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 .
Response to Amendment
The new grounds of rejection set forth below are necessitated by applicant’s amendment filed on December 8, 2025. In particular, claim 1 which has been amended to include the limitations of the previously presented claims 3 and 5. This combination of limitations was not present at the time of the previous office action. Thus, the following action is properly made final.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: for proper antecedent basis, please amend “90 parts by mass of at least one” to read “90 parts by mass of the at least one”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to from being dependent upon a previously objected claim.
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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2 and 7 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.
Regarding claim 2, for clarity and proper antecedent basis, the examiner suggests amending “a styrene-butadiene rubber including the modified styrene-butadiene rubber” to “the modified styrene-butadiene rubber”.
Regarding claim 7, this claim is rejected for being dependent upon a previously rejected 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 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsubota (US 2020/0207149) in view of Isitman et al (US 2019/0184744) with evidence provided by Hishikawa (US 2023/0331042) and Isitman et al (US 2022/0371365).
Regarding claims 1-2, Tsubota teaches a rubber composition comprising a rubber component (A) which is 40 % by mass of more of natural rubber ([0019]) and from 5 to 60 % by mass of SBR which is modified ([0020]). The composition further comprises from 5 to 50 phr of a terpene resin ([0022]). Tsubota teaches that the rubber composition also contains 20 to 120 phr of silica ([0035]).
However, Tsubota is silent to the characteristics of the terpene resin.
Isitman ‘744 teaches a rubber composition for a tire tread (Abstract) comprising 25 to 90 phr of a synthetic isoprene rubber ([0023]), 10 to 60 phr ([0026]) of a polyterpene resin ([0046]). The polyterpene resin can be Sylvatraxx 4150 ([0046]). Sylvatraxx 4150 has a softening point of about 115 (Table 1). As evidenced by Hishikawa, Sylvatraxx 4150 is made from 5% by mass α-pinene and 95% by mass β-pinene ([0080]). As evidenced by Isitman ‘365, Sylvatraxx has a glass transition temperature of 60 C (Table 1).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the terpene resin of Tsubota be the Sylvatraxx 4150 as taught by Isitman ‘744. One would have been motivated to do so in order to receive the expected benefit of using a resin that promotes traction (Isitman ‘744, [0042]).
Regarding claims 6-7, Tsubota teaches a tire having a tread made from the composition according to claims 1-2 ([0083]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 8, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the reasons set forth below:
Applicant’s argument: Isitman ‘744 does not teach or suggest the addition of SBR.
Examiner’s response: Isitman ‘744 is no longer used to teach the rubber components of the composition, rather Tsubota is used to teach the presence of the SBR.
Applicant’s argument: Neither Tsubota nor Buisman teaches or suggest the polyterpene resin as a mixed resin within the specific claimed ratio.
Examiner’s response: This is taught by the Isitman ‘744 reference as noted above. Buisman is no longer used as a reference in the rejection above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. 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 DORIS L LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-3872. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am - 5 pm.
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 at 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 L. LEE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1764
/DORIS L LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764