DETAILED ACTION
This office action follows a reply filed on February 16, 2026. Claims 1, 5, 7, 9 and 18 have been amended. Claims 1-5, 7-10, 12-13, 15-18 and 20 are currently pending and under examination.
The 112(b) rejections are withdrawn, as applicants have amended to delete the “i.e.” limitations.
The rejection over Takeda (US 2015/0148447) is withdrawn, as the claims now require a hydrogenated resin and Takeda only teaches aromatically modified terpene resins.
However, the rejection over Martter is reapplied over a new prior art reference based on the newly claimed limitations.
The texts of those sections of Title 35 U.S. Code are not included in this section and can be found in a prior Office action.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
In the claimed invention, applicants claim a high-Tg modified styrene-butadiene rubber and a low-Tg modified styrene-butadiene rubber, where the low-Tg modified styrene-butadiene rubber has a lower Tg than the high-Tg modified styrene-butadiene rubber.
Applicants disclose the following:
PNG
media_image1.png
180
576
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, the actual Tg of each of the styrene-butadiene rubbers is not limited by these phrases “high” and “low” and the “high-Tg” and “low-Tg” is essentially used to name each of the modified SBR components.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-10, 12-13, 15-16, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martter (US 2021/0179822) in view of US 7,342,070, and further in view of Takenaka (US 2019/0176520) and Izumo (US 2017/0291450), as evidenced by Kawashima (US 9,663,639), CN 120349596 and ExxonMobil (Oppera PR140, ExxonMobil, 2020, 1 page).
Martter exemplifies a tire tread rubber composition exemplified as comprising the following:
PNG
media_image2.png
342
549
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Martter teaches that the first and second functionalized styrene-butadiene rubbers may be functionalized with various functional groups, teaching that the functional groups are introduced to the polymerization initiating terminal or the polymerization terminating terminal, pointing to US 7,342,070.
US ‘070 teaches preparing styrene-butadiene polymers by copolymerizing the monomers by anionic polymerization using a lithium amide initiator, and then reacting a polymerizable active terminal with a halogen containing silane compound. This method provides a polymer which is modified at both ends with an aminoalkoxysilane group, as evidenced by Kawashima (col. 7, ll. 4-32).
Therefore, modifying both ends of the first and second functionalized styrene-butadiene rubbers is prima facie obvious, where SBR5 meets applicants’ low-Tg modified styrene-butadiene rubber and SBR6 meets applicants’ high-Tg modified styrene-butadiene rubber, where the ratio of SBR6/SBR5 is 4.
Martter also teaches that 0-40 parts of an additional elastomer can be added and specifically lists the additional elastomer to include natural rubber (p. 2, [0013]-[0014]).
Martter teaches the hydrocarbon traction resin to include hydrogenated dicyclopentadiene polymers, but does not teach or suggest the softening point or molecular weight, as claimed.
Takenaka teaches a tire rubber composition comprising a rubber and a cyclopentadiene-based resin, teaching that the inclusion of such provides enhanced performance on ice, performance for inhibiting clogging with snow, performance for inhibiting accretion of snow and performance on fuel efficiency.
Takenaka teaches that among the cyclopentadiene-based resins, hydrogenated dicyclopentadiene resins are preferable (p. 2, [0030]). Takenaka teaches that the softening point is preferably not lower than 100°C from the viewpoint of easy handling, and not higher than 140°C from the viewpoint of improvements in processability and of dispersibility of filler with the rubber component (pp. 2-3, [0031]).
Takenaka teaches that the weight-average molecular weight of the cyclopentadiene-based resin is preferably 1000 or lower since volatility at high temperature is excellent and the resin disappears easily, where a less volatile property is desired (p. 3, [0032]).
Izumo exemplifies the use of the following hydrogenated cyclopentadiene resins in an SBR rubber composition:
Oppera PR-100 (softening point 140°C, MW of 670 g/mol as
evidenced by ExxonMobil) in Example 1;
Oppera PR-120 (softening point 120°C, MW of 600-700 g/mol as evidenced by CN ‘596) in Example 2; and
Oppera PR-140 (softening point 100°C) in Comparative Example 2.
Those with the higher softening points of 120°C and 140°C show a much greater improvement in wet grip performance than that with a softening point of 100°C.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used a hydrogenated cyclopentadiene based resin with a softening point of 120°C or 140°C, and a molecular weight of 600-700 g/mol, as Takenaka teaches that a molecular weight of less than 1000 g/mol prevents the resin from volatilizing and Izumo shows that a hydrogenated cyclopentadiene based resin with a softening point of 120°C or 140°C provides a greater improvement in wet grip performance than that with a lower softening point, where Martter is similarly interested in a tire tread with enhanced wet grip performance.
Martter is prima facie obvious over instant claims 1, 5, 7-9, 12-13, 15-16.
As to claims 2 and 12-13, Martter teaches the silane coupling agent to specifically include Si-363, and meets applicants’ formula (1) as shown below:
PNG
media_image3.png
202
362
media_image3.png
Greyscale
.
As to claims 3, 10 and 15-16, Martter teaches the accelerator to include guanidine and sulfur as a vulcanizing agent.
As to claims 5, 18 and 20, diphenylguanidine is a well-known vulcanization accelerator used in the art of tire rubber compositions.
Claims 4 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martter (US 2021/0179822) in view of US 7,342,070, and further in view of Takenaka (US 2019/0176520) and Izumo (US 2017/0291450) as applied above to claims 1-3, 5, 7-10, 12-13, 15-16, 18 and 20, and further in view of Yamagishi (US 2017/0313862).
Martter is prima facie obvious over instant claims 1-3, 5, 7-10, 12-13, 15-16, 18 and 20, as described above and applied herein as such, as Martter teaches a tire tread rubber composition comprising two alkoxysilane-modified styrene-butadiene rubbers with differing glass transition temperatures, an additional elastomer which includes natural rubber and a hydrocarbon resin.
Martter teaches that the mixing of the rubber composition can be accomplished by known methods, where the ingredients are typically mixed in at least two stages, a non-productive stage and a productive stage, where the final curatives are typically mixed in the final stage in the productive stage; however, does not specifically teach which stage the accelerator is added.
Yamagishi teaches adding all or some of the vulcanization accelerator (E) and all or some of the organic acid (F) are kneaded in the non-productive stage, teaching that this method can facilitate a reaction between the silane coupling agent and the filler and can raise the activity of the coupling agent (p. 6, [0101] and p. 7, [0117]), which further improves the balance of ice and snow performance, wet performance and abrasion resistance, all of which is desired by Martter.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have use the mixing method of Yamagishi, as guanidine accelerators are taught as having high activity with silane coupling agents, and when blended with the organic acid in the non-productive stage, the activity of the silane coupling agent can be increased, providing good balance of ice and snow performance, wet performance and abrasion resistance.
Martter in view of Yamaghishi is prima facie obvious over instant claims 4 and 17.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the instant invention have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action, as applicants have amended to limit the softening point and MW of the resin, which was not previously required by all claims. 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 BRIEANN R JOHNSTON whose telephone number is (571)270-7344. 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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at (571)272-1302. 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.
/Brieann R Johnston/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766