DETAILED ACTION
This office action follows a reply filed on June 22, 2026. Claims 1, 4, 6 and 19 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and under examination.
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 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 10-11 and 13-20 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.
In claims 10 and 13, applicants claim p is 0, 1 or 2; however, in claim 1, p cannot be 0. Therefore, it is unclear as to whether p=0 is included within the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
In claims 11 and 14, applicants claim the antidegradant as comprised of 4-(4-(dimethylamino)phenyl)amino)phenol and 4-((4-(1,3- dimethylbutylamino)phenyl)amino)phenol. These compounds are shown below and meet the antidegradant when p=0; however, in claim 1, p can only be 1 or 2.
PNG
media_image1.png
234
320
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It is noted that since claims 15-20 ultimately or directly depend from claims 13-14, they are rejected along with claims 13-14 because they incorporate all of the limitations of claims 13-14, including those that are indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clifford (US 2,087,199) in view of Son (US 3,910,864).
Clifford teaches a rubber composition comprising 100 parts extracted pale crepe rubber, 5 parts zinc oxide, 3 parts sulfur, 1.5 parts stearic acid, 1 part hexamethylene tetramine, and 1 part age retarder (p. 3, ll. 40-54), where the age retarder is found to provide protection against deterioration from such influences as heat, light and oxygen , as well as resistance to deterioration by flexing (p. 1, ll. 1-17). Clifford teaches the age retarder as a composite reaction products obtained by condensing primary aromatic amines (RNH2) with polyhydroxy aromatic compounds (HO-R’-OH), resulting in a mixture of materials shown below, where those of Formulae (1)-(3) makeup the largest proportions of the reaction mixture:
R-NH-R’-NH-R
R-NH-R’-OH
R-NH-R
Clifford specifically lists the primary aromatic amine to include phenylene diamine (H2N-Ph-NH2) and specifically lists the polyhydroxy aromatic compounds to include xylohydroquinone, also known as 2,6-dimethylhydroquinone, HO-C8H10-OH, suggesting the following composite reaction products:
H2N-Ph-NH-C8H10-NH-Ph-NH2
H2N-Ph-NH-C8H10-OH
H2N-Ph-NH-Ph-NH2
The composite reaction of phenylene diamine and xylohydroquinone results in a product (2) containing applicants’ antidegradant when m=1, R’=methyl, p=2, n=0, q=0 and R1 and R2=H.
Crepe rubber is known as a natural rubber, which contains polyisoprene and meets applicants’ diene elastomer. The combination of zinc oxide, sulfur, stearic acid, and hexamethylene tetramine (accelerator) meet applicants’ vulcanization system.
Clifford does not teach the inclusion of a reinforcing filler, as claimed.
Son teaches vulcanizable rubber compositions comprising a vulcanizable rubber, such as natural rubber and exemplified as extracted pale crepe rubber, sulfur as a vulcanization agent, teaching that many compounding agents can be used, which include fillers such as carbon blacks (col. 7, ll. 10-20).
Choosing to add a reinforcing filler, such as carbon black, to the pale crepe rubber of Clifford is prima facie obvious, as the inclusion of carbon black fillers to natural rubber is known in the art as taught by Son.
Clifford in view of Son is prima facie obvious over instant claims 1-5 and 8-9.
As to claim 6, Clifford teaches that other age retarders, such as phenyl beta naphthylamine, can be mixed with the composite reaction products (p. 3, ll. 20-34) and Son teaches antioxidants to include phenyl-beta-naphthylamine, as in Clifford, and N-1,3-dimethylbutyl-N-phenyl-p-phenylenediamine. Using N-1,3-dimethylbutyl-N-phenyl-p-phenylenediamine in combination with the composite reaction products of Clifford is prima facie obvious, as Son teaches that phenyl-beta-naphthylamine and N-1,3-dimethylbutyl-N-phenyl-p-phenylenediamine are functionally equivalent antioxidants in rubber vulcanizates.
As to claim 7, Son teaches typical compounding ingredients to include plasticizers such as petroleum oils (col. 7, ll. 10-43).
As to claim 12, Son teaches that sulfur-accelerator combinations yield rubber vulcanizates extremely useful as tires (col. 1, ll. 4-12).
Claims 1-9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shiraki (US 2006/0208227) in view of Weinberg (US 2,832,753).
Weinberg teaches inhibitors for preventing and inhibiting ozone degradation to rubber and elastomers, teaching that atmospheric ozone has been shown to be the main factor in deterioration of stressed rubber items such as tires, where the damage manifests itself as surface cracking, which eventually leads to physical failure of the article (col. 1, ll. 15-31). Weinberg teaches using secondary aryl amines, such as N,N’-dialkyl- or N,N’-diaryl p-phenylenediamines, specifically N,N’-diphenyl-p-phenylenediamine as antioxidants in a typical rubber composition comprising the following:
100 parts GR-S-1500, a rubbery copolymer of 1,3-butadiene and styrene, which meets applicants’ highly unsaturated diene elastomer;
50 phr channel black, known in the art as carbon black and meets applicants’ reinforcing filler;
3 phr zinc oxide, 2 phr stearic acid, and 1.75 phr sulfur, which meets applicants’ vulcanization system;
N-cyclohexyl-2-benzothiazolesulfeniamide, which meets applicants’ accelerator; and
1.6 phr of the phenylene diamine antioxidant.
Shiraki teaches that typical amine-based antioxidants used for production of rubber products are known and include N,N’-diphenyl-p-phenylene diamine (p. 1, [0005]), teaching that the following antioxidants exhibit a greater oxidation-inhibiting property owing to interaction between the hydroxyl group and the amino group (p. 1, [0009]-[0010] and p. 8, [0077]):
PNG
media_image2.png
116
376
media_image2.png
Greyscale
,
specifically listed to include 3,3’-diamino-4-hydroxydiphenyl amine, which meets applicants’ antidegradant when m=1, R’ is an amine moiety, p=1, q=0, n=0 and R1 and R2 are H.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used the bisaminophenol derivatives as the antioxidant in Weinberg, as Shiraki teaches that the bisaminophenol derivatives have a high oxidation-inhibiting property owing to interaction between the hydroxyl group and the amino group.
Weinberg in view of Shiraki is prima facie obvious over instant claims 1-5, 8-9 and 12.
As to claims 6-7, Weinberg also exemplifies a combination of and amine based antioxidant with a petroleum hydrocarbon wax (col. 4, Examples 15-16), which is known in the art to act as an antioxidant and plasticizer in rubber compositions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the instant invention have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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.
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
