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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/18/2026, has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 objected to because of the following informalities: “…graphene is less…” should be “…graphene has less…”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-7, 9-10, 13 are rejected 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang, et. al., (US20240034846, herein Zhang), as evidenced by Tour, et. al., (WO2020051000, herein Tour); and Wright, et. al., Nano Select. 2022, 3, 1054.
Regarding Claims 1-7, 9: Zhang teaches graphene rubber composite [0037] for automotive tires [0049] wherein, the turbostratic graphene rubber composite may include 0.01 to 50 parts per hundred rubber of turbostratic graphene [0037], overlaps the claimed range. The rubber includes styrene-butadiene rubber (SBR) [0119], which is diene-based elastomer. At the time of filing or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize and utilize the range of the turbostratic graphene rubber composite include 0.01 to 50 parts per hundred rubber of turbostratic graphene [0037] apply into the tire composition preparation. Doing so would further result in a composite material with mechanical, electrical, thermal and chemical material properties more favorable than comparable non-composite materials [0088] as taught by Zhang.
Zhang further teaches the features of turbostratic graphene, including: the turbostratic graphene may include 1 to 10 layers [0022] and the turbostratic graphene with random orientation [0107], collectively indicate the wherein the turbostratic graphene comprises a plurality of graphene layers that are randomly oriented relative to one another, and peak ratios 2 d/g (0.3-1.1) [0124]. Moreover, Turbostratic graphene is known for structure properties including: lack an M peak at 1750 cm−1 in Raman spectroscopy [0288]; turbostratic graphene; TSi is a single Lorentzian that occurs in the vicinity of 1880 cm 1 and TS2 consists of two closely space Lorentzians that occurs in the vicinity of 2030 cm 1 [0288], lie in the claimed range; and ID/G between 0.5-1.5 [Fig 5B]; I2D/G between 0.8-1 [Fig 5B]; and non-AB stacking; graphene lattices [0217] as evidenced by Tour, et. al., (WO2020051000, herein Tour)] further meet the claimed turbostratic graphene feature; Moreover, the turbostratic graphene has the oxygen content 0.05-2% [P1058; Table 1], lies in the claimed oxygen content, as evidenced by Wright, et. al., Nano Select. 2022, 3, 1054. Hence, the teachings from Zhang, and evidence refs Tour and Wright above, collectively match the turbostratic graphene features as claimed.
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 Claim 10: Zhang teaches turbostratic graphene may be functionalized [0043; 44; 55], which indicates the functionalization is optional, hence, the non-selection of the functionalization can lead to non-functionalized turbostratic graphene.
Regarding Claim 13: Zhang teaches the selection of turbostratic graphene [0124] as non-AB stacking; graphene lattices [0217] as evidenced by Tour, et. al., (WO2020051000, herein Tour); Zhang further expressly teaches turbostratic graphene to be easily dispersed into a solution and more uniformly mixed into the rubber matrix when producing a graphene rubber composite, compared to the hard-dispersing, thick-layer, Bernal stacked conventional graphene [0124], indicates the rubber composition lacks AB-stacked graphene as non-preferred selection.
Claims 11-12 are rejected 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang, et. al., (US20240034846, herein Zhang) as applied in claim 1 above, in the view of Du, et. al., (US9757983, herein Du).
Regarding Claims 11 and 12: Zhang teaches the tire as set forth in claim 1 above. Zhang teaches the turbostratic graphene containing media includes oil [0031], exemplified as TDAE oil 15 PHR [P9; Table 1], reads on the oil, and turbostratic graphene 25 PHR [P9; Table 1], therefore, the TDAE oil to turbostratic graphene ratio is 15/25=0.6, this ratio lies in range ratio according to the claimed ranges between the oil and turbostratic graphene. Zhang teaches carbon black as filler added to the turbostratic graphene rubber composite [0053], but does not explicitly teach the range of the carbon black. However, Du teaches 0 to about 30 phr, carbon black [C3; L28], overlaps the claimed range.
Zhang and Du are considered analogous art because they are reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, that of diene-based rubber and graphene composition formation including the selection of carbon black, toward tire manufacturing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the 0 to about 30 phr, carbon black [C3; L28] into the tire composition formation process, because doing so would further achieve the desired mechanical properties including: tensile strength of 13 MPa [Column 11; Table 2; Experiment C].
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.
Claim 14 is rejected 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang, et. al., (US20240034846, herein Zhang), as evidenced by Tour, et. al., (WO2020051000, herein Tour).
Regarding Claim 14: Zhang teaches graphene rubber composite [0037] for automotive tires [0049] wherein, the turbostratic graphene rubber composite may include 0.01 to 50 parts per hundred rubber of turbostratic graphene [0037], overlaps the claimed range, and turbostratic graphene has the feature of: lack an M peak at 1750 cm−1 in Raman spectroscopy [0288] as evidenced by Tour, et. al., (WO2020051000, herein Tour). Zhang further teaches the rubber includes styrene-butadiene rubber (SBR) [0119], which is diene-based elastomer. At the time of filing or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize and utilize the range of the turbostratic graphene rubber composite include 0.01 to 50 parts per hundred rubber of turbostratic graphene [0037] apply into the tire composition preparation. Doing so would further result in a composite material with mechanical, electrical, thermal and chemical material properties more favorable than comparable non-composite materials [0088] as taught by Zhang.
Zhang further teaches the curing process may be aided by adding crosslinking agent may include sulfur [0014-15], reads on the sulfur-vulcanizing agent.
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 3/18/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Zhang, et. al., (US20240034846, herein Zhang), as evidenced by Tour, et. al., (WO2020051000, herein Tour); and Wright, et. al., Nano Select. 2022, 3, 1054.
In this case, the applicant’s arguments are directed toward the amendment of the claims, which has been addressed by the rejection set forth above.
Additionally, regarding to “unexpected results”, when Examples A-H are considered as a whole, they establish results associated with the ranges, respect to the claimed ranges provided for comparison.
Claim 11 is open to the content of 0.5 phr to 150 phr of carbon black. However, Examples A-H only show data for carbon black one single value of the 48 phr [Instant App. US20230192986; P7; Table 3]. Hence, the Examples A-H are are not reasonably commensurate in scope with the claimed range of carbon black, therefore, insufficient to establish non-obviousness.
Whether unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support. In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range. See MPEP 716.02(d).
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