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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I (claims 1-18) in the reply filed on 01/16/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5 and 7-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ALEXANDER et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2019/0291511, hereinafter ALEXANDER).
Regarding claims 1, 4, 7, 8, and 10-14, ALEXANDER teaches a sealant layer-containing tire wherein the sealant layer comprises a mixture of ingredients (i) 100 parts of at least one rubber selected from the group consisting of butyl rubber, natural rubber, polyisoprene, polybutadiene rubber, polyisobutylene rubber, and combinations thereof [0025, 0031-0032]. In one embodiment, the 100 parts of at least one rubber in the mixture of ingredients comprising the sealant layer comprises at least 60 parts of butyl rubber and the amount of natural rubber, polyisoprene, and polybutadiene rubber would be 40 parts based on 100 parts of total rubber component. More specifically, at least 70 parts of butyl rubber (30 parts of natural rubber, polyisoprene, or polybutadiene rubber), at least 80 parts of butyl rubber (20 parts of natural rubber, polyisoprene, or polybutadiene rubber), at least 85 parts of butyl rubber (15 parts of natural rubber, polyisoprene, or polybutadiene rubber), at least 90 parts of butyl rubber (10 parts of natural rubber, polyisoprene, or polybutadiene rubber), and at least 95 parts of butyl rubber (5 parts of natural rubber, polyisoprene, or polybutadiene rubber) [0034]. Note: butyl rubber is well-known name for isobutylene isoprene rubber. In one embodiment, any polybutadiene rubber can be used in the mixture [0031-0032].
(iii) one or more extenders in a total of no more than 55 phr [0025] (15-45 phr or 2-30 phr [0053]) including carbon black, silica, talc, clay, graphite, titanium dioxide, calcium carbonate and etc. [0050-0055]. In one embodiment, the one or more extenders includes 1-10 phr of fumed silica [0056];
(v) cure package [0025] which includes at least one crosslink initiator (e.g., as a part of the cure package) such as peroxides (e.g., di-tert-butyl peroxide) in the amount of 1 to 10 phr [0065].
However, ALEXANDER does not teach a preferred embodiment of the mixture of butyl rubber, natural rubber, polyisoprene, and polybutadiene rubber.
Given ALEXANDER teaches the sealant layer comprises 100 parts of at least one rubber selected from the group consisting of butyl rubber, natural rubber, polyisoprene, polybutadiene rubber, and combinations thereof [0025, 0031-0032] and in one embodiment teaches at least 60 parts of butyl rubber. Therefore, the amount of natural rubber, polyisoprene, or polybutadiene rubber would be in the amount of 40 parts based on 100 parts of rubber.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to choose/select natural rubber, polyisoprene, or polybutadiene rubber to be combined/mixed with butyl rubber in order to obtain desired properties in the sealant layer. A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, when there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. KSR International Co. V Teleflex Inc 550 USPQ2d 398, 421 (2007).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, ALEXANDER teaches the sealant layer to be non-black which includes one or more pigments to achieve non-black, non-white color such as red, blue, orange, yellow, green, purple, or pink [0055].
Regarding claim 5, ALEXANDER teaches the sealant layer comprises 100 parts of rubber including butyl rubber (at least 60 parts) which is 100 wt% of butyl rubber [0025 and 0033].
Regarding claim 9, ALEXANDER teaches the sealant layer comprises at least 100 part of rubber which includes 60 parts of butyl rubber and a group selected from natural rubber, polyisoprene, or polybutadiene rubber (40 parts). If natural rubber is used, the amount used is 100 wt% which satisfies at least 80 wt% of natural rubber as claimed.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ALEXANDER et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2019/0291511, hereinafter ALEXANDER) in view of VAN ORNUM et al. (U.S. Patent No. 4,113,799, hereinafter VAN ORNUM).
Regarding claim 6, ALEXANDER substantially teaches the present invention, see paragraphs 7-9 above. More specifically, ALEXANDER teaches sealant layer-containing tire wherein the sealant layer comprises a mixture of ingredients (i) 100 parts of at least one rubber in the mixture of ingredients comprising the sealant layer comprises at least 60 parts of butyl rubber (which is well-known as isobutylene isoprene rubber).
However, ALEXANDER is silent to the butyl rubber having a weight average molecular weight of at least 5,000 and/or of no more than 800,000.
In the same field of endeavor of elastomeric sealant composition, VAN ORNUM the sealant composition comprises high average molecular weight butyl rubber (from 100,000 to about 300,000-400,000) and a low average molecular weight butyl rubber (from 10,000 to 30,000) (Col. 2, line 55 to Col. 3, line 4). The butyl rubber(s) provides strength and continuity of the sealant compositions (Col. 2, lines 35-37).
Given ALEXANDER teaches the sealant layer comprises butyl rubber, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have provided the butyl rubber(s) of VAN ORNUM with the composition of ALEXANDER for the benefit of providing strength and continuity to the sealant compositions (Col. 2, lines 35-37). It is well settled that it is prima facie obvious to combine two ingredients, each of which is targeted by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose. In re Linder 457 F,2d 506,509, 173 USPQ 356, 359 (CCPA 1972).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ALEXANDER et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2019/0291511, hereinafter ALEXANDER) in view of FITZHARRIS WALL et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2005/0113502, hereinafter FITZHARRIS WALL).
Regarding claim 15, ALEXANDER substantially teaches the present invention, see paragraphs 7-9 above. More specifically, ALEXANDER teaches the sealant layer comprises a detackifier such as a polyether (e.g., polyethylene glycol or PEG, or polypropylene glycol or PPG, or a combination thereof) [0066 and 0070]. The polyethers (e.g., polyethylene glycol or PEG, or polypropylene glycol or PPG) are well-known polyalkylene glycol.
A detackifier coating upon the upper surface of the sealant layer can be beneficial to avoiding sticking of non-desirable objects or insects by reducing its tackiness or stickiness [0069-0070].
However, ALEXANDER does not teach the amount of polyalkylene glycol.
In the same field of endeavor of sealant layer, FITZHARRIS WALL teaches the layer comprises butyl rubber and carbon black/silica (Abstract; [0027]). The silica includes precipitated silica which may be a composite of precipitated silica and polyethylene glycol [0057-0058 and 0062-0063]. The amount of polyethylene glycol is 0.25 parts (Sample A) (Table 1; Example 1; [0127]).
Given ALEXANDER teaches the sealant layer comprises detackifier [0066-0070], it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have provided 0.25 parts of polyethylene glycol of FITZHARRIS WALL with the sealant layer of ALEXANDER for the benefit of avoiding sticking of non-desirable objects or insects by reducing its tackiness or stickiness [0069-0070]. It is well settled that it is prima facie obvious to combine two ingredients, each of which is targeted by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose. In re Linder 457 F,2d 506,509, 173 USPQ 356, 359 (CCPA 1972).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. ALEXANDER et al., one of the closest prior art of record, fails to teach an uncured pneumatic tire comprising a circumferential tread; a supporting carcass attached to the tread; and a containment layer, the sealant layer being disposed between the supporting carcass and the containment layer.
GERSMAN et al., one of the closest prior art of record, fails to teach a sealant layer comprising the sealant composition of claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVE V HALL whose telephone number is (571)270-7738. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9 am-5 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, Joseph Del Sole can be reached at (571) 272-1130. 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.
DEVE V. HALL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1763
/DEVE V HALL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763