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 .
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) 1-8, 11 and 13-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nebhani et al. (US 2013/0131263) in view of Wideman et al. (EP 279766).
In ¶’s 6-8, Nebhani et al. teach a rubber composition with a fillers such as silica, comprising a functionalized polymer product of a living elastomeric polymer and the polymerization terminator of formula I, exemplified by S-benzyl-S'-triethoxysilylpropyltrithiocarbonate (See Ex. 1), wherein the functionalized elastomer comprises repeat units of a diene monomer, such as butadiene, and optionally a vinyl aromatic monomer (¶ 21), and the functionalized elastomer comprises at least 90 percent by weight of cis 1,4 microstructure content based on the weight of the polydiene content of the functionalized elastomer (¶ 34).
Nebhani et al. differ from the claimed invention in that they do not disclose the hydrogenation of the functionalized rubber polymers. However, it is known in the art to hydrogenate rubber polymers, for the purpose of improving resistance of the polymers to ozonolysis and solvents such as taught by Wideman et al.
In page 2, lines 5-20, Wideman et al. teach the selective hydrogenation of synthetic rubbers to improve the tensile strength and resistance of a rubber to various solvents as well as improving the resistance of such polymers to ozonolysis.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, to hydrogenate the functionalized rubber polymers of Nebhani et al., in order to obtain the advantages taught by Wideman et al., motivated by a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 1-8, 11 and 13-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nebhani et al. (US 2013/0131263) in view of Washizu et al. (EP 3070120).
In ¶’s 6-8, Nebhani et al. teach a rubber composition with a fillers such as silica, comprising a functionalized polymer product of a living elastomeric polymer and the polymerization terminator of formula I, exemplified by S-benzyl-S'-triethoxysilylpropyltrithiocarbonate (See Ex. 1), wherein the functionalized elastomer comprises repeat units of a diene monomer, such as butadiene, and optionally a vinyl aromatic monomer (¶ 21), and the functionalized elastomer comprises at least 90 percent by weight of cis 1,4 microstructure content based on the weight of the polydiene content of the functionalized elastomer (¶ 34).
Nebhani et al. differ from the claimed invention in that they do not disclose the hydrogenation of the functionalized rubber polymers. However, it is known in the art to hydrogenate rubber polymers, for the purpose of achieving improved properties of the polymer in applications such as pneumatic tires, as taught by Washizu et al.
In ¶’s 56 to 59, Washizu et al. teach the calculated hydrogenation of rubber polymers to improve the properties of pneumatic tires such as dry-grip performance, wherein the rate of hydrogenation is preferably 50 mol% or more.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, to hydrogenate the functionalized rubber polymers of Nebhani et al., in order to obtain the advantages taught by Washizu et al., motivated by a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 1-8, 11 and 13-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du et al. (US 2015/0025184) in view of Wideman et al. (EP 279766).
In ¶’s 6-8, Du et al. teach a rubber composition with a fillers such as silica, comprising a functionalized polymer product of a living elastomeric polymer and the polymerization terminator of formula I, exemplified by S-benzyl-S'-triethoxysilylpropyltrithiocarbonate (¶ 25), wherein the functionalized elastomer comprises repeat units of a diene monomer, such as butadiene, and optionally a vinyl aromatic monomer (¶ 22), and the functionalized elastomer comprises at least 90 percent by weight of cis 1,4 microstructure content based on the weight of the polydiene content of the functionalized elastomer (¶ 39).
Du et al. differ from the claimed invention in that they do not disclose the hydrogenation of the functionalized rubber polymers. However, it is known in the art to hydrogenate rubber polymers, for the purpose of improving resistance of the polymers to ozonolysis and solvents such as taught by Wideman et al.
In page 2, lines 5-20, Wideman et al. teach the selective hydrogenation of synthetic rubbers to improve the tensile strength and resistance of a rubber to various solvents as well as improving the resistance of such polymers to ozonolysis.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, to hydrogenate the functionalized rubber polymers of Du et al., in order to obtain the advantages taught by Wideman et al., motivated by a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 1-8, 11 and 13-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du et al. (US 2015/0025184) in view of Washizu et al. (EP 3070120).
In ¶’s 6-8, Du et al. teach a rubber composition with a fillers such as silica, comprising a functionalized polymer product of a living elastomeric polymer and the polymerization terminator of formula I, exemplified by S-benzyl-S'-triethoxysilylpropyltrithiocarbonate (¶ 25), wherein the functionalized elastomer comprises repeat units of a diene monomer, such as butadiene, and optionally a vinyl aromatic monomer (¶ 22), and the functionalized elastomer comprises at least 90 percent by weight of cis 1,4 microstructure content based on the weight of the polydiene content of the functionalized elastomer (¶ 39).
Du et al. differ from the claimed invention in that they do not disclose the hydrogenation of the functionalized rubber polymers. However, it is known in the art to hydrogenate rubber polymers, for the purpose of achieving improved properties of the polymer in applications such as pneumatic tires, as taught by Washizu et al.
In ¶’s 56 to 59, Washizu et al. teach the calculated hydrogenation of rubber polymers to improve the properties of pneumatic tires such as dry-grip performance, wherein the rate of hydrogenation is preferably 50 mol% or more.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, to hydrogenate the functionalized rubber polymers of Du et al., in order to obtain the advantages taught by Washizu et al., motivated by a reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
It is known in the art to hydrogenate rubber polymers such as Nebhani et al., for the purpose of improving resistance of the polymers to ozonolysis and solvents such as taught by Wideman et al.
It is known in the art to hydrogenate rubber polymers such as Nebhani et al., for the purpose of achieving improved properties of the polymer in applications such as pneumatic tires, as taught by Washizu et al.
It is known in the art to hydrogenate rubber polymers such as Du et al., for the purpose of improving resistance of the polymers to ozonolysis and solvents such as taught by Wideman et al.
It is known in the art to hydrogenate rubber polymers such as Du et al.,, for the purpose of achieving improved properties of the polymer in applications such as pneumatic tires, as taught by Washizu et al.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, to hydrogenate the functionalized rubber polymers of Nebhani et al. or Du et al., in order to obtain the advantages taught by Wideman et al. or Washizu et al., motivated by a reasonable expectation of success.
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 KELECHI CHIDI EGWIM whose telephone number is (571)272-1099. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-7.
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, Robert Jones can be reached at (571) 270-7733. 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.
/KELECHI C EGWIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762
KCE
