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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on January 27, 2026 and April 28, 2026 were filed. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the Office.
Response to Amendments and Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments, filed March 11, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicant has amended or canceled the claims to obviate the rejections. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments and arguments, filed March 11, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of Randall and Di Ronza (cited in the previous Office Action) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The amended range for an amount of a total amount of the at least one aging stabilizer (0.01 phr to 3.5 phr) is outside of the range suggested by Di Ronza. Accordingly, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, after further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Randall and of Yamamoto et al. (JP2011225717, English translation provided for citations, hereinafter referred to as “Yamamoto”).
While the rejection in view of Di Ronza is withdrawn, to the extent that Applicant’s arguments with respect to modification of Randall, it is the position of the Office that Randall explicitly teaches the compounding of an antioxidant/antidegradant additives at the appropriate step ([0034]) and further teaches that antioxidant/antidegradant may be selected from “conventional rubber additives” ([0041]). Based on this disclosure, a person having ordinary skill in the art may reasonably recognize other antioxidant/antidegradant that are known within the art as suitable for the rubber of Randall. Furthermore, while there may be property differences that arise from chemically different antioxidant/antidegradant additives, there does not appear to be evidence that selection of a species outside that explicitly taught by Randall would render the rubber unsuitable for its intended purpose.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments are considered fully responded to within the comments above and rejections below.
Claim Objections
Claim 32 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 31. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 14-16, 21-23, and 25-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Randall et al. (US20150126673, hereinafter referred to as “Randall”) in view of Yamamoto et al. (JP2011225717, English translation provided for citations, hereinafter referred to as “Yamamoto”).
As to Claim 14: Randall teaches a process for isolating purified natural rubber (i.e., polyisoprene, see [0002]) comprising the steps of:
Providing harvested plant matter sourced from, inter alia, Taraxcum kok-saghyz ([0005] and step a. of claim 21), which Randall teaches contains natural rubber (i.e., polyisoprene)
mixing said harvested plant matter with a solvent thereby producing a quantity of dissolved rubber and a quantity of solids (step b. of claim 21) (which reads on the claimed separating the sap and/or its ingredients from the remaining plant tissue as defined by the instant specification para. [0013] “separating solids and liquid phase” or “disrupting the plant material by…chemical…treatment”).
Randall further teaches that the rubber product may subsequently be admixed with conventional rubber additives including antidegradants such as antioxidants ([0041]), which reads on the claimed aging stabilizer according to the instant specification para. [0030]. This process occurs after addition of the solvent but before isolation of the rubber from said solvent (see, e.g., Example 1, [0086] wherein an antioxidant (Santoflex 13) is added to a toluene solution before isolation of the rubber from said toluene via evaporation)
Randall further teaches that the rubber may be isolated from the solvent via coagulation ([0027] and step d. of claim 21), the rubber particles obtained from said coagulation read on the claimed rubber flakes as defined by the instant specification para. [0018] and [0020], wherein “flakes” are construed to refer to rubber particles that occur from coagulation.
Randal further teaches using at least one rubber-insoluble organic solvent mixed with the rubber obtained above in order to dissolve soluble impurities and remove them from the rubber ([0028] and step e. of claim 21) (i.e., washing).
Randal further teaches isolating the remaining rubber mass from the at least one rubber-insoluble organic solvent to produce a purified natural rubber (step f. of claim 21) (i.e., obtaining from the washing solution).
Randall further teaches that the rubber product may subsequently be admixed with conventional rubber additives including antidegradants such as antioxidants ([0041]), which reads on the claimed aging stabilizer according to the instant specification para. [0030]. Randall teaches an exemplary process that includes the addition of an antioxidant Santoflex 13 (Example 1, [0085]) in an amount of 2 phr (Table 2). Randall further acknowledges “conventional rubber additives” including antioxidants may be added to the rubber ([0041]). However, Randall does not teach wherein the aging stabilizer is chosen from the claimed group.
