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 .
A new set of rejections with Hirayama and Wittmann is provided when considering the claims in terms of product by process limitations. The previously applied rejections are similarly provided in the event that sufficient evidence is provided to support the manufacture of a materially different article when following the processes associated with the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
4. Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 7-9, 12, 13, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirayama (JP 2007-246808, of record) and further in view of Wittman (US 2022/0145085, of record).
Hirayama is directed to a tire construction having a plurality of conventional components (e.g. tread, sidewall, carcass, clinch or chafer, belts, innerliner, beads, etc.) (Paragraph 30). Hirayama further states that said components are formed with natural rubber (non-fossil origin) (Paragraph 6). Hirayama states that the use of natural rubber, as opposed to synthetic rubber, provides environmental benefits (Paragraph 15). It is further noted that a fair reading of Hirayama suggests that all common tire components can be solely formed with natural rubber (Paragraph 30) and such would include all the common tire components required by claim 1. Additionally, a fair reading of Hirayama suggests tire constructions in which any combination of tire components is formed with the environmentally friendly composition of Hirayama (not exclusive to a tire in which every tire component is formed with the disclosed composition).
The tire rubber composition of Hirayama further includes carbon black. In such an instance, though, Hirayama fails to disclose a composition in which more than half of the carbon black has a modern content of greater than 50%.
Wittman is similarly directed to a tire construction and teaches the replacement of conventional carbon black with biogenic carbon black (carbon black that has been produced from renewable materials) (Paragraphs 28-30). Wittman further states that (a) such a biogenic carbon black promotes the environment and provides good filler properties (reinforcement properties) and (b) such a biogenic carbon black can replace up to all of the conventional carbon black (Paragraphs 5, 6, 132, and 146). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use biogenic carbon black in the tire of Hirayama for the benefits detailed above.
With further respect to said biogenic carbon black, Wittman describes the use of vegetable oils or animal fats and more broadly describes the use of any biomass (Paragraph 30). This description appears to be consistent with a percent of modern carbon that is 100% (see Paragraphs 60 and 61 in Applicant’s originally filed specification).
Lastly, regarding claim 1, the language “at least 80 wt% raw materials from non-fossil origin and optionally recycled materials from fossil origin” does not exclude the presence of both materials from non-fossil origin and materials from fossil origin. The language “recycled materials from fossil origin” does not require a tire in which “recycled materials” are actually used since the claims are directed to a tire article as opposed to a method of manufacture. There is no evidence of record that suggests a materially distinction between materials from fossil origin and recycled materials from fossil origin. Thus, any tire can be viewed as having “100% raw materials from non-fossil origin and optionally recycled materials from fossil origin”. For example, a first tire formed solely with materials of fossil origin and a second tire formed solely with recycled materials of fossil origin would both satisfy the claimed invention (in both instances, a final tire article would comprise materials from fossil origin). It is emphasized that the determination of patentability is based on the product itself and the manner in which the materials of fossil origin are provided does not appear to result in a materially different tire article (the characterization of “recycled” materials amounts to a product by process limitation and it appears that the final tire article, in terms of structural makeup, would be the same when using non-recycled or recycled materials of fossil origin).
Regarding claim 3, in a similar manner to above, the tire of Hirayama is seen to satisfy the claim since the term “recycled” is associated with the manner in which the at least one reinforcement is formed and such fails to further define the structure of the claimed tire article (lack of evidence that a final tire article with “recycled” matter is materially different from a final tire article with “non-recycled” matter).
With respect to claims 4 and 7-9, in a similar manner to above, there is no evidence that the use of materials from fossil origin or non-fossil origin results in materially different tire articles.
Regarding claim 12, Hirayama is directed to a tire construction in which all components are designed to be environmentally friendly. Hirayama further states that such components are preferably formed with 100 phr of natural rubber. The reference further states, though, that said components can be formed with a combination of natural rubber and synthetic rubbers, such as butadiene rubber and styrene butadiene rubber (Paragraph 15). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to use any combination of materials to form any of the basic or fundamental tire components detailed by Hirayama. It is emphasized that a critical aspect of Hirayama is the use of rubber compositions that provide environmental benefits and such is consistent with the modified rubber compositions of Hirayama. Additionally, the term “mass-balanced” corresponds with the method of manufacture and fails to further define the structure of the claimed tire article (no evidence that a materially different tire article results from using mass-balanced materials and materials not falling under such a designation).
