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 07, 2022.
Claim Analysis
Summary of Claim 1:
A rubber composition manufacturing method comprising:
an operation in which at least amine antioxidant, zinc oxide, silane coupling agent, silica, and rubber comprising modified polymer are fed into an internal kneader; and
an operation in which kneading is carried out at the internal kneader while kneading temperature is controlled so as to suppress occurrence of a coupling reaction between the silica and the silane coupling agent, and so as to suppress occurrence of a bonding reaction between the silica and the modified polymer.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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 1-14 rejected are under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or (a)(2) as being anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kamada et al. (JP 2020/100784 A; as disclosed in the IDS dated 07/27/2023, English machine translation incorporated herewith; hereafter as “Kamada”) as evidenced by Ouchi Shinko Chemical Industrial Co., Ltd (“Nocrac 6C”; hereafter as “Shinko”).
Regarding Claims 1, 2, and 4, Kamada teaches preparation of unvulcanized rubber [Table 1; ¶ 0075-0083], corresponding to a rubber composition manufacturing method of Claim 1, comprising:
Anti-aging agent, such as Nocrac-6C [Table 1; ¶ 0076], which Shinko teaches is N-(1,3-Dimethylbutyl)-N'-phenyl-p-phenylenediamine, an antioxidant [Table 1], corresponding to the amine antioxidant of Claim 1, and N-phenyl-N'-(1,3-dimethylbutyl)-p-phenylenediamine of Claim 2;
Zinc oxide [Table 1], corresponding to the zinc oxide of Claim 1;
Silane coupling agent [Table 1], corresponding to the silane coupling agent of Claim 1;
Silica [Table 1, Example 1], corresponding to the silica of Claim 1;
modified rubber, such as Styrene butadiene rubber (SBR) [Table 1, Example 1; ¶ 0035], corresponding to the rubber comprising modified polymer of Claim 1;
A step of kneading in a kneading machine such as an internal kneader [¶ 0007, 0060], corresponding to feeding into an internal kneader of Claim 1;
controlling the kneading temperature so as to suppress the silane reaction between silica and the silane coupling agent [¶ 0010], corresponding to an operation in which kneading is carried out at the internal kneader while kneading temperature is controlled so as to suppress occurrence of a coupling reaction between the silica and the silane coupling agent of Claim 1; and
step of kneading while controlling the kneading temperature so that the silane
reaction proceeds [¶ 0010], corresponding to an operation in which kneading is carried out at the internal kneader while kneading temperature is controlled so as to cause the coupling reaction to proceed of Claim 4.
Regarding Claims 1, 4, and 11-12, however, Kamada is silent to the step of suppressing a bonding reaction between the silica and the modified polymer of Claim 1, an operation in which kneading is carried out at the internal kneader while kneading temperature is controlled so as to cause the bonding reaction to proceed of Claims 4 and 12, and wherein, during the operation in which kneading is carried out while kneading temperature is controlled so as to suppress occurrence of the coupling reaction and so as to suppress occurrence of the bonding reaction, kneading is carried out so as to cause kneading temperature to be held constant of Claims 11-12.
The instant Specification discloses that the operation that suppresses the coupling reactions and the operation that suppresses the bonding reaction constitute a single stage [¶ 0030-0032], which implies that there must be a temperature range in which both operations can occur. Furthermore, Kamada teaches the same rubber composition manufacturing method, including the step of controlling the kneading temperature to suppress and allow coupling reactions, as required by the instant claim as set forth in the rejection above. While Kamada does not explicitly teach a temperature to suppress a bonding reaction, one of ordinary skill would anticipate or expect the range of temperatures that suppress coupling reactions taught in Kamada, similar to the instant Claim 1, would correspond or at least overlap with the range of temperatures that suppress bonding reactions. Absent evidence to the contrary, due to the substantially similar process methods taught by Kamada, it would be anticipated or obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the temperature of Kamada would suppress the bonding reaction.
Regarding Claim 3, Kamada teaches:
110 weight parts Silica [Table 1, Example 1]; and
90 weight parts modified rubber [Table 1, Example 1; ¶ 0035];
which is equivalent to a silica to rubber ratio of 110:90 which corresponds to wherein the silica is fed into the internal kneader in an amount that is not less than 100 parts by mass per 100 parts by mass of the rubber that is fed into the internal kneader.
Regarding Claims 5-6, Kamada further teaches the modified rubber such as, styrene-butadiene rubber, may have a functional such as an alkoxyl group [¶ 0034-0035], corresponding to wherein the modified polymer has an alkoxy group of Claim 5, and wherein the modified polymer is styrene-butadiene rubber which has an alkoxy group of Claim 6.
Regarding Claim 7, Kamada further teaches:
60 weight parts styrene-butadiene rubber 1 (SBR1) [Table 1, Example 1];
30 weight parts styrene-butadiene rubber 2 (SBR2) [Table 1, Example 1];
Which is equivalent to a ratio of 50 mass %, which corresponds to wherein the modified polymer is fed into the internal kneader in an amount that is not less than 20 mass% per 100 mass% of the rubber that is fed into the internal kneader.
Regarding Claim 8, Kamada further teaches natural rubber [¶ 0034] wherein the rubber further comprises natural rubber.
Regarding Claim 9, Kamada further teaches:
90 weight parts styrene-butadiene rubber (SBR) [Table 1, Example 1];
3 weight parts zinc oxide [Table 1, Example 1];
Which is equivalent to a ratio of 3.3 mass %, which corresponds to wherein the zinc oxide is fed into the internal kneader in an amount that is not less than 0.3 part by mass but not greater than 10 parts by mass per 100 parts by mass of the rubber that is fed into the internal kneader.
Regarding Claim 10, Kamada further teaches:
90 weight parts styrene-butadiene rubber (SBR) [Table 1, Example 1];
2 weight parts anti-aging agent, such as an amine antioxidant [Table 1, Example 1];
Which is equivalent to a ratio of 2.2 mass %, which corresponds to wherein the amine antioxidant is fed into the internal kneader in an amount that is not less than 0.2 part by mass but not greater than 10 parts by mass per 100 parts by mass of the rubber that is fed into the internal kneader.
Regarding Claim 13-14, Kamada further teaches the rubber composition can be used to make tires. Kamada teaches vulcanization of the rubber composition is optional [¶ 0063], which will be interpreted to be unvulcanized rubber compositions, such as tires, thereby reading on the unvulcanized tire of Claims 13 and 14.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DORIS LING whose telephone number is (571)270-3961. The examiner can normally be reached 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