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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments entered on April 15, 2026 have been entered. Claims 1-7 and 9-20 are pending in the application. Claims 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 1-2, 5-7 and 9-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacoby et al (US 2021/0024739 A1) in view of Minagawa (JPH11343366 A), as evidenced by PubChem (Compound: Triethylene Glycol, 2005, National Library of Medicine).
Regarding Claims 1 and 9: Jacoby teaches a pretreated silica that has been surface treated with an organosilane and a polyethylene glycol (para. 0036).
However, Jacoby is silent to the molecular weight of the polyethylene glycol.
Minagawa teaches a silica filler that has been pre-treated with a polyethylene glycol having a weight-average molecular weight of 800 or less (para. 0018), such as triethylene glycol (para. 0023), which has a molecular weight of 150.17 g/mol (PubChem). Minagawa teaches that a PEG with this molecular weight reduces the Mooney viscosity of the resulting rubber composition (para. 0023) and improves workability and processability (para. 0013). Minagawa and Jacoby are analogous art because they are directed toward the same field of endeavor, namely rubber compositions containing pretreated silica.
Regarding Claim 2: Jacoby teaches precipitated silica.
Regarding Claims 5-7: Jacoby teaches that a suitable silane is an organoalkoxysilyl polysulfide (para. 0036), which reads on the limitations of claims 5-6. Jacoby further teaches 3,3′-bis(trimethoxy or triethoxy silylpropyl) polysulfide (para. 0029) as an example of the organoalkoxysilyl polysulfide, which reads on the bis(trialkoxysilylalkyl) polysulfides of claim 7.
Regarding Claims 10-11 and 13-14: Jacoby teaches a composition comprising 100 phr of a blend of polybutadiene and styrene-butadiene rubber, 100-150 phr of the pretreated silica, carbon black (para. 0009), a processing additive such as a resin (para. 0044), and a cure package comprising a sulfur vulcanizing agent (para. 0044) and a vulcanization accelerator (para. 0045).
Regarding Claim 12: Jacoby does not teach fillers other than the pretreated silica and the carbon black.
Regarding Claim 15: Jacoby teaches an antioxidant and antiozonant (para. 0044).
Regarding Claim 16: Jacoby teaches that the rubber composition may be used in a tire tread (para. 0002).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacoby et al (US 2021/0024739 A1) in view of Minagawa (JPH11343366 A), as evidenced by PubChem (Compound: Triethylene Glycol, 2005, National Library of Medicine) and Solvay (Zeosil Premium: The new High Surface Silica technology for Tires).
Jacoby and Minagawa teach the limitations of claim 1, as set forth above. Jacoby does not explicitly teach the CTAB surface area of the silica; however, Jacoby teaches Zeosil 1165MP as an example of a suitable silica (para. 0035), which has a CTAB specific surface area of 160 m2/g (Solvay, p.3).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacoby et al (US 2021/0024739 A1) in view of Minagawa (JPH11343366 A) and Kahner et al (US 2025/0018745 A1), as evidenced by PubChem (Compound: Triethylene Glycol, 2005, National Library of Medicine).
Jacoby and Minagawa teach the limitations of claim 1, as set forth above. However, Jacoby and Minagawa are silent to the silica being derived from rice husk ash.
Kahner teaches a silica derived from rice husk ash, which desirable because it is sourced from a renewable raw material and improves the rolling resistance and tear properties of rubber tires (para. 0029). Kahner and Jacoby are analogous art because they are directed toward the same field of endeavor, namely silica-filled rubber compositions for use as tire treads.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use silica particles derived from rice husk ash in the pretreated silica material taught by Sandstrom in order to make a sustainable material that improves the rolling resistance and tear properties of rubber tires.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 15, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Furthermore, Jacoby explicitly teaches pretreatment with silane (para. 0036), and Minagawa explicitly teaches pre-treatment with a PEG compound (para. 0013). Jacoby and Minagawa, in combination, teach pre-treatment of silica with both silane and PEG.
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 CAITLIN N ILLING whose telephone number is (571)270-1940. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-4PM.
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.
/C.N.I./Examiner, Art Unit 1767
/MARK EASHOO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1767
Prosecution Insights