Regarding claim 13, the manner in which the carbon black is derived pertains to the method of manufacture and such fails to further define the structure of the claimed tire article.
With respect to claim 18, Hirayama can be formed solely of natural rubber.
5. Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirayama and Wittman as applied in claim 1 above and further in view of Okamoto (JP 2010-95604, newly cited).
As detailed above, Hirayama is directed to an environmentally friendly tire design including a composition comprising natural rubber, carbon black, and silica, wherein said composition has utility in any number of tire components, including the tread, sidewall, clinch, apex, carcass, belt, innerliner, and beads. Hirayama further states, as is common in the tire industry, that “compounding agents generally used in the tire industry” can be included. While Hirayama fails to expressly teach the inclusion of softener or processing oils, such additives are well recognized as being “compounding agents generally used” in almost every tire rubber composition to promote processing. More particularly, it is well known to use oils from non-fossil origin, such as soybean oil, in a wide variety of tire components, including the tread, sidewall, chafer, bead, carcass, belt, and innerliner, as shown for example by Okamoto (Paragraphs 97 and 98). The particular use of soybean oil, for example, remains consistent with the inventive concept of Hirayama to manufacture an environmentally friendly tire construction. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include the claimed oil in the rubber compositions of Hirayama for the benefits detailed above.
6. Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 7-9, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirayama and further in view of Wittmann, KR 100369713 (of record), Vanhoech (US 2021/0060821, of record), Innovation in Textiles (of record), and Forbes (of record). This rejection is provided in the event that sufficient evidence is provided to suggest that the disclosed method results in a materially different tire article.
Hirayama is directed to a tire construction having a plurality of conventional components (e.g. tread, sidewall, carcass, clinch or chafer, belts, innerliner, beads, etc.) (Paragraph 30). Hirayama further states that said components are formed with natural rubber (non-fossil origin) (Paragraph 6). Hirayama states that the use of natural rubber, as opposed to synthetic rubber, provides environmental benefits (Paragraph 15). It is further noted that a fair reading of Hirayama suggests that all common tire components can be solely formed with natural rubber (Paragraph 30) and such would include all the common tire components required by claim 1. Additionally, a fair reading of Hirayama suggests tire constructions in which any combination of tire components is formed with the environmentally friendly composition of Hirayama (not exclusive to a tire in which every tire component is formed with the disclosed composition).
Hirayama, however, fails to describe additional materials in respective components as being “environmentally friendly” and as such, the reference fails to specifically teach a tire formed with at least 80% by weight raw materials from non-fossil origin.
In any event, (a) the primary contributions to the weight of tire rubber compositions (both those in cord reinforced components and thus devoid of cord reinforcements) is conventionally the rubber material and the reinforcing filler and (b) a major contribution to the weight of cord reinforced components, in additional to the rubber, is the reinforcing cord. The general use of “environmentally friendly” materials for the reinforcing filler, such as carbon black and/or silica, and for the cord reinforcement is known. Wittman teaches the use of “biogenic carbon black” (as a complete or partial replacement of carbon black and such encompasses a loading greater than half as required by the claimed invention) that is produced from renewable raw materials derived from plants or animals, such as vegetable oils, in tire applications since it provides high reinforcement properties while providing environmental benefits (Paragraphs 3-6, 28, 29, 132, 146, and 149), KR ‘713 teaches the use of silica derived from rice husks in tire components to provide high reinforcement while providing environmental benefits, Vanhoech teaches the use of bio-sourced yarns based on polyamides in rubber reinforcements designed for car tires (Paragraphs 29 and 60), Innovations in Textiles discloses the known use of recycled polyester fibers for tire reinforcing cords, and Forbes teaches the manufacture of fossil-free steel. All of these disclosures teach the use of “environmentally friendly” materials- the particular use of such materials in the tire of Hirayama would have been obvious given the specific disclosure (by Hirayama) to use environmentally friendly materials. Also, there is a reasonable expectation of success when using these materials in the tire of Hirayama since the above noted references recognize the suitability of the disclosed environmentally friendly materials in the tire industry and/or recognize the comparable properties of such materials while providing environmental benefits. Again, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to use any combination of “environmentally friendly materials” in the tire of Hirayama, specifically in view of the disclosure by Hirayama to use natural rubber for environmental benefits.
