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 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 3, 4, and 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. Regarding claims 3 and 4 , claim 3 recites that the halogenated butyl rubber comprises halogenated bromobutyl rubber. However, halogenated bromobutyl rubber is unclear as a bromobutyl rubber is already halogenated. Does the use of halogenated mean that the bromobutyl rubber is further halogenated, or is it simply redundant? For the purpose of further examination, this phrase will be treated simply being bromobutyl rubber and dropping the term halogenated as redundant. Claim 4 also refers to the halogenated bromobutyl rubber. Regarding claim 20 , this claim recites that the composition is substantially free of clays. However, this phrase is not defined in the instant specification. Therefore, it is unclear to what degree the composition is substantially free of clays and the meets and bounds of the claim are unknown. 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 1-10, 16, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Somers et al. (US 2007/0270538) in view of Pille -Wolf (US 2007/0037908). Regarding claim s 1 -10, 16, 19, and 20 , Somers et al. teaches a curable elastomeric composition comprising at least one elastomeric polymer and at least one curing agent (¶6). The elastomeric polymer can be brominated isobutylene-isoprene rubber (BIIR) (¶25) in an amount of 60 to 100 phr (¶29). The curable composition can contain other elastomeric materials such as natural rubber in an amount of from 0 to about 40 phr (¶30). The composition can also comprise from 0 to 20 phr of a tackifier resin such as a phenolic resin (¶51, 52), and a filler such as calcium carbonate (¶55). Specifically, Somers et al. teaches an example comprising 95 parts by weight of a bromobutyl rubber, 5 parts by weight of natural rubber, 5 parts by weight of oil ( Sunpar 2280 ; liquid plasticizer ), 0.5 parts by weight of sulfur (curative) , and 3 parts by weight of zinc oxide (curative) (Inventive Example 1; Table 1). Clay is not a required component of the elastomer composition. The inventive composition is used for tire innerliners ( ¶59). Somers et al. does not teach that the tackifier resin is at least one terpene phenol resin having a softening point from 100° C to 160° C and a hydroxyl value from 40 to 200. However, Pille -Wolf teaches a rubber composition for use in a tire that can comprise halogenated butyl rubber (¶48) and from 0.1 to 50 phr of a resin (¶39) that is preferably a terpene phenol resin with a softening point 75° C to 150° C (¶44, 45) and a hydroxyl value of 5 to 150 (¶46). The composition of Pille -Wolf can be used to create the entire tire or just a portion thereof (¶35). Somers et al. and Pille -Wolf are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor as that of the instant invention, namely rubber composition for tires. At the time of the filing of the instant invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use a terpene phenol resin with a softening point of 75° C to 150° C and a hydroxyl value of 5 to 150, as taught by Pille -Wolf, in the composition as the tackifier resin, as taught by Somers et al., and would have been motivated to do so because Pille -Wolf teaches that this is a preferred resin to use in a rubber composition as a tackifier resin. Claims 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Somers et al. (US 2007/0270538) in view of Pille -Wolf (US 2007/0037908) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rodgers et al. (US 2010/0036025). Regarding claim s 11 -13 , Somers et al. and Pille -Wolf teach the elastomeric composition of claim 1 as set forth above. Somers et al. does not teach that the composition further comprises greater than 0 to 10 phr of dicyclopentadiene resin (hydrocarbon resin) or alkylphenol-formaldehyde resin (phenolic resin). However, Rodgers et al. teaches an elastomeric composition for a tire innerliner that comprises at least one C 4 -C 7 monoolefin elastomer, and a hydrocarbon polymer additive (¶8, 10). The hydrocarbon polymer additive is present in an amount of 5 to 50 phr (¶21) and may be a dicyclopentadiene resin (hydrocarbon resin) (¶11). Somers et al. and Rodgers et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor as that of the instant invention, namely rubber compositions for use in tire innerliners . At the time of the filing of the instant invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to add from 5 to 50 phr of a dicyclopentadiene resin, as taught by Rodgers et al., to the composition, as taught by Somers et al., and would have been motivated to do in order to replace the use of naphthenic oil and maintain processing qualities of the composition while also improving the impermeability of the innerliner (¶45). Regarding claim 14 , this claim further defines an optional component of the claims and is therefore not required. Claims 15, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Somers et al. (US 2007/0270538) in view of Pille -Wolf (US 2007/0037908) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Taguchi (US 2010/0170606). Regarding claims 15 , 17, and 1 8 , Somers et al. and Pille -Wolf teach the elastomeric composition of claim 1 as set forth above. Somers et al. does not teach that the calcium carbonate is present in the composition in an amount of 10 to 50 phr , or that the composition comprises greater than 30 phr to 75 phr of a carbon black with a nitrogen surface area from 20 to 60 m 2 /g to be present with the calcium carbonate. However, Taguchi teaches a rubber composition for use as a tire innerliner (¶2) that comprises butyl rubber, natural rubber 65 phr of carbon black, and 20 phr of calcium carbonate (Example 1, Table 1). The carbon black used in Example 1 is Niteron 55U (¶89), which has a nitrogen specific surface area of 36 m 2 /g ( see , US 7,976,447 to Urano et al., Col. 7, lines 50-53). Somers et al. and Taguchi are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor as that of the instant invention, namely that of rubber compositions for tire innerliners . At the time of the filing of the instant invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use 20 phr of calcium carbonate with 65 phr of carbon black as fillers, as taught by Taguchi, in the composition, as taught by Somers et al., and would have been motivated to do so in order to enhance the strength of the rubber composition (carbon black) and also lower the unit cost of the rubber composition (calcium carbonate) (¶45, 47). Co rrespondence Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ANGELA C SCOTT whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3303 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday, 8:30-5:00, 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mark Eashoo can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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 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. /ANGELA C SCOTT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767