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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The continuation data should be listed on page 1 of the specification under the heading CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 14: “based on at least” will be interpreted as the transitional term “comprising”, which is syn-onymous with “including,” “containing,” or “charac-terized by,” is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps. See, e.g., >Mars Inc. v. H.J. Heinz Co., 377 F.3d 1369, 1376, 71 USPQ2d 1837, 1843 (Fed. Cir. 2004) [see MPEP 2111.03].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 14-17, 22 and 24-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thuilliez et al. (US 2015/0353716) in view of Hayashi (WO 2019/239568).
Regarding claims 14-17, 22 and 24-26: Thuilliez et al. (US ‘716) discloses rubber compositions [abstract] for tire treads [0098], wherein Example M2 [M2; 0081-0085; Table 2, M2] contains 80 parts highly saturated diene elastomer A (EBR; ethylene/butadiene rubber (1,3-butadiene [0036-0037); 68 mol% ethylene units [0084]), 20 parts unsaturated diene 2 (natural rubber [0083]) {corresponding to 80 phr EBR}, 47.5 parts carbon black, 0.6 parts CBS (N-cyclohexyl-2-benzothiazolesulfenamide) and 1.5 parts sulfur [M2; 0081-0085; Table 2, M2]. Thuilliez et al. (US ‘716) discloses additives [0063].
Thuilliez et al. (US ‘716) does not disclose 0.1 to 9 mass% of crumb rubber. However, Hayashi (WO ‘568) discloses tire treads having rubber compositions comprising crumb rubber particles [abstract], wherein Example C-5 [C-5; 0118; 0123; Table 3, C-5] contains 8.4 mass% of crumb rubber particles having a D10 of 276 µm and a D50 of 550 µm {D10/D50 of 0.50} [C-5; 0118; 0123; Table 3, C-5]. Thuilliez et al. (US ‘716) and Hayashi (WO ‘568) are analogous art because they are concerned with a similar technical difficulty, namely the preparation of rubber compositions for tire treads. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined 8.4 mass% of crumb rubber particles having a D10 of 276 µm and a D50 of 550 µm, as taught by Hayashi (WO ‘568) in the invention of Thuilliez et al. (US ‘716), and would have been motivated to do so since Hayashi (WO ‘568) suggests 8.4 mass% of crumb rubber particles having a D10 of 276 µm and a D50 of 550 µm affords tires having improved snow grip and ice grip [0007; 0118; 0123-0124; Table 3, C-5; Table 4, T-5].
Claim(s) 14-21 and 23-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thuilliez et al. (US 2015/0353716) in view of Thomasson et al. (WO 2018/115719). Thomasson et al. (US 11,046,838) as English equivalent of Thomasson et al. (WO 2018/115719).
Regarding claims 14-21 and 23-26: Thuilliez et al. (US ‘716) discloses rubber compositions [abstract] for tire treads [0098], wherein Example M2 [M2; 0081-0085; Table 2, M2] contains 80 parts highly saturated diene elastomer A (EBR; ethylene/butadiene rubber (1,3-butadiene [0036-0037); 68 mol% ethylene units [0084]), 20 parts unsaturated diene 2 (natural rubber [0083]) {corresponding to 80 phr EBR}, 47.5 parts carbon black, 0.6 parts CBS (N-cyclohexyl-2-benzothiazolesulfenamide) and 1.5 parts sulfur [M2; 0081-0085; Table 2, M2]. Thuilliez et al. (US ‘716) discloses additives [0063].
Thuilliez et al. (US ‘716) does not disclose 0.1 to 9 mass% of crumb rubber. However, Thomasson et al. (US ‘838) discloses tire treads having rubber compositions comprising crumb rubber particles [abstract; 1:33-34], in an amount of 5 to 40 wt% [8:48-59]. Thomasson et al. (US ‘838) discloses crumb rubber P3 [P3; 12:43-13:13; Table 1; P3] has a D50 of 155 µm, an acetone extract of 4.6%, a chloroform extract of 6.3% {corresponding to a chloroform extract to acetone extract of 1.37} [P3; 12:43-13:13; Table 1; P3]. Thuilliez et al. (US ‘716) and Thomasson et al. (US ‘838) are analogous art because they are concerned with a similar technical difficulty, namely the preparation of rubber compositions for tire treads. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined 5 to 9 wt% of crumb rubber P3 (instant claim 19); 5 to 7 wt% of crumb rubber P3 (instant claim 23), as taught by Thomasson et al. (US ‘838) in the invention of Thuilliez et al. (US ‘716), and would have been motivated to do so since Thomasson et al. (US ‘838) suggests 5 to 40 wt% crumb rubber P3 affords tires having improved wear resistance and tear strength [P3; 8:48-59; 13:14-59; Table 2-3; I]. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) [See MPEP 2144.05].
See attached form PTO-892.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL F PEPITONE whose telephone number is (571)270-3299. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:00 AM - 3:30 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, Mark Eashoo can be reached on 571-272-1197. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL F PEPITONE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767