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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 25-26 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.
Claims 25 and 26 do not recite when the silica is added, nor do they add the elastomer.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 3-6, 9-14, 17, 18, 20-23, 27, 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dennis-Pelcher 20210155780.
The reference teaches, especially in paras 22-29, elastomer, silica, carbon black and functionalized carbon nanotubes. This differs in overlapping amount of silica, however this is obvious to make the desired properties in the composition.
For claim 3, rubber is taught.
For claim 4, para 33 teaches polymer blends.
For claim 5, see para 29.
For claim 6, the size is compatible with the silica and thus obvious; see para 47. Note also the patents incorporated in para 29.
For claim 9, see para 31.
For claim 10, see para 30.
For claim 11, see para 33. Choosing the claimed property is obvious to make an effective tire.
For claims 12 and 13, para 24 teaches carbon black.
For claim 14, see para 4.
For claim 17, see para 29.
For claim 18, see para 29.
For claims 20-22, no differences are seen due to the similarity of the composition, and any difference is obvious for optimal properties. See paras 64-66.
For claim 23, see para 53.
For claims 27-28, see para 28.
Claims 1, 3-6, 7, 9-14, 17, 18, 20-23, 25-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dennis-Pelcher 20210155780 taken with Barrera et al. 20070298669 and Bosynak et al. 9353240.
The above does not teach the process, however Berra teaches, especially on pgs. 5-7 and ex. 2, organosilane functionalized nanotubes made by functionalizing a nanotube with hydroxy, washed, dispersed in ethanol (nonprotic), acidified and silane coupling agent added, sonicated, then dried. The nanotubes may be used in elastomers. Making them in the claimed manner for use in the tires of Dennis-Pelcher is obvious to provide the desired material. For claim 26, adding the elastomer is obvious to make the desired composition and permit the nanotubes to disperse therein. As noted above, the polymer does not crosslink because the nanotube is on one end of the potential linker.
For claim 7, see 9353240, incorporated by reference (Dennis-Pelcher para. 29). It teaches aspect ratios which vary, which reflect differing lengths given the relatively uniform diameters, thus rendering the claim obvious for desired dispersion.
Applicant's arguments filed 3/19/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The amount of silica overlaps the amount of nanotubes, given the range of the amounts that can be used, and can be up to 40 times greater. Claims 25 and 26 still don’t explicitly add silica, and both are awkwardly phrased with respect to the elastomer; neither claim actually adds it.
Claim 29 is allowed for the reasons advanced by applicant.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 STUART L HENDRICKSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1351. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 9 to 5. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Anthony Zimmer, can be reached on 571-270-3591. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/STUART L HENDRICKSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736