Also, it appears that the use of natural rubber, biogenic carbon black, silica from rice husks, and cord materials that constitute “environmentally friendly” or “sustainable materials” would result in a tire that is at least 80% by weight based on raw materials from non-fossil origin (additional materials, e.g. sulfur, make up an extremely small percentage of the overall tire).
Lastly, regarding claim 1, Wittman describes the primary use of vegetable oils to form biogenic carbon black (Paragraph 30) and such appears to be consistent with a biomass content that approaches 100% (completely formed with present day biomass). This is based on Applicant’s disclosure in Paragraphs 60 and 61. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to use the carbon black of Wittman as at least half the carbon black in the tire of Hirayama for the benefits detailed above.
With respect to claim 3, a carcass of Hirayama, as modified by the aforementioned references, includes recycled polyester cords and such corresponds with a recycled amount of 100% (entire reinforcement or cord is derived from recycled materials).
As to claims 4 and 7, given that all of the compositions can include natural rubber, biogenic carbon black, silica derived for rice husks, and sustainable cord materials where cord reinforcements are present, it reasons that respective tire components are essentially completely formed with sustainable materials (environmentally friendly materials). It is emphasized that rubber compositions are predominantly formed with rubber materials and reinforcing fillers, both of which can be a sustainable material, and cord reinforced tire components are predominantly formed with rubber materials, reinforcing fillers, and cord materials, all of which can be sustainable materials. Also, it is noted that a fair reading of Hirayama suggests tire constructions in which any combination of tire components is formed with the environmentally friendly composition of Hirayama as modified by Wittmann, KR ‘713, Vanhoech, Innovation in Textiles, and Forbes.
Regarding claims 8 and 9, as noted above, Vanhoech teaches the use of bio-sourced yarns based on polyamides in rubber reinforcements designed for car tires (Paragraphs 29 and 60), Innovations in Textiles discloses the known use of recycled polyester fibers for tire reinforcing cords, and Forbes teaches the manufacture of fossil-free steel. The use of these sustainable cord materials in the belt and bead would have been obvious given the general teachings in these disclosures and such would appear to result in the claimed relationships (respective components necessarily define a percentage of the overall tire weight and such appears to be consistent with that required by the claimed invention).
With respect to claim 18, the rubber composition of Hirayama can be formed solely with natural rubber.
7. Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirayama, Wittmann, KR ‘713, Vanhoech, Innovation in Textiles, and Forbes as applied in claim 1 above and further in view of Okamoto.
As detailed above, Hirayama is directed to an environmentally friendly tire design including a composition comprising natural rubber, carbon black, and silica, wherein said composition has utility in any number of tire components, including the tread, sidewall, clinch, apex, carcass, belt, innerliner, and beads. Hirayama further states, as is common in the tire industry, that “compounding agents generally used in the tire industry” can be included. While Hirayama fails to expressly teach the inclusion of softener or processing oils, such additives are well recognized as being “compounding agents generally used” in almost every tire rubber composition to promote processing. More particularly, it is well known to use oils from non-fossil origin, such as soybean oil, in a wide variety of tire components, including the tread, sidewall, chafer, bead, carcass, belt, and innerliner, as shown for example by Okamoto. The particular use of soybean oil, for example, remains consistent with the inventive concept of Hirayama to manufacture an environmentally friendly tire construction. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include the claimed oil in the rubber composition of Hirayama for the benefits detailed above.
8. Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirayama, Wittmann, KR ‘713, Vanhoech, Innovation in Textiles, and Forbes as applied in claim 1 above and further in view of https://www.synthosgroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/August-2022_Synthos_Rubber_Brochure.pdf (Synthos- of record).
As detailed above, Hirayama is directed to a tire construction in which all components are designed to be environmentally friendly. Hirayama further states that such components are preferably formed with 100 phr of natural rubber. The reference further states, though, that said components can be formed with a combination of natural rubber and synthetic rubbers, such as butadiene rubber and styrene butadiene rubber (Paragraph 15). In such an instance, though, Hirayama is silent with respect to the specific use of mass balanced rubbers.
