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 .
Priority
The foreign priority is not in English, the claims are thusly given an effective date of the filing of the instant application: 6/27/23
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/27/23 has been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: page 15 of the specification has the following:
PNG
media_image1.png
168
912
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The above 1,6-hexamethylenediamine-sodium dithiosulfate dihydrate is also in claim 1.
It is unclear if this is a translation error or trademark typo. Duralink HTS is catalogued in Scifinder as the following compound:
Additionally US 20
PNG
media_image2.png
514
544
media_image2.png
Greyscale
22/0098386 [0056] is used as evidence, from the same Assignee, that Duralink HTS from Flexsys is disclosed to be sodium hexamethylene-1,6-bisthiosulfate dihydrate (which is the above Scifinder compound).
Applicant should fix or clarify the Duralink HTS citation in the specification because it does not seem to be the 1,6-hexamethylenediamine-sodium dithiosulfate dihydrate as set forth in the instant specification.
Appropriate clarification/correction is required.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takazo (JP 2004083766-English translation and reference of record from the IDS dated 6/27/23).
Takazo discloses a rubber-steel cord composite [overview-problem to be solved] comprising 100 pts by weight rubber and less than 0.1 pt by wt cobalt salt [overview-problem to be solved]. The composite is used as a member of a pneumatic tire [0001-technical field of invention] (meeting the pneumatic tire of claims 5, 6). The rubber is a natural rubber, a styrene butadiene rubber and/or isoprene rubber [0032] (meeting the 100 parts by weight diene based rubber of claim 1 and species of claim 2). The composition further comprises at least one of 1,6-hexamethylenediamine dithiosodium 2hydrate (2hydrate translating to dihydrate) (meeting the 1,6-hexamethylene compound of claim 1) [0022] and a triazinetrithiol monoalkali metal salt [0022]. Though this is not specified to be 1,3,5-triazine, 2, 4,6 trithiol the traiazinetrithiol of Takazo is implicitly the same compound (this meets the claimed triazinetrithiol).
Selecting two compounds known suitable for the same intended use is prima facie obvious, see In re Kerkhoven. Additionally the “at least one” implies and/or renders obvious the use of combinations thereof. Thus, using both compounds is prima facie obvious.
[0040] discloses wherein these compounds are added in amounts of 0.5-2.0 pts per 100 parts rubber. One could use 1 parts of the 1,6-hexamethyl compound, and, 0.625 part triazinetrithiol to achieve a ratio of 1.6, both being within the claimed individual components parts by mass of claim 1. The mass basis ratio and parts by mass are thusly embraced and rendered obvious by the reference. Elements above render prima facie obvious all elements of claims 1-2, 5-6.
Cobalt is used in amounts less than 0.1 parts, as above, it is also preferred that the rubber composition does not contain any cobalt salt [0018], as further required by claims 3, 4.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Applicant’s Table 1 is convincing for unexpected results for a mass ratio (1,6-hexamethyl compound / triazinetrithiol) that ranges from 3-15. Table 1 shows that for these ratios an unexpected workability/scorch/peel resistance compared to Comp Ex 1-6. The claims are not currently commensurate in scope with the showings. To be commensurate in scope Applicant should amend the mass basis to be a range of 3-15. Alternatively, Applicant can show that the endpoint of 1.6 gives unexpected results. The range would still need to be capped (and not “or more”) to be commensurate in scope. If Applicant wishes to claim a larger endpoint than 15, Applicant should submit additional data with such an endpoint showing that unexpected results persist thereto.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALICIA BLAND whose telephone number is (571)272-2451. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00 am -3:00 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, Curt Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/ALICIA BLAND/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759