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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/08/2025 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claim 22 is directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: claim 1 recites directly applying a sealant composition to a portion of the air barrier layer to form a sealant layer on the air barrier layer wherein the sealant composition is a liquid composition, and new claim 22 recites the step of directly applying a sealant composition includes applying the sealant composition through a transfer coating by applying the liquid composition to a transfer substrate, allowing it to dry/cure to a solids composition, and then applying the solids composition to the air barrier layer. These are two separate embodiments (i.e., direct application of liquid composition, direct application of a solids composition), as is also clearly disclosed in Applicant’s specification ([0076]), that cannot be combined together as you cannot directly apply a sealant composition that is both a liquid and a solid at the same time.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 22 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 11, and 14-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boon et al. (US 5036113) (of record), Tsou et al. (US 20080275187) (of record), and Yukawa (US 20150273944) (of record).
Regarding claims 1, 4, and 14-19, Boon discloses a method of preparing a tire, the method comprising steps of: (i) providing a cured tire, the cured tire including a first bead (Fig. 1: 16), a second bead (Fig. 1: 16), a carcass layer (Fig. 1: 14) extending from the first bead (Fig. 1: 16) to the second bead (Fig. 1: 16), and an innerliner layer (Fig. 1: 18) disposed radially interior to the carcass layer (Fig. 1: 14) (Col. 3 lines 21-23, 60-68); and (ii) directly applying an air barrier coating (i.e., composition) (Figs. 1-2: 20) to the innerliner layer of the cured tire to form an air barrier layer on the innerliner layer (Figs. 1-2: 18) of the cured tire.
Boon further discloses that the air barrier composition is elastomeric. However, Boon does not expressly recite that the air barrier composition includes a phase separated blend of elastomer and thermoplastic polymer.
Tsou teaches a low permeability thermoplastic elastomer composition with a preferred application as a tire innerliner and/or barrier film ([0011]), wherein the composition includes a two-phase system (i.e., phase separated) where an elastomer is dispersed within a thermoplastic matrix ([0011]), and wherein the composition exhibits excellent durability and impermeability to fluids such as air as well as liquids ([0011]). The thermoplastic elastomer composition thus obtained is structured with the elastomer component forming a discontinuous phase dispersed as a dispersion phase in a matrix of the nylon resin (i.e., thermoplastic polymer) which forms a continuous phase ([0096]). As a consequence of dynamic vulcanization, the composition remains thermoplastic and a film, layer or sheet-like structure of the composition can be formed using ordinary molding, extrusion or calendering ([0096]). Tsou further discloses the thermoplastic polymer includes a polyurethane and the elastomer includes a polysulfide ([0069]), and the air barrier composition includes a polysulfide ([0069]). Tsou also discloses the air barrier composition includes the thermoplastic polymer in an amount of from about 20 wt. % to about 50 wt. % based on the total solid weight of the air barrier composition ([0025]), which overlaps with the claimed range of from about 5 wt. % to about 75 wt. %. Case law holds that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05. Applicant's original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the amount of thermoplastic polymer in the air barrier composition. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Boon in order to provide that the air barrier composition includes a phase separated blend of elastomer and thermoplastic polymer so as to provide the air barrier layer with excellent durability and impermeability to fluids such as air as well as liquids, and to ensure that the layer remains thermoplastic and that a film/layer structure of the composition can be formed using ordinary molding, extrusion or calendering, as taught by Tsou.
Boon does not expressly recite directly applying a sealant composition to a portion of the air barrier layer to form a sealant layer on the air barrier layer, wherein the sealant composition is a liquid composition, and wherein the step of directly applying the sealant composition includes the sealant layer not extending to a sidewall area of the cured tire.
