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 § 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 non-obviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5, 7-9, and 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over STANYSCHOFSKY et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2011/0236816, hereinafter STANYSCHOFSKY) in view of STYER (U.S. Publication No. 2018/0009971, hereinafter STYER).
Regarding claims 1-3, 7, 8, 12-15 and 17, STANYSCHOFSKY teaches polymer mixtures that comprise at least one polymer and at least one carbon black [0066 and 0067]. Polymers include plastics or rubbers [0068] wherein the rubber includes natural rubber [0069-0070] and synthetic rubbers [0079-0091] (which reads on (a) an elastomeric polymer material as claimed). The carbon black can be produced using a carbon black feedstock [0055]. The renewable carbon black feedstock can be bio-gas, rapeseed oil, soya oil, palm oil, sunflower oil, oils derived from nuts or olive oil [0057]. The carbon black feedstock can comprise >0.001% by weight, particularly ≥ 25 wt% by weight, with a preference of ≥ 99% by weight of renewable carbon black feedstock [0060] (which reads on (b-i) carbon black obtained from a carbon black feedstock comprising a renewable carbon black feedstock in an amount greater than 10 wt% as claimed).
The rubber mixtures comprises at least one rubber and at least one carbon black [0071]. The rubber mixtures are used for the production of pneumatic and other tyres, tyre treads, cable sheathing, hoses, drive belts, conveyor belts, roll coverings, shoe soles, sealing rings, profiles, and damping elements [0099].
However, STANYSCHOFSKY does not teach wherein the carbon black material (b) comprises 5 to 95 wt% of an additional carbon black (ii), based on the total weight of the carbon black material (b).
In the same field of endeavor of rubber composition used to manufacture tires or various tire components (Abstract; [0065]), STYER teaches a rubber composition comprising elastomers, plant oil, and a recycled carbon black [0004 and 0006]. The composition comprises a mixture of carbon black which include conventional carbon black formed from incomplete combustion of hydrocarbon feedstock can be used as reinforcing filler and a carbon black can be sourced from a recycled material [0019 and 0023]. The recycled carbon black may be obtained by pyrolysis process or other methods known for obtaining recycled carbon black [0019]. The recycled carbon black the majority of the carbon black component of the compound in an amount of 75% of the filler component [0022], therefore the amount of conventional carbon black is 25 wt% of the filler component. Note: recycled carbon black reads on the renewable carbon black feedstock. The combination of carbon black and recycled carbon black is present in an amount of 1 to 45 phr [0021] (which is within the claimed range).
Given STANYSCHOFSKY teaches the rubber composition comprises at least one carbon black including renewable carbon black and carbon black as reinforcing fillers [0063 and 0066], it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have provided the convention carbon black as a reinforcing filler of STYER with the rubber composition of STANYSCHOFSKY for the benefit of its art recognized function as a reinforcing for rubber compositions (e.g., tire, tire components, and etc.). It is well settled that it is prima facie obvious to combine two ingredients, each of which is targeted by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose. In re Linder 457 F,2d 506,509, 173 USPQ 356, 359 (CCPA 1972).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, STANYSCHOFSKY substantially teaches the present invention, see paragraphs 6-9 above. More specifically, STANYSCHOFSKY teaches polymer mixtures that comprise at least one polymer and at least one carbon black [0066 and 0067]. Polymers include plastics or rubbers [0068] including natural rubber [0069-0070] and synthetic rubbers [0079-0091]. Synthetic rubbers include polybutadiene, polyisoprene, solution styrene butadiene rubber, chloroprene, butadiene/acrylonitrile copolymer, ethylene/propylene/diene copolymers (EPDM), and mixtures of these rubbers [0079-0090]. The at least one carbon black [0067] includes renewable carbon black [0063] and carbon black as pigments or reinforcing fillers in the rubber mixture [0066].
However, STANYSCHOFSKY fails to teach the composition according to claim 1, wherein the elastomeric polymer material (a) comprises, based on parts by weight per 100 parts by weight of rubber (phr), from 40 to 100 phr of natural rubber and from 5 to 60 phr of a synthetic rubber.
In the same field of endeavor of rubber composition used to manufacture tires or various tire components (Abstract; [0065]), STYER teaches a rubber composition comprising a blend of more than one rubber elastomer including natural rubber in an amount of about 5 phr to about 100 phr with one or more synthetic rubbers comprising the remaining phr wherein polybutadiene or poly(styrene-butadiene) rubber may comprise about 95 phr to about 5 phr [0017]. The rubber elastomer blends can be adjusted to desired final viscoelastic properties desired for the rubber composition [0017].
Given STANYSCHOFSKY teaches the rubber mixture comprises natural rubber and synthetic rubbers, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have provided the blend of natural rubber and synthetic rubber in the amounts of STYER with the rubber mixture of STANYSCHOFSKY for the benefit of obtaining a desired final viscoelastic properties in the rubber composition as taught by STYER [0017]. It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose, see In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846,850,205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 9, STANYSCHOFSKY teaches the carbon black can be plasma black, gas black, thermal black, lamp black, or furnace black [0037].
Regarding claim 10, STANYSCHOFSKY teaches the polymer mixtures comprises at least one carbon black [0067]. The carbon black includes renewable carbon black [0063], carbon black as pigments or reinforcing fillers in the rubber mixture [0066].
Regarding claim 16, STANYSCHOFSKY teaches the rubber mixtures comprises synthetic rubbers including polybutadiene, polyisoprene, solution styrene butadiene rubber, chloroprene, butadiene/acrylonitrile copolymer, ethylene/propylene/diene copolymers (EPDM), and mixtures of these rubbers [0079-0090].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Office Action mailed 12/09/2025 has been modified in light of the amendments. As discussed above, STANYSCHOFSKY in view of STYER teaches the present invention.
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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVE V HALL whose telephone number is (571)270-7738. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9 am-5 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 (571) 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.
DEVE V. HALL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1763
/DEVE V HALL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763