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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II (claims 10-16) in the reply filed on January 26, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 9 and 17-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. The requirement is deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 10, the phrase “copolymer” in the limitations “conjugated diene-based copolymer” (numerous occurrences throughout the claim) renders the claim indefinite because the cited polymers seem to not be copolymers (a polymer made from two different monomers). Indeed, the examples show natural rubber (homopolymer of isoprene) and butadiene homopolymers. The examiner would like clarification on the meaning of copolymer.
Regarding claim 16, give that this depends from claim 10, please restate what Mc and Ms are in the claims as it does not depend from a claim which has the explanation.
The remaining claims are rejected for being dependent upon a previously rejected claim.
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.
Claim(s) 10-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kameda et al (US 2015/0298511) in view of Sa (DE 10 2014 212 489 A1, please refer to machine translation for mapping) and Kurihara (US 2019/0211190)
Regarding claim 10, Kameda teaches a tire comprising: a tread portion extending in a tire circumferential direction and having an annular shape; a pair of sidewall portions respectively disposed on both sides of the tread portion; a pair of bead portions each disposed on an inner side of the pair of sidewall portions in a tire radial direction; and a carcass layer mounted between the pair of bead portions (Figure 1). Kameda teaches that this sidewall reinforcing rubber can be between the two-carcass layer ([0017]) and, therefore, can be considered to be on the outer side of at least one carcass layer in the sidewall portion.
Kameda teaches a rubber composition which contains 20 to 100 parts by mass of a reinforcing filler containing at least 50% by weight carbon black ([0009]). Kameda teaches that the carbon black has a CTAB of less than 100 m2/g (Table 1). Kameda teaches that a rubber composition which contains from a butadiene rubber which is a blend of syndiotactic-1,2-polybutadine rubber and butadiene rubber ([0023]). The blend itself is considered to be the 100 phr basis even though other polymers are present in the composition. The blend contains 1 to 50 % by weight of the syndiotactic 1,2 polybutadiene ([0024]).
However, Kameda fails to teach a) the properties of the syndiotactic polybutadiene and fails to teach the b) the properties of the polybutadiene (second conjugated diene-based copolymer)
Regarding a) above, Sa teaches a rubber composition for use in sidewall tire applications (Abstract) which incorporates syndiotactic 1,2 polybutadiene (page 3-page4) which a commercially available one is JSR AT 300 (page 4) which has 93 % 1,2 bond and a melting point of 105 C (page 4). Given that this is the same commercial polymer as used in the examples, it would inherently have the recited glass transition temperature.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the JRS AT 300 of Sa as the syndiotactic polybutadiene of Kameda. One would have been motivated to do so in order to receive the expected benefit of using a commercially available syndiotactic polybutadiene appropriate for use in tire applications.
Regarding b) above, Kurihara teaches a rubber composition for a sidewall rubber tire composition (Abstract) which contains a high-cis polybutadiene ([0021]). Given the fact that the polybutadiene is high cis, it would inherently have vinyl content (crystallinity) of less than 1% ([0021]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the polybutadiene of Kameda be the low crystallinity butadiene of Kurihara. One would have been motivated to do so in order to receive the expected benefit of having a rubber component which imparts low heat generation properties while suppressing the deterioration of tear resistance (Kurihara, [0010]).
Regarding claims 11-12, while Kameda does not explicitly state the Tc/Ts ratio, Kameda does teach the desire to reduce rolling resistance ([0007]) and minimize heat build up ([0003]). Given that these properties are paramount to the Tc/Ts relationship and given that there is no guidance or requirement of what the coating rubber should be, it would be well within the ordinary skill of a practitioner to modify and adjust the composition of the coating rubber to achieve the recited Tc/Ts properties. See MPEP 2144.05. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have optimized the Tc/Ts values to overlap those recited, and the motivation to so would have been, as Kameda suggests, to reduce rolling resistance and minimize heat buildup.
Regarding claims 13-16, while Kameda does not explicitly state the Mc/Ms ratio, Kameda does teach the desire to have excellent durability ([0045]). Given that this property is paramount to the Mc/Ms relationship and given that there is no guidance or requirement of what the coating rubber should be, it would be well within the ordinary skill of a practitioner to modify and adjust the composition of the coating rubber to achieve the recited Mc/Ms properties. See MPEP 2144.05. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have optimized the Mc/Ms values to overlap those recited, and the motivation to so would have been, as Kameda suggests, to have an excellent, durable tire.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DORIS L LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-3872. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am - 5 pm.
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, Arrie Lanee Reuther can be reached at 571-270-7026. 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.
DORIS L. LEE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1764
/DORIS L LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764