Yukawa teaches a method of preparing a tire with self-sealing properties, the method comprising steps of: (i) providing a vulcanized (i.e., cured) tire ([0045]), the cured tire including a first bead (Fig. 1: 4) ([0006]), a second bead (Fig. 1: 4) ([0006]), a carcass layer (Fig. 1: 6) extending from the first bead to the second bead ([0006]), and an innerliner layer (Fig. 1: 9) disposed interior to the carcass layer (Fig. 1: 6); and (ii) applying a sealant composition (Fig. 1: 10) to at least a portion of the innerliner (Fig. 1: 9) of the cured tire ([0006], [0028], [0045]). Yukawa further teaches that the sealant layer is made of a viscous rubber (i.e., liquid composition) to fill a hole when the tire is punctured, wherein such a sealant layer suppresses leakage of air through deformation so as to fill a hole formed in tread section when a nail or the like punctures the tire ([0028]). As discussed above, Boon discloses that the innerliner has an air barrier coating (i.e., a coated innerliner). Thus, applying a sealant composition as taught by Yukawa to the innerliner surface of Boon would necessarily include applying it to the air barrier coating. Yukawa further teaches that the step of directly applying the sealant composition includes the sealant layer (Fig. 1: 10, 10e) not extending to a sidewall area (Fig. 1: 3) of the cured tire ([0034], [0045]). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Boon in order to directly apply a sealant composition to a portion of the air barrier layer to form a sealant layer on the air barrier layer, wherein the sealant composition is a liquid composition, and wherein the step of directly applying the sealant composition includes the sealant layer not extending to a sidewall area of the cured tire, so as to suppress leakage of air through deformation and to fill a hole formed in tread section when a nail or the like punctures the tire, as taught by Yukawa.
Boon further discloses that the air barrier composition comprises a polymeric layer having low permeability to air (Col. 2 lines 53-68; Col. 4 lines 40-56), and the air barrier layer has an oxygen permeability of less than about 100 cc-mil/100in2-day-atm (i.e., less than about 1550 cc-mm/m2-day-atm) (Col. 4 lines 27-31), which overlaps with both of the claimed ranges of from about 0.01 to about 500 cc-mm/m2-day-atm and from about 50 to about 100 cc-mm/m2-day-atm. Case law holds that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05. Applicant's original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the oxygen permeability of the air barrier layer. Boon also discloses that the air barrier layer is not sulfur crosslinked to the innerliner as it is radiation cured (Col. 3 lines 5-15; Col. 4 lines 9-13), wherein the inner liner may be sulfur or peroxide cured (i.e., may be not sulfur crosslinked) (Col. 4 lines 1-5).
As discussed above, modified Boon discloses an air barrier layer having the claimed composition that is adhered to the innerliner and the sealant layer. Moreover, Boon discloses that the air barrier layer has good adhesion to the tire (Abstract), and discloses cleaning the innerliner and promoting adhesion between the innerliner and the air barrier (Col. 10 lines 22-68; Col. 11 lines 1-63), which one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize would only increase the adhesion between the components. Case law holds that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. MPEP 2112.01. In this case, the prior art discloses an air barrier layer having the claimed composition provided between a sealant layer and an innerliner that has been cleaned and prepared to promote adhesion. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious that the air barrier layer of modified Boon has, or is at least capable of having, an adhesion to the innerliner of more than 30 N/mm and an adhesion to the sealant layer of more than 30 N/mm.
Additionally, Boon discloses promoting and achieving good adhesion with the air barrier layer and other components, such as the innerliner (Col. 10 lines 22-68; Col. 11 lines 1-63), which teaches that air barrier layer adhesion is recognized as being important for functional performance and can be controlled or adjusted as desired or needed. Thereby, Boon recognizes that adhesion of the air barrier layer is a result-effective variable. While Boon does not explicitly disclose the value for the adhesion of the air barrier layer to the innerliner or the sealant layer, it is considered within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to rely on routine experimentation to arrive at suitable optimum operating parameters for said values of adhesion. Absent unexpected results, case law holds that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 (II)(B). Applicant's original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the adhesion of the air barrier layer to the innerliner and/or the sealant layer. In the present invention one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to optimize the air barrier layer adhesion to adjacent layers (i.e., innerliner and sealant) in order to achieve sufficiently good adhesion between components as suggested by Boon. Furthermore, case law holds that where general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. MPEP 2144.05(II). As discussed above, modified Boon discloses the claimed air barrier layer and composition, as well as providing the air barrier layer between the innerliner and the sealant as claimed, and promoting good adhesion of the air barrier layer. In other words, the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art.
