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 I (claims 1-21) in the reply filed on February 20, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 22-24 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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) 1, 6-9, 16 and 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimura (US 2018/0179303).
Regarding claims 1 and 7-8, 13 Nishimura teaches a method of preparing a composite comprising
Charging a mixer separately with at least a never dried natural rubber ([0027]) and a filler ([0027]) (Examples). The solids concentration of the never-dried rubber ranges from 10 to 60 % by mass ([0028]) and therefore, the water content can be calculated to range from 40-90 % by mass.
In a mixing step, the never dried rubber and the filler are mixed to form a mixture and in the mixing step ([0035]), the temperature was held at 90C ([0061]) and the rubber and filler mixture is dewatered in a vacuum drier or air drier (evaporation of water)
and then the from the dewatering step, the composite is formed of where for every 100 parts of rubber, the composite has 10 to 120 parts by mass of a filler ([0042]) and the amount of water is not greater than 1.5 % ([0061])
Nishimura fails to specifically exemplify the exact recited method. However, Nishimura discloses each of the components of the method for preparing a composite, and teaches that they are all suitable for use in the method. It is within the ordinary level of skill in the art to perform any of the method steps suggested by a reference, including selecting steps from a list in a reference. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to perform any of the method steps suggested by Nishimura, including the claimed method. In view of this, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the present invention to use the method as described in Nishimura. It would have been nothing more than using known process steps in a typical manner to achieve predictable results. KSR v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 418, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 6, Nishimura teaches that the coagulum can be drained (expression) prior to the charging ([0005]).
Regarding claim 9, Nishimura teaches that the filler is a carbon black which is granulated ([0027]) and, thus is free of water and in a powder form.
Regarding claim 16, Nishimura teaches that the filler is a carbon black (Examples).
Regarding claim 20, Nishimura teaches that the mixing occurs in two steps ([0029] and [0035])
Regarding claim 21, Nishimura teaches that after discharging, the method comprises at least one additional processing step such as compounding ([0044]).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimura (US 2018/0179303) in view of Wang et al (US 2012/0172492).
The discussion regarding Nishimura in paragraph 4 above is incorporated here by reference.
Regarding claim 10, Nishimura teaches that the filler is in the form of a slurry (paste) ([0027]), however, fails to teach the amount of liquid content.
Wang teaches adding making a carbon black slurry for the addition into a natural rubber coagulation and the amount of solids 10-15% by weight ([0071]).
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 slurry of Nishimura have the water concentration as taught by Wang. One would have been motivated to do so in order to receive the expected benefit of being able to be fed via a jet into the homogenizer (Wang, [0071]).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimura (US 2018/0179303) in view of Martin et al (US 2014/0213696).
The discussion regarding Nishimura in paragraph 4 above is incorporated here by reference.
Regarding claim 18, Nishimura fails to teach the including of at least one anti degradant during the charging or mixing.
Martin teaches the addition of a stabilizer can be added during the charging or mixing of the process ([0043]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the stabilizer of Martin in the process of Nishimura. One would have been motivated to do so in order to receive the expected benefit of reducing the degradation product of the within natural rubber (Martin ([0042]).
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7-8, 11-15, 17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dussillols et al (WO 2017/207912, please refer to US 2020/0317823 for English language equivalent and mapping) in view of Wang et al (US 2012/0172492).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 7-8 and 13, Dussillols teaches a method of preparing a composite (Abstract) comprising
Charging a mixer with at least a never-dried natural rubber ([0018]), [0059]) with a water content greater than 12% ([0059]) which is a coagulum ([0024]).
Mixing the never dried rubber at temperatures controlled by at least one temperature control means and removing at least a portion of the water from the mixture by evaporation ([0059])
And discharging from the mixture the natural rubber which has a water content of 0.4 % [0059]).
However, Dussillols fails to teach the addition of a filler in step b) of the above process.
Wang teaches that a coagulum is formed based on a first elastomer latex ([0035]) and filler ([0035]) and after the coagulum is formed ([0041]), a secondary latex particle ([0041]) which reads on the filler limitation is added in the amount of 0.5 to 50 % by weight of the total rubber composition ([0062]).
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 secondary latex particle of Wang be added to the coagulum of Dussillols. One would have been motivated to do so in order to receive the expected benefit of producing a filled coagulum which does not crumble ([0031]).
Regarding claim 3, Dussillols teaches that the never-dried natural rubber is formed spontaneously (air under ambient conditions) ([0004])
Regarding claim 5, Dussillols teaches that the coagulum is washed in water to remove impurities ([0026]).
Regarding claims 11-12, Dussillols teaches that the mixing of the never-dried natural rubber and the filler forms a mixture in the substantial absence of rubber chemicals (Examples) at mixer temperatures controlled by at least on temperature control means.
Regarding claims 14-15, Dussillols fails to teach the exact time period or the operating speed of the rotors, however, these variables can be adjusted as taught by Dussillols ([0028]) and therefore it is the examiner’s position that these are result effective variables because changing them will clearly affect the type of product obtained. See MPEP § 2144.05 (B). Case law holds that “discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art.” See In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
In view of this, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize appropriate mixing time and tip speed, including those within the scope of the present claims, so as to produce desired end results.
Regarding claim 17, Dussillols teaches that upon charging the mixture, the never-dried natural rubber is heated to a temperature of 194 C before charging the mixture with at least a portion of the filler.
Regarding claim 19, Dussillols teaches that the method is performed in one mixing step ([0028]).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dussillols et al (WO 2017/207912, please refer to US 2020/0317823 for English language equivalent and mapping) in view of Wang et al (US 2012/0172492) and Martin et al (US 2014/0213696).
The discussion regarding Dussillols and Wang in paragraph 7 above is incorporated here by reference.
Regarding claim 4, Dussillols teaches that the coagulum can be formed by a chemical agent ([0004]), however, fails to teach that the chemical agent it a salt or acid.
Martin teaches that the chemical agent to form a coagulum is an acid or salt (Abstract, [0041]).
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 acid or salt of Martin as the chemical agent of Dussillols. It would have been nothing more than using a standard coagulant to achieve predictable results.
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