In any event, mass balanced rubbers, such as butadiene rubber and styrene butadiene rubber, are known as providing environmental benefits in tire constructions, as shown for example by Synthos. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to use mass balanced rubbers in the tire of Hirayama since such rubbers are consistent with the general disclosure of Hirayama to provide environmental benefits. Also, there is a reasonable expectation of success when using a single “sustainable” or environmentally friendly material or a combination of “sustainable” or environmentally friendly materials.
9. Claim(s) 13 and 19-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirayama, Wittman, KR 100369713, Vanhoech, Innovation in Textiles, Forbes, and Synthos as applied in claim 12 above and further in view of Weibold (https://weibold.com/sustainable-carbon-black-from-end-of-the-life-pyrolysis-oil, of record), the Admitted Prior Art, and Bode (US 2023/0227316, of record).
As detailed above, Hirayama is directed to an environmentally friendly tire construction resulting from the inclusion of natural rubber in a wide variety of tire components. These compositions can be formed entirely of natural or as a mixture of natural rubber and additional synthetic rubbers. Hirayama further recognizes the known inclusion of carbon black as a reinforcing filler in said components. In such an instance, though, Hirayama is silent with respect to the manner in which the carbon black is manufactured.
It is initially noted that a fair reading of Hirayama does not limit the type of carbon black. Given that an inventive concept of Hirayama is the use of environmentally friendly materials, it reasons that one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to use any number of techniques that optimize the “environmental friendliness” of the overall tire. Wittman specifically teaches the use of carbon blacks derived from plant-based oils (vegetable oils) in tire applications in order to provide high reinforcement properties while promoting environmental health. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to use the carbon black of Wittman as at least a partial replacement of conventional carbon black (petroleum based).
While Wittman fails to discloses additional environmentally friendly carbon blacks, a multitude of additional environmentally friendly carbon blacks, including those required by the claimed invention, are commonly used in tire applications, as shown for example by Weibold (oils derived from end of life tire), the APA (Paragraph 71), and Bode (Paragraphs 62 and 63- methane pyrolysis). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to use any combination of environmentally friendly carbon blacks in any tire component absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results. It is emphasized that the use of “environmentally friendly” carbon black is consistent with the general disclosure of Hirayama to form an environmentally friendly tire construction.
With specific respect to claims 19-23, all of the claimed rubber materials and types of carbon black are consistent with those taught by the prior art references of record. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to use any combination of materials to form any of the basic or fundamental tire components detailed by Hirayama. It is emphasized that a critical aspect of Hirayama is the use of rubber compositions that provide environmental benefits and such is consistent with the modified rubber compositions of Hirayama.
10. Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 7-9, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Synthos and further in view of Wittmann (US 2022/0145085, of record), KR 100369713 (of record), Vanhoech (US 2021/0060821, of record), Innovation in Textiles (of record), and Forbes (of record). This rejection is provided in the event that sufficient evidence is provided to suggest that the disclosed method results in a materially different tire article.
Synthos broadly is directed to a tire construction. Synthos further states that said components are formed with ISCC mass balance certified materials (SSBR, butadiene rubber, and ESBR). A fair reading of Synthos suggests that all common tire components can be formed with the disclosed mass-balanced synthetic rubber and such would include the common tire components required by claim 1. Additionally, a fair reading of Synthos suggests tire constructions in which any combination of tire components is formed with the environmentally friendly composition of Synthos (not exclusive to a tire in which every tire component is formed with the disclosed composition).
Synthos, however, fails to describe additional materials in respective components as being “environmentally friendly” and as such, the reference fails to specifically teach a tire having an overall sustainability amount of at least 85%.
