereinafter MILLER) in view of RAMAN et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2006/0225615, hereinafter RAMAN).
Regarding claims 16, 17, 20, 21, and 29, MILLER teaches rubber compositions comprising a conjugated diene-containing polymer, a reinforcing including silica, a bi-functional silane coupling agent, and an unsaturated non-sulfur silane coupling agent.
The conjugated-diene containing polymer include polybutadiene, styrene-butadiene rubber, styrene-isoprene rubber, styrene-butadiene-isoprene rubber, natural rubber, polyisoprene, and combination thereof [0036].
A method includes both in-situ reaction of the silica filler and the unsaturated, non-sulfur silane coupling agent and pre-reacting of at least a portion of the silica filler and at least a portion of the unsaturated, non-sulfur silane coupling agent (Abstract). The term “pre-reacted” is intended to denote reaction between the filler and the unsaturated, non-sulfur silane coupling agent whereby the unsaturated, non-sulfur silane coupling agent becomes bonded (e.g., via covalent bonds between silicon and oxygen) to the outer surface of the silica filler particles so that the silica filler can be described as “modified.”
The rubber compositions are used to manufacture tires and tire treads [0070].
However, MILER does not teach the silica filler having a surface-modified by covalent attachment of a cationic moiety which forms a cation-π interaction with the diene rubber matrix.
In the same field of endeavor of rubber compositions for tires (Abstract; [0008, 0129, and 0131]), RAMAN teaches treated filler and processes for producing said treated filler (Abstract). A process for producing treated filler which comprises treating a slurry comprising filler with at least one non-coupling material (e.g., organosilanes [0047-0051]) and at least one coupling material (e.g., mercaptoorganometallic compound [0053-0055], said non-coupling material chosen from cationic surfactants [0010]. The untreated filler (i.e., silica) can be prepared combining an aqueous solution of soluble metal silicate with acid to form a silica slurry [0021-0024]. Non-limiting examples of cationic surfactants can include quaternary ammonium surfactants [0027-0028] (reads on an organic cationic moiety as recited in claim 20). The treated filler can be coated by organic polymers which would form a modified silica[0115]. The treated filler can be included in organic polymeric compositions including elastomers and rubbers [0118], more specifically styrene -butadiene copolymer rubber [0122]. Note: the presence of cationic surfactant would intrinsically provide a cationic moiety which forms a cation-π interaction with the diene rubber matrix.
The rubber compound made with the treated filler provides improvements in Mooney viscosity, scorch time, cure time, rebound, stress/strain, dispersion, dynamic properties, and DIN abrasion [0349].
Given MILLER teaches the rubber compositions are used to manufacture tires and tire components [0070], it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have provided the cationic surfactants of RAMAN with the rubber compositions of MILLER for the benefit of obtaining rubber compound/products with excellent Mooney viscosity, scorch time, cure time, rebound, stress/strain, dispersion, dynamic properties, and DIN abrasion as taught by RAMAN [0349]. It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose, see In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846,850,205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding 18, the combined disclosures of MILLER and RAMAN teaches the present invention, see paragraphs 9-12 above. More specifically, RAMAN teaches a process for producing treated filler which comprises treating a slurry comprising filler with at least one non-coupling material (e.g., organosilanes [0047-0051]) and at least one coupling material (e.g., mercaptoorganometallic compound [0053-0055], said non-coupling material chosen from cationic surfactants [0010]. The untreated filler (i.e., silica) can be prepared combining an aqueous solution of soluble metal silicate with acid to form a silica slurry [0021-0024]. Non-limiting examples of cationic surfactants can include quaternary ammonium surfactants [0027-0028]. Note: quaternary ammonium has a carbon-carbon double bond.
Regarding claim 19, the combined disclosures of MILLER and RAMAN teaches the present invention, see paragraphs 9-12 above. More specifically, RAMAN teaches non-coupling material can include cationic, anionic, nonionic, and amphoteric surfactants [0010]. The word “can” be an optional term, therefore other surfactants are optional and not a required component, therefore, the claim is met.
Regarding claim 22, the combined disclosures of MILLER and RAMAN teaches the present invention, see paragraphs 9-12 above. More specifically, RAMAN teaches a process for producing treated filler which comprises treating a slurry comprising filler with at least one non-coupling material (e.g., organosilanes [0047-0051]) and at least one coupling material (e.g., mercaptoorganometallic compound [0053-0055], said non-coupling material chosen from cationic surfactants [0010]. The untreated filler (i.e., silica) can be prepared combining an aqueous solution of soluble metal silicate with acid to form a silica slurry [0021-0024]. Non-limiting examples of cationic surfactants can include quaternary ammonium surfactants [0027-0028]. The position is taken that the cationic moiety attaches to the silica filler via a linking group which forms a covalent bond to the silica filler and a covalent bond to the cationic moiety would intrinsically occur when the treated filler (e.g., silica) with the non-coupling material, and coupling material are combined together.
Regarding claims 27 and 28, the combined disclosures of MILLER and RAMAN teaches the present invention, see paragraphs 9-12 above. More specifically, MILLER teaches the methods of preparing a rubber composition wherein the final productive mixing stage comprises vulcanizing agents and vulcanization accelerators are added [0060] which would produce a vulcanized compound (i.e. tire and tire components [0070]). The rubber composition is cured or crosslinked rubber compositions may be referred to as vulcanizates [0070].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 23-26 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The combined disclosures of MILLER and RAMAN do not teach the linking groups as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVE V HALL whose telephone number is (571)270-7738. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9 am-5 pm, 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, Joseph Del Sole can be reached at (571) 272-1130. 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.
DEVE V. HALL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1763
/DEVE V HALL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763
Prosecution Insights