Regarding claim 2, Yukawa further teaches the sealant composition comprises a flowable composition that seals a puncture to the tire ([0028]), and thereby necessarily the carcass layer as well (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 11, Yukawa further teaches that the sealant layer preferably has a thickness from 1 to 10 mm ([0035]), which overlaps with the claimed range of from about 1 mm to about 8 mm. Case law holds that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05. Applicant's original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the thickness of the sealant layer. In this manner, it is possible to suppress an increase in the mass of the tire while exhibiting excellent puncture-sealing capability ([0035]). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to further modify Boon in order to provide the sealant layer with a thickness in the aforementioned range for the advantages discussed above, as taught by Yukawa.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boon et al. (US 5036113) (of record), Tsou et al. (US 20080275187) (of record), and Yukawa (US 20150273944) (of record) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Farber et al. (US 4064922) (of record).
Regarding claim 3, modified Boon does not expressly recite the sealant layer includes ethylene-propylene-diene rubber.
Farber teaches a method of preparing a tire with self-sealing properties, similar to Boon and Yukawa as discussed above in claim 1, the method comprising steps of: (i) providing a cured tire (Fig. 1: 10) (Col. 5 lines 66-68; Col. 6 lines 1-6), the cured tire including a first bead (Fig. 1: 15), a second bead (Fig. 1: 16), a carcass layer (Fig. 1: 14) extending from the first bead (Fig. 1: 15) to the second bead (Fig. 1: 16), and an innerliner layer (Fig. 1: 17) disposed interior to the carcass layer (Fig. 1: 14) (Col. 6 lines 1-6); and (ii) applying a sealant composition (Fig. 1: 18) to at least a portion of the innerliner (Fig. 1: 17) of the cured tire (Col. 6 lines 6-9, 26-68; Col. 7 lines 1-2), wherein the sealant composition is a liquid composition (Figs. 2-3) (Col. 3 lines 3-6). Puncture sealing tubeless tires have previously been proposed, containing, in the area of the tire normally most subject to punctures (that is, the undertread or the area extending across the crown of the tire at least from one shoulder to the other), a layer of sealant composition which has plastic and adhesive qualities such that the composition tends to stick to a puncturing object, and, when the puncturing object is withdrawn, tends to flow into the opening or puncture, forming a plug which seals the opening against loss of air from the tires (Col. 1 lines 30-39). Farber provides a sealant layer for this conventional purpose that is improved in its rigidity and strength, as well as its adhesion and conformability that is necessary in a puncture sealant (Col. 2 lines 42-50). Farber further teaches the sealant layer may include ethylene-propylene-diene rubber (i.e., EPDM) (Col. 3 lines 3-12, 16-19, 29-36, 46-49, 51-55). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to further modify Boon in order to include ethylene-propylene-diene rubber in the sealant layer as is generally known in the substantially similar art, as taught by Farber.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boon et al. (US 5036113) (of record), Tsou et al. (US 20080275187) (of record), and Yukawa (US 20150273944) (of record) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of DeTrano et al. (US 5128392) (of record).
Regarding claim 9, Yukawa further teaches that the sealant layer includes a crosslinking agent and/or aid (i.e., curing agent) ([0029]), such as organic peroxide (i.e., peroxide curing agent) ([0032]). However, modified Boon does not expressly recite the curing agent is impregnated on a solid filler in conjunction with a polar solvent accelerator, such that the sealant layer is self-curing.