In any event, (a) the primary contributions to the weight of tire rubber compositions (both those in cord reinforced components and thus devoid of cord reinforcements) is conventionally the rubber material and the reinforcing filler and (b) a major contribution to the weight of cord reinforced components, in additional to the rubber, is the reinforcing cord. The general use of “environmentally friendly” materials for the reinforcing filler, such as carbon black and/or silica, and for the cord reinforcement is known. Wittman teaches the use of “biogenic carbon black” that is produced from renewable raw materials derived from plants or animals, such as vegetable oils, in tire applications since it provides high reinforcement properties while providing environmental benefits (Paragraphs 3-6, 28, 29, and 149), KR ‘713 teaches the use of silica derived from rice husks in tire components to provide high reinforcement while providing environmental benefits, Vanhoech teaches the use of bio-sourced yarns based on polyamides in rubber reinforcements designed for car tires (Paragraphs 29 and 60), Innovations in Textiles discloses the known use of recycled polyester fibers for tire reinforcing cords, and Forbes teaches the manufacture of fossil-free steel. All of these disclosures teach the use of “environmentally friendly” materials- the particular use of such materials in the tire of Synthos would have been obvious given the specific disclosure (by Synthos) to use environmentally friendly materials. Also, there is a reasonable expectation of success when using these materials in the tire of Synthos since the above noted references recognize the suitability of the disclosed environmentally friendly materials in the tire industry and/or recognize the comparable properties of such materials while providing environmental benefits. Again, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to use any combination of “environmentally friendly materials” in the tire of Synthos, specifically in view of the disclosure by Synthos to use mass balanced rubber for environmental benefits.
Also, it appears that the use of mass balanced rubber, biogenic carbon black, silica from rice husks, and cord materials that constitute “environmentally friendly” or “sustainable materials” would result in a tire that is at least 80% based on sustainable materials (additional materials, e.g. sulfur, make up an extremely small percentage of the overall tire).
Lastly, regarding claim 1, Wittman describes the primary use of vegetable oils to form biogenic carbon black (Paragraph 30) and such appears to be consistent with a biomass content that approaches 100%. This is based on Applicant’s disclosure in Paragraphs 60 and 61. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to use the carbon black of Wittman as at least half the carbon black in the tire of Synthos for the benefits detailed above.
With respect to claim 3, a carcass (fundamental tire component) of Synthos, as modified by the aforementioned references, includes mass-balanced synthetic rubber and recycled polyester cords (based on the fact that a fair reading of Synthos suggests the use of mass balanced materials in all tire components)- such a recycled polyester cord is seen to correspond with 100% by weight of recycled material (cord is entirely formed or recycled material).
As to claims 4 and 7, given that all of the compositions can include mass-balanced synthetic rubber, biogenic carbon black, silica derived for rice husks, and sustainable cord materials where cord reinforcements are present, it reasons that respective tire components are essentially completely formed with sustainable materials (environmentally friendly materials). It is emphasized that rubber compositions are predominantly formed with rubber materials and reinforcing fillers, both of which can be a sustainable material, and cord reinforced tire components are predominantly formed with rubber materials, reinforcing fillers, and cord materials, all of which can be sustainable materials.
Regarding claims 8 and 9, as noted above, Vanhoech teaches the use of bio-sourced yarns based on polyamides in rubber reinforcements designed for car tires (Paragraphs 29 and 60), Innovations in Textiles discloses the known use of recycled polyester fibers for tire reinforcing cords, and Forbes teaches the manufacture of fossil-free steel. The use of these sustainable cord materials in the belt and bead would have been obvious given the general teachings in these disclosures and such would appear to result in the claimed relationships (respective components necessarily define a percentage of the overall tire weight and such appears to be consistent with that required by the claimed invention).
With respect to claim 18, Synthos is silent with respect to the inclusion of isoprene-butadiene rubbers.
11. Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Synthos, Wittmann, KR 100369713, Vanhoech, Innovation in Textiles, and Forbes as applied in claim 1 above and further in view of Okamoto.
As detailed above, Synthos is directed to an environmentally friendly tire design including a mass balanced synthetic rubber. In such an instance, though, Synthos is silent with respect to the additional ingredients in said rubber composition. In any event, a wide variety of additives are conventionally included in all tire rubber compositions and among those are softener or process oils to promote processing. More particularly, it is well known to use oils from non-fossil origin, such as soybean oil, in a wide variety of tire components, including the tread, sidewall, chafer, bead, carcass, belt, and innerliner, as shown for example by Okamoto. The particular use of soybean oil, for example, remains consistent with the inventive concept of Synthos to manufacture an environmentally friendly tire construction. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include the claimed oil in the rubber composition of Synthos for the benefits detailed above.
Conclusion
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN R FISCHER whose telephone number is (571)272-1215. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 5:30-2:00.
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, Katelyn Smith can be reached at 571-270-5545. 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.
Justin Fischer
/JUSTIN R FISCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749 March 27, 2026