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 § 102
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 following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 8-18, and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ambroggio (WO 2023/002401 A1, hereinafter referring to US 2024/0368382 A1 as the United States equivalent). Shell (Neodene 26+ Technical Datasheet) is included as an evidentiary reference.
Regarding claims 1 and 13, Ambroggio teaches an elastomeric composition comprising at least one elastomeric polymer and at least one long-chain olefin (abstract), and exemplifies the use of Neodene 26+ from Shell Chemicals LP (p. 3, Table 1, Footnote), which reads on the claimed “unsaturated wax” because the instant disclosure states that C18+ linear alpha olefins and C18+ linear alpha olefin dimers are “wax” compounds (c.f. instant claim 4).
Ambroggio teaches that the inventive composition is particularly useful for the formation of tire sidewalls ([0040]).
Regarding claims 2-3 and 14-15, Ambroggio exemplifies the use of natural rubber and polybutadiene rubber (p. 3, Table 1, Footnote).
Regarding claims 4-5 and 16-17, as described above, Ambroggio exemplifies the use of Neodene 26+, which reads on the claimed “C18+ linear alpha olefins (LAOs).” Neodene 26+ has a kinematic viscosity of about 4.5 mm2/s (equivalent to 4.5 centistokes) (see Shell p. 1), falls within and therefore anticipates the claimed range of “about 4 cSt or less.” While 4.5 cSt is higher than 4 cSt, the claim has been drafted to include the term “about,” which reflects that the value of 4 cSt is not a hard cutoff for included kinematic viscosities. It is the Office’s position that 4.5 cSt is sufficiently close to 4 cSt so as to fall within the claimed range as drafted.
Regarding claims 6 and 18, as described above, Ambroggio teaches the use of Neodene 26+. Neodene 26+ comprises at least 85 wt% of C26+ LAOs (p. 3, Table 1, Footnote).
Regarding claims 8 and 20, Ambroggio teaches that the inventive composition may comprise the long-chain olefin as the only ozone-protective compound ([0025]). Therefore, the inventive composition of Ambroggio may include another anti-ozonant compound.
Regarding claims 9 and 21, Ambroggio teaches the incorporation of, inter alia, parrafin wax or microcrystalline wax ([0026]).
Regarding claims 10 and 22, Neodene 26+, within the exemplified formulation of Ambroggio (p. 3, Table 1, Footnote), which reads on the claimed “unsaturated wax” as described in the rejection of claim 1, above, contains linear alpha olefins of 26 or more carbons in amounts of at least 85 wt%, which reads on the claimed “majority.”
Regarding claims 11-12, Ambroggio teaches the formation of, inter alia, belts, tires, and hoses using the inventive composition ([0040]).
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 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.
Claims 7 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ambroggio (WO 2023/002401 A1, hereinafter referring to US 2024/0368382 A1 as the United States equivalent) in view of Perez Velez (WO 2021/183330 A1).
Regarding claim 7 and 19, Ambroggio teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 13, as described above. Ambroggio differs from claim 1 because it is silent with regard to the LAOs being in the form of dimers, and having the claimed kinematic viscosity range.
In the same field of endeavor, Perez Velez teaches wax compositions obtained by subjecting one or more linear alpha olefins to olefin metathesis and hydrogenation (Abstract). Perez Velez teaches that the inventive waxes are useful within tire compositions ([0106]), and teaches that the waxes may be in the form of dimers (Abstract), formed from alpha olefins each having carbon numbers ranging from about 12 to about 100 ([0005]), and having a central carbon-carbon double bond ([0044]). Perez Velez further teaches that the inventive waxes may have kinematic viscosities at 100°C ranging from about 2 cSt to about 20 cSt ([0046]), which overlaps the claimed range of “6.5 cSt or less,” establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
It is prima facie obvious to substitute equivalents known in the art as suitable for the same purpose (see MPEP 2144.06). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to substitute the inventive dimeric wax of Perez Velez in place of the LAO wax of Ambroggio, as Perez Velez teaches them as suitable anti-ozonant wax additives for tire formulations ([0106]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA CALEB BLEDSOE whose telephone number is (703)756-5376. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. 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, 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.
/JOSHUA CALEB BLEDSOE/ Examiner, Art Unit 1762
/ROBERT S JONES JR/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1762