DeTrano teaches a curing system, for use in a tire sealant composition, with a puncture-sealing layer formed of the cured composition and a puncture-sealing tire (Col. 1 lines 64-68), wherein filled elastomers can be cured at low temperatures utilizing a quinoid/peroxide curing system in the presence of a select polar solvent accelerator (Col. 1 lines 59-63). The select solvent accelerators which are utilized have the dual function of acting as both dispersing agents and curing accelerators (Col. 1 lines 63-64). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to further modify Boon in order to provide that the peroxide curing agent is impregnated on a solid filler in conjunction with a polar solvent accelerator, such that the sealant layer is self-curing, as is generally known in the similar art for the purpose of having the dual function of acting as both dispersing agents and curing accelerators, as taught by DeTrano.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boon et al. (US 5036113) (of record), Tsou et al. (US 20080275187) (of record), and Yukawa (US 20150273944) (of record) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of any one of Fukutomi et al. (US 20040194862) (of record) and/or Sekiguchi et al. (US 20090266463) (of record).
Regarding claim 10, modified Boon does not expressly recite the sealant layer includes an at least partially-decomposed polyisobutylene.
Fukutomi teaches a tire comprising a sealant layer, wherein the sealant layer (Fig. 1: 8) is formed based on decomposition reaction of polyisobutylene ([0021], [0050], [0069]). Additionally or alternatively, Sekiguchi teaches a sealant layer for a tire, wherein polyisobutylene rubber is used as the rubber component to be decomposed by peroxide for a tacky sealant layer in the tire ([0032]). In other words, it is generally known in the tire art to provide a sealant layer that includes at least partially-decomposed polyisobutylene for tackiness, as taught by Fukutomi and Sekiguchi. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to further modify Boon in order to provide that the sealant layer includes an at least partially-decomposed polyisobutylene so as to have a tacky sealant layer within the tire.
Claim(s) 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boon et al. (US 5036113) (of record), Tsou et al. (US 20080275187) (of record), and Yukawa (US 20150273944) (of record) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kageyama et al. (US 4116895).
Regarding claims 20-21, Yukawa further discloses the sealant composition includes butyl rubber ([0029]). However, modified Boon does not expressly recite that the sealant composition includes a butyl rubber emulsion, or that the butyl rubber emulsion includes at least one additional rubber component selected from the group consisting of a diene type unsaturated hydrocarbon polymer emulsion, a natural rubber latex, and a saturated hydrocarbon polymer emulsion.
Kageyama discloses a puncture sealant composition for a tire inner crown region that does not extend to a tire sidewall (Col. 2 lines 7-19; Col. 14 lines 65-68), wherein the sealant composition includes a butyl rubber emulsion, and at least one of diene type unsaturated hydrocarbon polymer emulsion, a natural rubber latex, and a saturated hydrocarbon polymer emulsion (Abstract; Col. 2 lines 25-39; Col. 5 lines 18-22). In this manner, it is possible to provide a puncture sealant composition in emulsion which is capable of forming a puncture sealant layer on the inner surface of a tire having an excellent sealing property and is also capable of facilitating the application process of the sealant layer of a tire (Col. 2 lines 17-24). Moreover, the sealant composition is generally applied to materials to be sealed, such as the inside surface of the tire and the like, by conventional spraying or coating technique (Col. 6 lines 64-67). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to further modify the sealant composition of modified Boon in order to include a butyl rubber emulsion and at least one of a diene type unsaturated hydrocarbon polymer emulsion, a natural rubber latex, and a saturated hydrocarbon polymer emulsion for the advantages discussed above as taught by Kageyama.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4, 9-11, and 14-21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed 08/14/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 6 of the Remarks, Applicant argues the Office has not set forth any factual evidence that the claimed variable is recognized in the prior art to be a result-effective variable. The examiner refers to the detailed discussion above as to the examiner’s articulated rationale supporting optimization.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEDEF PAQUETTE (née AYALP) whose telephone number is (571) 272-5031. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 8:00 AM EST - 4:00 PM EST.
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, KATELYN SMITH (née WHATLEY) can be reached on (571) 270-5545. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300. The fax phone number for the examiner is (571) 273-5031.
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://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SEDEF E PAQUETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749