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 Objections
Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities: the examiner suggests amending the claim have a more standard Markush group wording. Please amend “at least one group chosen from alkoxysilanes” to “at least one group selected from the group consisting of alkoxysilanes”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 26 is objected to because of the following informalities: the examiner suggests amending the claim have a more standard Markush group wording. Please amend “is chosen from tread” to “is selected from the group consisting of tread”. Appropriate correction is required.
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) 15-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuto et al (US 4,398,582) in view of Labauze (US 2004/0122157).
Regarding claims 15-19, Yuto teaches an elastomeric composition for tire compounds comprising:
100 phr of a composition of elastomeric compositions consisting of:
0 to 80 parts by weight of an isoprene polymer having a glass transition temperature of not higher than -50 C (Abstract)
10 to 60 parts by weight of a first styrene-butadiene copolymer (Abstract)
10 to 50 parts by weight of a second styrene-butadiene copolymer (Abstract)
Yuto stipulates that up to 80 parts by weight of the total amount of elastomers must have a glass transition temperature no higher than -50 C (col. 4, lines 5-10). Therefore, it can be calculated that 20 to 100 phr of the total amount elastomers can have a glass transition temperature of greater than -50 C. And therefore, given that the isoprene component must have a glass transition temperature lower than -50 C, it can be calculated that the composition can contain 20 to 50 phr of the second styrene-butadiene copolymer which has a glass transition temperature of greater than -50 C while the first styrene-butadiene copolymer has a glass transition temperature of less than -50 C.
Yuto further teaches that the composition contains 40 to 80 phr of a reinforcing filler such as carbon black (col. 4, lines 10-15), 1.75 phr of a vulcanizing agent (sulfur) (Tables) and plasticizing oil (Table 1).
However, it fails to teach the amount of the oil and the addition of a resin.
Labauze teaches a rubber composition for use in tires (Abstract) that incorporates 5 to 35 phr of a resin and 0 to 26 phr of a plasticizing oil (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the resin and the oil of Labauze into the composition of Yuto. One would have been motivated to do so in order to receive the expected benefit of improved wear resistance (Laubauze, [0024]).
Given the amounts as taught by modified Yuto, the total amount of resin and oil can be calculated to range from 0 to 61 phr.
Regarding claim 20-21, Yuto teaches that one of the SBR is a copolymer containing styrene and butadiene with a styrene content of 25 % and a vinyl content of 33 % and is prepared by solution polymerization (Table 1, SBR-A).
Regarding claim 22, Yuto fails to teach the functionalization of the styrene-butadiene polymer.
Labauze teaches that diene elastomers in the composition can have functional groups specifically active to coupling to a filler ([0065]). One of the functional groups can be an amino group ([0067]).
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 SBR of Yuto have the amino group as taught by Labauze. One would have been motivated to do so in order to receive the expected benefit of coupling of the polymer to the carbon black filler in the composition for better dispersion (Labauze, [0065]).
Regarding claim 23, Yuto teaches an elastomeric compound for tires obtained by mixing and vulcanizing the elastomeric composition according to claim 15 (Examples).
Claim(s) 24-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuto et al (US 4,398,582) in view of Labauze (US 2004/0122157) and Halasa et al (US 4,843,120).
The discussion regarding Yuto and Labauze in paragraph 5 above is incorporated here by reference.
Regarding claim 24, modified Yuto teaches an elastomeric composition for use in tires in which the glass transition temperatures can be varied among the three elastomers, however, it fails to teach that the composition has a first glass transition temperature (Tg1) ranging from -65 to -40 C and a second glass transition temperature (Tg2) ranging from -45 to -15 C.
Halasa teaches a rubbery polymer for use in tires (Abstract) has at least two glass transition temperatures, one from -110 to -20 C and the other from – 50 to 0 C (Abstract). This was measured by DMA (Rheovibron) (col. 9, lines 1-10).
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 composition of modified Yuto have the bimodal glass transition temperature as taught by Halasa. One would have been motivated to do so in order to receive the expected benefit of having improved rolling resistance, improved wet skid resistance and outstanding tread wear (Halasa, Abstract).
Regarding claim 25-28, Yuto teaches a tire component such as a tread (band) (Example) made from the composition in claim 24.
Regarding claim 29, the limitation “all-season use” is an intended use limitation and, as such does not carry much patentable weight. Case law holds that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963).
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