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. The Office Action is in response to the application filed December 01 , 2022. Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Claims 1-8 in the reply filed on November 19, 2025 is acknowledged. Claims 9-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claims. Priority Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in China on 2022-06-16 . It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the 202210682912.6 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55. Claim Analysis Summary of Claim 1: A wear-resistant graphene-modified natural rubber, wherein the wear-resistant graphene-modified natural rubber is prepared from 100 parts by weight of a modified natural rubber blend, A parts by weight of modified graphene oxide, 3 5-65 parts by weight of a first wear-resistant filler, 5-20 parts by weight of a second wear-resistant filler, 2-7 parts by weight of zinc oxide, 1-4 parts by weight of stearic acid, 1-4 parts by weight of poly(1,2-dihydro-2,2,4-trimethylquinoline) (antioxidant RD), 1-4 parts by weight of N-isopropyl-N'-phenyl-p-phenylenediamine (antioxidant 4010ONA), 1-4 parts by weight of a vulcanization accelerator, 1-2 parts by weight of sulphur , 0.1-3 parts by weight of a compatibilizer and 1-7 parts by weight of a rubber processing oil; wherein A is greater than 0 and equal to or less than 3; and the first wear-resistant filler is carbon black. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 1-8 are 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. Claim 1 contains the limitations ( antioxidant RD ) and (antioxidant 4010NA), however, it is unclear whether the terms inside the parentheses are required. For the purposes of examination, (antioxidant RD) and (antioxidant 4010NA) will be interpreted to refer to the preceding chemical names, poly(1,2-dihydro-2,2,4-trimethylquinoline and N-isopropyl-N'-phenyl-p-phenylenediamine , and thus, be required. Claim 1 contains the trademark/trade name antioxidant RD and antioxidant 4010NA . Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson , 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe poly(1,2-dihydro-2,2,4-trimethylquinoline and N-isopropyl-N'-phenyl-p-phenylenediamine and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite. Claims 2-8 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim. 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. Claim s 1-2 and 4 - 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. ( WO 2020247672 A1 ; hereafter as “Zhang” ) in view of Liu et al. ( CN 113462040 A ; cited in the IDS submitted on 12/01/2022; English translation incorporated herein; hereafter as “Liu”). Zhang teaches rubber compounds for tire treads [Claim 1; Examples 1-3] comprising: 100 parts by weight natural rubber [Table 3], corresponding to 100 parts by weight of a modified natural rubber blend of Claim 1; Graphene oxide [¶ 0048], corresponding to graphene oxide of Claim 1; 20-80 phr of at least one filler [¶0008, 0018], corresponding to the 35-65 parts by weight of a first wear-resistant filler and 5-20 parts by weight of a second wear-resistant filler of Claim 1; 3 parts by weight zinc oxide [Table 3], corresponding to 2-7 parts by weight of zinc oxide of Claim 1; 2 parts by weight stearic oxide [Table 3], corresponding to 1-4 parts by weight of stearic acid of Claim 1; 4 parts by weight antioxidant [Table 3], corresponding to the 2-8 parts by weight antioxidants of Claim 1; 6PPD [Table 1A], corresponding to the phenyl-p-phenylenediamine of Claim 1; 1.4 parts by weight TBBS accelerator [Table 3], corresponding to 1-4 parts by weight of a vulcanization accelerator of Claim 1; 1.2 parts by weight sulfur [Table 3], corresponding to 1-2 parts by weight of sulphur of Claim 1; and 0-50 phr extender oil, such as rubber processing oil [¶ 0137-0138], corresponding to 1-7 parts by weight of a rubber processing oil of Claim 1; Wherein 40 phr of the filler is carbon black [¶ 0018], corresponding to 35-65 parts by weight carbon black of Claim 1. Regarding Claims 1 , 4 and 7 -8 , Zhang is silent to 1-4 parts by weight of poly(1,2-dihydro-2,2,4-trimethylquinoline) of Claim 1, 1-4 parts by weight of N-isopropyl-N'-phenyl-p-phenylenediamine of Claim 1, compatibilizer of Claim s 1 and 7 , and wherein A is greater than 0 and equal to or less than 3 of Claim 1 , and vulcanization accelerator of Claims 4 and 8 . Nevertheless, Liu teaches rubber composite material [Abstract], comprising: 1 parts anti-aging agent RD [ ¶ 0024 ], corresponding to 1-4 parts by weight of poly(1,2-dihydro-2,2,4-trimethylquinoline) (antioxidant RD) of Claim 1; 1 part antioxidant 4010NA [ ¶ 0024 ], corresponding to 1-4 parts by weight of N-isopropyl-N'-phenyl-p-phenylenediamine (antioxidant 4010NA) of Claim 1; 3 parts gamma- aminopropyltriethoxysilane [ ¶ 0012 ], corresponding to 0.1-3 parts by weight of a compatibilizer of Claim 1, and thereby reading on 3-aminopropyltriethoxysilane of Claim 7; 0.5 wt. % graphene oxide [ ¶ 0040 ], corresponding to wherein A is greater than 0 and equal to or less than 3, which is equivalent to greater than 0 and less than 2 wt. %, of Claim 1 ; and NOBS [ ¶ 0021 ], thereby reading on the NOBS of Claims 4 and 8. Liu further teaches said rubber composite material has high heat conduction which slows down the thermal aging of the rubber tire [ ¶ 0007 ] . Zhang and Liu are considered to be analogous art as the claimed invention, as all are in the same field of methods of preparing rubber compositions for tires comprising natural rubber, graphene oxide, fillers, zinc oxide, stearic acid, vulcanizing accelerators, antioxidants, and sulfur . Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the antioxidants, gamma- aminopropyltriethoxysilane , graphene oxide amount , and NOBS of Liu with the rubber composition of Zhang , thereby arriving at the claimed invention. Regarding Claims 2, 5-6, Zhang further teaches: styrene-butadiene rubber [¶ 0023], thereby reading on the styrene butadiene rubber of Claim 2; and filler such as carbon nanotubes [¶ 0048] , thereby reading on the carbon nanotubes of Claim 6. I t is noted that carbon black N110 refers to an ASTM standard designation and as such the carbon black N110 of Zhang [¶ 0083 ], reads on the carbon black N110 of Claims 5. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. ( WO 2020247672 A1 ; hereafter as “Zhang”) in view of Liu et al. ( CN 113462040 A ; cited in the IDS submitted on 12/01/2022; English translation incorporated herein; hereafter as “Liu”) and in further view of Jia et al. ( CN 106589460 A ; English translation incorporated herein; hereafter as “Jia”) . Zhang and Liu teach the natural rubber, graphene oxide, fillers, carbon black, zinc oxide, stearic acid, vulcanizing accelerators, antioxidants, rubber processing oil, and sulfur of Claim 1 as set forth above and incorporated herein by reference. However, Zhang and Liu are silent to the steps to prepare modified graphene oxide of Claim 3. Furthermore , Jia teaches a rubber additive for modifying graphene oxide [Abstract], the steps comprising: Dissolving rubber additives, such as N-cyclohexyl-2-benzothiazole sulfenamide , in an organic solvent, such as ethanol to for a rubber additive solution [¶ 0011-0022], corresponding to a dissolving a sulfenamide vulcanization accelerator with ethanol to obtain a sulfenamide vulcanization accelerator solution; mixing the graphene oxide with water to obtain an aqueous dispersion of graphene oxide [¶ 0011-0022], corresponding to mixing graphene oxide with water to obtain a graphene oxide suspension; mixing the rubber additive solution with the graphene oxide aqueous dispersion and stirring the mixture at 50-100˚C for 2-7 hours [¶ 0011-0022], corresponding to adding the sulfenamide vulcanization accelerator solution into the graphene oxide suspension followed by reaction at 60-80˚C under stirring and overlaps with 1-3 hours to obtain a reaction mixture; washing and vacuuming dry the reaction product to obtain rubber additive modified graphene [¶ 0011-0022], corresponding to subjecting the reaction mixture to vacuum filtration, washing, centrifugation and drying to obtain the modified graphene oxide; Wherein the concentration of the rubber additive solution in step (2) is 1-10 mg/mL [¶ 0011-0022], which is equivalent to 1:(0.1-0.5), corresponding to wherein a weight ratio of the sulfenamide vulcanization accelerator to the ethanol is 1:(0.2-0.5); and Wherein the concentration of graphene oxide aqueous dispersion in step (1) is 0.5-1.5 mg/mL [¶ 0011-0022], which is equivalent to 2:(1-1.3 ), which overlaps a weight ratio of the graphene oxide to the water is 2:(0.5-1); Jia is silent to the ethanol containing water, and thus, for the purposes of examination will be interpreted to be anhydrous ethanol, corresponding to the claimed anhydrous ethanol. However, Jia does not explicitly teach a weight ratio of the graphene oxide to the water is 2:(0.5-1) and stirring for 1-3 h to obtain a reaction mixture. Nevertheless , one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range taught by Jia for the weight ratio of the graphene oxide 2:(1-1.3 ) and stirring duration (3-7 hours) overlaps the instantly claimed range s ( 2:(0.5-1 ) and 1-3 hours, respectively) and is therefore considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, MPEP 2144.05. Additionally, Claim 3 will be interpreted to be a product-by-process and “ e ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” (In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964,966). Once the Examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious different between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi , 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983), MPEP 2113. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT DORIS LING whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3961 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5:00pm . 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, ARRIE LANEE REUTHER can be reached on (571)270-7026. 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. /DORIS LING/ Examiner, Art Unit 1764 /ARRIE L REUTHER/ Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764