DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claims 1, 5, 8-10, 14, 15, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Esseghir et al. (US 2022/0281138).
Regarding claim 1: Esseghir et al. teaches a method for making a masterbatch/homogeneous mixture of polyolefin and carbon solids (abstract) comprising forming a composition of a polydiene polymer (para. 56), a diluting liquid/liquid processing aid (para. 15) and a particulate filler/carbon solids (para. 11). The composition is subjected to resonant acoustic mixing (para. 26, 34) and dried (para. 117). The polydiene polymer can be a homopolymer of a C4-C20 alpha olefin (para. 56), which would fall into either a conjugated or non-conjugated diene category based on which alpha olefin was selected. The other polydiene polymer alternatives of (a)-(i) are optional since one polydiene is disclosed from the claimed group due to the word “or” before limitation (i).
While Esseghir et al. teaches other olefins which would not read on the claimed polydiene polymer, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to choose a C5-C12 alpha olefin and would have been motivated to do so since Esseghir et al. teaches it is an acceptable polymer to achieve the disclosed invention.
Regarding claim 5: Esseghir et al. teaches powdered graphite as the filler (para. 137).
Regarding claim 8: Esseghir et al. teaches carbon black (para. 12).
Regarding claim 9: Esseghir et al. teaches using a liquid processing aid to help the carbon solids mix with the polyolefin (para. 104).
Regarding claim 10: Esseghir et al. teaches a surface area up to 1500 m2/g (para. 77).
Regarding claim 14: Esseghir et al. teaches subjecting the composition to reciprocating displacement/oscillating displacement created by sound energy/acoustic energy (para. 32). The composition is contained in a glass jar/holding reservoir (para. 147).
Regarding claim 15: Esseghir et al. teaches mixing 0.5-10 minutes (para. 27).
Regarding claim 17: Esseghir et al. teaches a crosslinkable/vulcanizable composition (para. 22) comprising a crosslinking coagent/curative (para. 97).
Regarding claim 18: Esseghir et al. teaches crosslinking/vulcanizing (para. 22).
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Esseghir et al. (US 2022/0281138) as applied to claim 1 set forth above and in view of Burn et al. (US 2020/0062669).
Regarding claims 2 and 3: Esseghir et al. teaches the frequency of the acoustic energy is 60 Hz (para. 147).
Not disclosed is the input force. However, Burn et al. teaches a similar mixing method using resonant acoustic mixing with an input force of up to 100 g (para. 19). Esseghir et al. and Burn et al. are analogous art since they are both concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely resonant acoustic mixing. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select the input force of Burn et al. in the method of Esseghir et al. and would have been motivated to do so in conjunction with the selected frequency to achieve the resonance that leads to shorter mixing times.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Esseghir et al. (US 2022/0281138) in view of Burn et al. (US 2020/0062669) as applied to claim 2 set forth above and in view of Tartamella et al. (US 2022/0372235).
Regarding claim 4: Esseghir et al. teaches the basic claimed method as set forth above. Not disclosed is the solids concentration. However, Tartamella et al. teaches less than 30 wt% of the polymer in the composition (para. 29). Esseghir et al. and Tartamella et al. are analogous art since they are both concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely acoustically mixing polydiene polymers. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the amount of solids in the composition and would have been motivated to do so in order to make the composition more viscous for processing.
Claims 1, 5-7, 13, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tartamella et al. (US 2022/0372235).
Regarding claim 1: Tartamella et al. teaches a method for forming a solution masterbatch (para. 90) comprising forming a polydiene polymer (para. 18), a liquid (para. 8) and a particulate filler/carbon black (para. 42), subjecting to resonant acoustic mixing/acoustic mixing resulting in a uniform shear field (par. 81) and drying/desolventization (para. 83). The polydiene can be a conjugated diene monomer such as isoprene (para. 41). While Tartamella et al. teaches other olefins which would not read on the claimed polydiene polymer, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to choose conjugated polyisoprene and would have been motivated to do so since Tartamella et al. teaches it is an acceptable polymer to achieve the disclosed invention.
Regarding claim 5: Tartamella et al. teaches particulate/powdered filler (para. 70).
Regarding claims 6 and 7: Tartamella et al. teaches 50-100 parts by weight filler to 100 parts by weight rubber (para. 58).
Regarding claim 13: Tartamella et al. teaches n-decane, which is a C10 straight chain hydrocarbon, 2,2-dimethylbutane, which is a branched C6 hydrocarbon, cyclohexane, which is a C6 cyclic hydrocarbon, and benzene, which is a C6 aromatic hydrocarbon and that mixtures of these can be used (para. 46). Therefore, all four of these compounds can be used at the same time, as is required by the claim.
Regarding claims 17 and 18: Tartamella et al. teaches a vulcanizable composition with a curative and forming a vulcanized component (para. 61).
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tartamella et al. (US 2022/0372235) as applied to claim 1 set forth above and in view of Tardiff et al. (US 2020/0308375).
Regarding claims 11 and 12: Tartamella et al. teaches the basic claimed method as set forth above. Not disclosed is the rubber from guayule in a specific amount. However, Tardiff et al. teaches 2-50 phr of guayule natural rubber (para. 38). Tartamella et al. and Tardiff et al. are analogous art since they are both concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely rubber compositions. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the guayule rubber of Tardiff et al. in the method of Tartamella et al. and would have been motivated to do so in order to avoid petroleum based plasticizers.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 16 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Esseghir et al. and Tartamella et al. are the closest prior art, but do not teach the drying step being performed using a roller mill at the temperature required. There is no teaching or suggestion found in the prior art to dry the solution masterbatch claimed using a roller mill at the temperature required.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Megan McCulley whose telephone number is (571)270-3292. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5:30.
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, Mark Eashoo can be reached at 571-272-1197. 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.
/MEGAN MCCULLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767