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 .
Double Patenting
Claims 1-4, 6-10, 12 and 13 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-5, 7, 8, 10-12, 14 and 15 of copending Application No. 18/373551 (PGPub US20240174842A1) in view of Izumo (EP 3922670 A1). The copending application teaches an analogous rubber composition comprising the same ingredients in the same amounts as the instant application but further recites that the butadiene rubber is modified butadiene. The butadiene is modified such that it contains at least one heteroatom selected from the group consisting of an oxygen atom, a nitrogen atom, and a silicon atom. Izumo teaches a similar tire tread composition for increased breaking performance where the butadiene rubber component may be modified in the claimed manner with the claimed heteroatoms [0038]. Izumo further teaches that the use of butadiene rubber and modified butadiene rubber are interchangeable [0051]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the instant application to use the teaching from Izumo to modify the butadiene of the instant application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 3, 6, 7, 9, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Isitman (US 20190184744 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 3, 6, 7, 9 and 12, Isitman teaches a composition for tire tread and tires comprising the tire tread composition. The composition comprises:
100 parts of diene rubber which comprises 50 parts by weight (pbw) of butadiene rubber (BR) and 50 pbw natural rubber (NR);
100 pbw of silica filler; and
25 parts by weight of traction promoting resin (Sylvatraxx 4150™)
(Abstract; Table 1; Tables 4 and 8, control samples C and G; Abstract) . The examiner notes that Sylvatraxx 4150™ has a β-pinene content of 98% by mass or more according to the instant specification paragraph [0070].
Regarding claim 13, “all-season tire” is taken to mean an intended use of the composition of the instant application for tires in wet and winter weather conditions as described in paragraph [0005] of the instant specification. Isitman teaches a tire comprising the tire tread composition described above intended to be used in wet conditions and in winter weather conditions (abstract).
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.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyazaki (US 20150011676 A1) in view of Isitman (US 20190184744 A1) and further in view of Watanabe (US 20200040168 A1).
Regarding claims 1-12, Miyazaki teaches a tire tread composition and tires with increased wet grip performance comprising the tire tread composition. The tire tread composition comprises:
100 pbw of a diene rubber component comprising 65 pbw of BR rubber (as CB 25 from LANXESS, at least 96% by mass cis-1,4 bond content) and 35 pbw NR;
60 pbw silica; and
25 pbw of pinene resin (YS resin PX1150 from Yasuhara Chemical Co., Ltd.)
(Table 2, example 7; paragraphs [003][0012][0073][0074][0091])
However, Miyazaki is silent on whether the pinene resin used comprises β-pinene in at least 40% by mass, or further, at least 80% by mass.
As referenced in paragraph 3 above, Isitman teaches Sylvatraxx 4150™, the resin exemplified by the applicant comprising at least a 98% by mass of β-pinene. Since this resin is known in the art as useful for tire tread compositions in the claimed amounts, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the instant application to substitute the resin of Miyazaki for the resin of Isitman.
Regarding claim 13, Miyazaki teaches a tire with improved wet-grip performance but does not teach an “all-season tire”. Watanabe teaches a pneumatic tire tread composition with increased wet-grip performance and further teaches the same composition as suitable for an all-season tire (paragraph [0133]). A person of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the instant application would have found it obvious to not only incorporate the β-pinene resin of Isitman to produce the claimed composition, but would have also found it obvious to apply the teaching of Watanabe to use this composition to create an all-season tire.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Miyazaki (EP3081587A1) teaches tire tread compositions comprising BR and NR, silica, β-pinene. Similar to Miyazaki reference used above.
Yoshioka (EP 3575330 A1) Teaches tire tread comprising 100 pbw diene rubber (70 SBR and 30 BR), 120 pbw silica filler, 25 pbw terpene filler (80% beta-pinene).
Nishikawa (US 20240174842 A1)
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 Monday-Friday 8:00 am - 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, 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 4/16/2026
/JOSEPH S DEL SOLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1763
Prosecution Insights