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 .
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, species b, claims 1-8, 10-11 and 13 in the reply filed on 11/12/2025 is acknowledged.
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, 10-11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma (US 2015/0148479) in view of Wideman et al. (EP 279766) or Washizu et al. (EP 3070120).
In ¶’s 8-15, Ma teaches 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 3,7,10-trimethyl-1-(3-(oxiran-2-ylmethoxy)propyl)-2,8,9-trioxa-5-aza-1-silabicyclo[3.3.3]undecane or 1-(3-(oxiran-2-ylmethoxy)propyl)- 3,7,10-trimethylsilatrane (Table 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 (¶ 35).
Ma differs from the claimed invention in that they do not disclosed 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., as well as achieving improved properties of the polymer in applications such as pneumatic tires, such as taught by Washizu 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 improve the resistance of such polymers to ozonolysis.
In ¶’s 56 to 59, Washizu et al. teach 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 Ma, in order to obtain the advantages taught by Wideman et al. and/or Washizu et al., motivated by a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 1-8, 10-11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mazumdar et al. (USPN 9,090,730) in view of Wideman et al. (EP 279766) or Washizu et al. (EP 3070120).
In Col. 2, line 37 to Col. 4, line 12, Mazumdar 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 3,7,10-trimethyl-1-(3-(oxiran-2-ylmethoxy)propyl)-2,8,9-trioxa-5-aza-1-silabicyclo[3.3.3]undecane or 1-(3-(oxiran-2-ylmethoxy)propyl)- 3,7,10-trimethylsilatrane (Table 1), wherein the functionalized elastomer comprises repeat units of a diene monomer, such as butadiene, and optionally a vinyl aromatic monomer (Col. 7, lines 21-44), 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 (Col. 13, lines 4-8).
Mazumdar et al. differ from the claimed invention in that they do not disclosed 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., as well as achieving improved properties of the polymer in applications such as pneumatic tires, such as taught by Washizu 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 improve the resistance of such polymers to ozonolysis.
In ¶’s 56 to 59, Washizu et al. teach 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 Mazumdar et al., in order to obtain the advantages taught by Wideman et al. and/or Washizu et al., motivated by a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 1-8, 10-11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma et al. (USPN 9,790,289) in view of Wideman et al. (EP 279766) or Washizu et al. (EP 3070120).
In Col. 2, line 1 to Col. 3, line 43, Ma 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 3,7,10-trimethyl-1-(3-(oxiran-2-ylmethoxy)propyl)-2,8,9-trioxa-5-aza-1-silabicyclo[3.3.3]undecane or 1-(3-(oxiran-2-ylmethoxy)propyl)- 3,7,10-trimethylsilatrane (Table 1), wherein the functionalized elastomer comprises repeat units of a diene monomer, such as butadiene, and optionally a vinyl aromatic monomer (Col. 7, lines 44-61), and the functionalized elastomer comprises at least 92 percent by weight of cis 1,4 microstructure content based on the weight of the polydiene content of the functionalized elastomer.
Ma et al. differ from the claimed invention in that they do not disclosed 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., as well as achieving improved properties of the polymer in applications such as pneumatic tires, such as taught by Washizu 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 improve the resistance of such polymers to ozonolysis.
In ¶’s 56 to 59, Washizu et al. teach 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 Ma et al., in order to obtain the advantages taught by Wideman et al. and/or Washizu et al., motivated by a reasonable expectation of success.
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
Prosecution Insights