DETAILED ACTION
This office action follows a reply filed on March 16, 2026. Claims 1, 6-7 and 12 have been amended. Claims 1-12 and 19-20 are currently pending and under examination.
The texts of those sections of Title 35 U.S. Code are not included in this section and can be found in a prior Office action.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-5, 7-8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scheele (Vulcanization of Elastomers. 38. The Reactivity of Synthetic Rubbers. I*, Kautschuk und Gummi, 15, 1962, pp. WT 57-62) in view of Zussman (US 4,258,149) and Reiter (US 4,857,571).
Scheele teaches that 2-mercaptobenzoxazole is capable of increasing the crosslinking effectiveness of peroxide-containing NBR, which inherently includes applicants’ base rubber, initiator and organic sulfur compound (pp. 238-239). 2-mercaptobenzoxazole meets applicants’ formula (1) when R1 and R2 bond to each other to form a six-membered aromatic ring, and applicants’ formula (11) when R11-R14 are H.
Reiter teaches rubber compositions comprising an elastomer, which include styrene butadiene and nitrile elastomers, a peroxide-based free radical generating compound, and polyfunctional monomers as crosslinking coagents such as metal salts of unsaturated monocarboxylic acids, teaching that the employment of such monomers results in the reduction of substantially higher amounts of free-radical generating compounds or energy, which is required to achieve complete curing and further improves processing, leading to a greater curing efficiency and reduced manufacturing cycles (col. 5, ll. 32-50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have added a metal salt of an unsaturated monocarboxylic acid as a coagent in the peroxide based crosslinking of NBR, as this is a known method, as taught by Reiter.
Scheele in view of Reiter is prima facie obvious over instant claims 1-2 and 7-8.
As to claim 4, Scheele does not teach the amount of mercaptan in the peroxide-containing NBR; however, Scheele teaches that the 2-mercaptobenzoxazole increases the effectiveness of crosslinking when peroxide is used to crosslink NBR, particularly elevating the rate and degree of crosslinking. This a result effective variable recognized by the prior art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have determined the amount of 2-mercaptobenzoxazole suitable for promoting crosslinking by way of routine optimization. See MPEP 2144.05.
As to claims 5 and 11, Reiter teaches that the polyfunctional monomer crosslinking coagents are added in an amount of 0.5-50 phr, the range of which overlaps with the claimed range of 15-50 phr, and it has been held that overlapping ranges are sufficient to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
As to claims 20-21, Scheele suggests that the reactivity of NBR is similar to SBR; therefore, substituting NBR with SBR would be expected to possess similar reactivity and properties when crosslinked via peroxide and mercaptobenzothiazole.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 16, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue that superior results over the prior art.
While the examiner agrees that applicants have shown unexpected results, the showing is not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention.
Applicants have shown the effects of 6-methyl-2-mercaptobenzoxazole, 5-chloro-2-mercaptobenzoxazole, 7-chloro-2-mercaptobenzoxazole and 6-(trifluoromethyl)-2-mercaptobenzoxazole on the compression deformation and coefficient of restitution in combination with butadiene rubber composition comprising zinc acrylate, zinc oxide, zinc pentachlorothiophenol, and dicumyl peroxide, where the claimed invention allows for any rubber base, any co-crosslinking agent, and any crosslinking initiator, in any amounts.
It is unclear as to whether the improvement in compression deformation and coefficient of restitution is due to the presence of the claimed organic sulfur compound, or the combination of such with the other ingredients.
Also note, Scheele teaches that pentachlorothiophenol also increases the effectiveness of crosslinking. Therefore, it is unclear as to whether the obtained results are from a combination of the 2-mercaptobenzoxazole and pentachlorothiophenol or from the 2-mercaptobenzoxazole alone.
Zussman is no longer needed in the above rejection.
Applicants argue that Reiter does not teach the employment of applicants’ compound (d).
The examiner agrees, hence the need for Scheele.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action, as applicants now require the co-crosslinking agent as an unsaturated carboxylic acid, which was not previously claimed. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIEANN R JOHNSTON whose telephone number is (571)270-7344. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00 AM - 4:00 PM EST.
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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at (571)272-1302. 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.
/Brieann R Johnston/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Prosecution Insights