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 .
Response to Amendment
All outstanding rejections, except for those maintained below, are withdrawn in light of the applicant’s amendment filed on 7/16/2026.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior office action.
The new grounds of rejection set forth below are necessitated by applicant's amendment filed on 7/16/2026. In particular, claim 1 has been amended to recite “wherein aluminum and iron are contained in the zinc oxide as metallic components of the zinc oxide”. Thus, the following action is properly made final.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites “zinc oxide… wherein aluminum and iron are contained in the zinc oxide as metallic components of the zinc oxide”. The examiner notes that the understanding of the term “zinc oxide” in the art is in reference to the pure substance of zinc oxide or ZnO. To account for the applicant’s use of the term in the specification not as a pure compound but as containing iron and aluminum metallic components, the manner in which aluminum and iron are contained in zinc oxide as metallic components is taken to be such that aluminum and iron would be expected to be present when the zinc oxide is subjected to chemical analysis as described in instant paragraph 0039 and Table 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1 and 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sheepwash (US 20220235203 A1) in view of Hashimoto (JP 59-116339 A).
Regarding claim 1, Sheepwash teaches a tire tread rubber composition (paragraph [0099]) comprising zinc oxide (abstract). However, sheepwash does not disclose zinc oxide containing iron and aluminum as metallic components.
Hashimoto teaches a method of refining a zinc oxide source to produce purified zinc oxide that contains iron and aluminum (page 9, Table 4 of the copy provided by the applicant).
Zinc oxide and its function was known in the art, so a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the instant application would have found it obvious to use the zinc oxide of Hashimoto in the composition of Sheepwash and the result would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 3, Hashimoto teaches zinc oxide with a mass ratio of a content of the iron to the content of the aluminum is 1.86 (where the content of iron is 520 ppm and the content of aluminum is 280 ppm in Table 4).
Provided below is a machine translated image of Table 4 from Hashimoto for the convenience of the applicant:
PNG
media_image1.png
135
346
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Hashimoto teaches zinc oxide with an iron content of 25 ppm (Table 4).
Regarding claim 5, Sheepwash teaches a pneumatic tire composition comprising the rubber composition (paragraphs [0002-0003]).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sheepwash in view of Hashimoto and further in view of Alane (Acid Leaching of Zinc From ZnO/Al2O3 Catalyst).
Regarding claim 2, the composition of Sheepwash in view of Hashimoto applies as described above, however, neither reference teaches zinc oxide containing aluminum in amounts between 15 ppm and 80 ppm.
Alane teaches a method of purifying zinc oxide/aluminum oxide catalyst to recover purified zinc oxide by removing the aluminum (abstract). Alane also notes that zinc oxide is useful as a reinforcer for rubber tires (introduction).
A person of ordinary skill as of the effective filing date of the instant application would have found it obvious to apply the teaching of Alane of purifying zinc oxide by removing aluminum and, through routine optimization using method known in the art, would purify the zinc oxide of Hashimoto by removing aluminum and would have reasonable expectation of success in formulating zinc oxide with the claimed range of aluminum. Further, the examiner notes that MPEP 2144.04(VII) states that purer forms of known products may be patentable, but the mere purity of a product, by itself, does not render the product nonobvious.
Response to Arguments
Referenced below are the examiner’s response to arguments given by the applicant in remarks filed on 7/16/2026.
In response to applicant’s argument in section (5-2), paragraph 5, regarding the examiner’s interpretation of the previously presented claim 1 is moot in light of the amended claim 1. The examiner has interpreted the amended claim 1 with the applicant’s argument in mind which is provided above in the claim interpretation section.
In response to applicant's argument in section (4) regarding the statutory double patenting rejection of claims 1-4 that the instant claims and the conflicting claims are not coextensive in scope since the preamble of the instant claim 1 recites "[a] rubber composition for tire treads" and the conflicting claim 1 recites "[a] rubber composition". The examiner respectfully disagrees. Recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2111.02(III). The previous double patenting rejection is withdrawn in view of amended conflicting application claim.
Applicant’s further arguments filed on 7/16/2026 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection set forth above.
Conclusion
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 KOLTON JONES whose telephone number is (571)272-9802. The examiner can normally be reached Generally Monday-Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 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, Joseph Del Sole can be reached at (517)272-1130. 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.
/KOLTON JONES/Examiner, Art Unit 1763
/JOSEPH S DEL SOLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1763
Prosecution Insights