Yamamoto teaches heat resistant rubber compositions comprising natural rubber ([0014]) and further teaches that the composition may comprise an anti-aging agent which may be chosen from amine-based antioxidants including N-phenyl-N'-1,3-dimethylbutyl-p-phenylenediamine (i.e., 6PPD/Santoflex 13) and phenolic antioxidants including 2,6-di-t-butyl 4-methylphenol (i.e., BHT) (pg. 27, para. 2). Yamamoto further teaches that the antiaging additive is used in an amount of 1 to 10 phr (pg. 27, final paragraph) Randall is analogous art because it is directed towards the same field of endeavor, namely, extraction of non-Hevea natural rubber from Taraxacum/Scorzonera plant material. Yamamoto is analogous art because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of selection of an antioxidant/antiaging additive for natural rubber compositions to prevent unwanted molecular degradation thereof. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select BHT as an antioxidant additive for the rubber of Randall and the motivation would have been that Randall expressly encourages “conventional rubber additives” including antioxidants are suitable for addition to the rubber ([0041]) and Yamamoto teaches that BHT is a conventional rubber additive antioxidant. Furthermore, the amount conventional dosage acknowledged by Yamamoto overlaps with the claimed range for an amount of an aging stabilizer. In the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP § 2144.05(I). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have used the overlapping portion of the claimed range, and the motivation to have done so would have been, as Yamamoto suggests, that the overlapping portion is a known range for an amount of a BHT antioxidant within natural rubbers to prevent oxidative degradation.
As to Claim 15: Randall teaches the method of claim 14 (supra).
Randall further teaches that the plant material may be dried, but contemplates said drying as a preferred step only when a water wash is used to remove dirt from the plant material ([0032]). Therefore, the drying step is construed to be an optional step associated with an optional method (i.e., a water wash) of removing dirt from a plant material. Randall also motivates other methods for removing dirt from plant material, such as shaking ([0032]) which would therefore not require a drying step.
As to Claim 16: Randall teaches the method of claim 14 (supra).
Randall further teaches that the rubber product may subsequently be admixed with conventional rubber additives including antidegradants such as antioxidants ([0041]), which reads on the claimed aging stabilizer according to the instant specification para. [0030]. This process occurs after addition of the solvent (analogous to the claimed (II)) but before isolation of the rubber from said solvent (see, e.g., Example 1, [0086] wherein an antioxidant (Santoflex 13) is added to a toluene solution before isolation of the rubber from said toluene via evaporation).
As to Claim 21: Randall teaches the method of claim 14 (supra).
Randall teaches an exemplary process that includes the addition of an antioxidant Santoflex 13 (Example 1, [0085]) but is silent towards the state (i.e., powder, suspension, liquid, or solution) of said antioxidant. However, ECHA identifies 6PPD (sharing the same structure with the claimed Santoflex 13) as having a particulate/powder state.
As to Claim 22: Randall teaches the method of claim 14 (supra).
Randall teaches an exemplary process that includes the addition of an antioxidant Santoflex 13 (Example 1, [0085]) which is construed to occur at ambient temperature (i.e., about 25 ˚C) as Randall does not require or recite a heating step prior to addition of the antioxidant, thus reading on the claimed (i).
As to Claim 23: Randall teaches the method of claim 14 (supra).
Randall further teaches rubber compositions comprising the purified rubber sourced from, inter alia, Taraxacum saghyz ([0007]).
As to Claim 25 and 26: Randall teaches the method of claim 14 (supra).
Randall further teaches that rubber compositions comprising the purified rubber sourced from, inter alia, Taraxacum saghyz ([0007]) may be used to form tire treads ([0054]) (i.e., tires).
As to Claim 27-29: Randall teaches the method of claim 14 (supra).
Randall teaches that the plant matter may be sourced from Taraxacum kok-saghyz, Scorzonera tau-saghyz, Scorzonera uzbekistanica, and combinations thereof ([0005]).
As to Claim 30-34: Randall teaches the method of claim 14 (supra).
Randall further teaches that the rubber product may subsequently be admixed with conventional rubber additives including antidegradants such as antioxidants ([0041]), which reads on the claimed aging stabilizer according to the instant specification para. [0030]. Randall teaches an exemplary process that includes the addition of an antioxidant Santoflex 13 (Example 1, [0085]) in an amount of 2 phr (Table 2). Randall further acknowledges “conventional rubber additives” including antioxidants may be added to the rubber ([0041]). However, Randall does not teach wherein the aging stabilizer is chosen from the claimed group.
Yamamoto teaches heat resistant rubber compositions comprising natural rubber ([0014]) and further teaches that the composition may comprise an anti-aging agent which may be chosen from amine-based antioxidants including N-phenyl-N'-1,3-dimethylbutyl-p-phenylenediamine (i.e., 6PPD/Santoflex 13) and phenolic antioxidants including 2,6-di-t-butyl 4-methylphenol (i.e., BHT) (pg. 27, para. 2). Yamamoto further teaches that the antiaging additive is used in an amount of 1 to 10 phr (pg. 27, final paragraph) Randall is analogous art because it is directed towards the same field of endeavor, namely, extraction of non-Hevea natural rubber from Taraxacum/Scorzonera plant material. Yamamoto is analogous art because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of selection of an antioxidant/antiaging additive for natural rubber compositions to prevent unwanted molecular degradation thereof. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select BHT as an antioxidant additive for the rubber of Randall and the motivation would have been that Randall expressly encourages “conventional rubber additives” including antioxidants are suitable for addition to the rubber ([0041]) and Yamamoto teaches that BHT is a conventional rubber additive antioxidant. Furthermore, the amount conventional dosage acknowledged by Yamamoto overlaps with the claimed range for an amount of an aging stabilizer. In the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP § 2144.05(I). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have used the overlapping portion of the claimed range, and the motivation to have done so would have been, as Yamamoto suggests, that the overlapping portion is a known range for an amount of a BHT antioxidant within natural rubbers to prevent oxidative degradation.
Claims 36 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Randall et al. (US20150126673, hereinafter referred to as “Randall”) in view of Yamamoto et al. (JP2011225717, English translation provided for citations, hereinafter referred to as “Yamamoto”) and further in view of Wade et al. (US20110275142, hereinafter referred to as “Wade”).
As to Claims 36-37: Randall teaches the process of claim 14 (see above).
Randall further teaches that the rubber may be isolated from the solvent via coagulation ([0027] and step d. of claim 21), the rubber particles obtained from said coagulation read on the claimed rubber flakes as defined by the instant specification para. [0018] and [0020], wherein “flakes” are construed to refer to rubber particles that occur from coagulation. Randall further acknowledges flotation as a suitable method for extracting rubber. However, Randall does not teach wherein the solvent is water.
Wade teaches a process of extracting and recovering rubber from species of a Taraxacum genus (Abstract) wherein a coagulated rubber is extracted and separated from a plurality of dandelion roots by an aqueous solution ([0055]) within a flotation tank to afford rubber particles ([0046]), which reads on the claimed “rubber flakes.” The coagulated rubber may be skimmed from the surface of the tank ([0046]), which reads on the claimed “obtaining the natural rubber flakes from the extract which is aqueous.” Randall and Wade are considered analogous art because they are directed towards the same field of endeavor, namely, processes for extraction of rubber from species of a Taraxacum genus. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the aqueous-based coagulation/extraction steps taught by Wade as an alternative to the organic solvent-based coagulation step of Randall based on the finding that Wade teaches that aqueous processes are recognized within the art as suitable to achieve the same effect (i.e., coagulation/separation of rubber particles from plant materials) as the organic solvent-based process of Randall. Furthermore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize the decreased environmental impact and operating cost of an aqueous-based system compared to an organic solvent-based system.
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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CULLEN L. G. DAVIDSON IV whose telephone number is (703)756-1073. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6:00.
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, Mark Eashoo can be reached on (571) 272-1197. 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.
/C.L.G.D./ Examiner, Art Unit 1767
/MARK EASHOO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1767
Prosecution Insights