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 § 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 – 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kikuchi et al. (US 2022/0098380 A1) in view of Hasebe et al. (WO 2018/017087; US 11,225,534 B2) referred to herein as the English language equivalent).
Regarding claims 1 & 2, Kikuchi teaches a conjugated diene polymer (A) including the following structural units: (Abstract)
PNG
media_image1.png
261
517
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kikuchi’s (1), (2), (3) & (4) correspond to the claimed (2), (1), (4) & (3), respectively.
Kikuchi teaches the 1,2-vinyl content of the conjugated diene polymer is preferably 5-70 mol% (p. 3, [0031]). This indicates the sum of contents corresponding to the claimed C1 & C2 is 5-70 mol%. This overlaps the claimed range of 40-60 mol% and implies the sum of contents C3 & C4 will equal 30-95 mol%.
Kikuchi also discloses the hydrogenation rate of the conjugated diene is 75-95% (p. 5, [0043]). This indicates that hydrogenated units corresponding to the claimed C4 content will be present in amounts of 22.5-90.25 mol%. This overlaps the claimed range of 2-25 mol%. Non-hydrogenated units corresponding to the claimed C3 will be present in amounts of 1.5-71.25 mol%. This overlaps the claimed range of 15-60 mol%.
The conjugated diene taught by Kikuchi further comprises 3-45 mass% of an aromatic vinyl compound (p. 2, [0018]), preferably styrene (p. 2, [0017]). This corresponds to approximately 1.6-29.8 mol% of styrene based on the preferred copolymer of 1,3-butadiene and styrene. This overlaps the claimed content S of 4-18 mol%.
The weight average molecular weight of the conjugated diene polymer is preferably 1.0x105 to 2.0x106 (i.e., 100,000 – 2,000,000) (p. 5, [0045]). This overlaps the claimed range of 300,000 or more.
Kikuchi, however, does not teach the modification ratio as claimed.
In the same field of endeavor, Hasebe teaches modified conjugated diene-based polymers with a modification ratio of 30-80% by mass. Maintaining a modification ratio within this range leads to a good balance between low hysteresis loss and wet skid resistance while suppressing degradation in workability and preventing adhesion to metal surfaces (col. 6, lines 11-21). The modification ratio refers to a content of the polymer component having a specific functional group having affinity with a filler (col. 6, lines 22-26). Exemplary functional groups may contain nitrogen atoms (col. 6, lines 27-30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Kikuchi in view of Hasebe to carry out modification with a nitrogen-containing functional group at a modification ratio of 30-80% by mass to take advantage of good balance between low hysteresis loss and wet skid resistance while suppressing degradation in workability and preventing adhesion to metal surfaces. The range of 30-80% by mass overlaps the claimed range of 60% by mass or more.
All ranges indicated above overlap the claimed ranges. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Modification of Kikuchi in view of Hasebe reads on all limitations established by claims 1 & 2.
Regarding claim 3, maintaining the modification of Kikuchi in view of Hasebe previously detailed, Hasebe teaches the conjugated diene polymer has a Mooney viscosity in the preferable range of 20 – 60 (col. 22, lines 4-7). With the weight average molecular weight (Mw) disclosed at (p. 5, [0045]), Kikuchi effectively teaches the Mw/ML viscosity ratio is suitably 0.16 – 10.0. This range overlaps the claimed range of 0.68 – 0.85. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside the ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claims 4 – 6, maintaining the modification of Kikuchi in view of Hasebe previously detailed, Hasebe teaches nitrogen present in amounts of 7 ppm or more, and preferably 10 ppm or more (col. 12, lines 63-67). The molar ratio of N/Si is preferably 0.1 or more (col. 13, lines 28-29). Using the 7 ppm & 10 ppm values for Nitrogen taught by Kikuchi, this would then establish Nitrogen & Silicon present in amounts of at least 7 ppm & at least 70 ppm, and preferably at least 10 ppm & at least 100 ppm.
These values overlap the claimed ranges of nitrogen content of 10-80 ppm, 35-80 ppm & silicon content of 50-200 ppm. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside the ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP § 2144.05. It is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use. See MPEP § 2144.07.
Regarding claim 7, maintaining the modification of Kikuchi in view of Hasebe previously detailed, Hasebe teaches the copolymerization of the conjugated diene-based polymer and an aromatic vinyl compound (col. 10, lines 50-55). Kikuchi teaches the hydrogenation rate of the conjugated diene is 75-95% (p. 5, [0043]). A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside the ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claims 8 & 13, maintaining the modification of Kikuchi in view of Hasebe previously detailed, Kikuchi teaches the inventive conjugated diene polymer composition further comprises a crosslinking agent, with suitable use in tires (p. 1, [0010], [2] & [3]). The crosslinking agent is preferably present in amounts of 0.01-20 parts by mass (p. 8, [0087]). A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside the ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP § 2144.05. It is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use. See MPEP § 2144.07.
Regarding claim 9, maintaining the modification of Kikuchi in view of Hasebe previously detailed, Hasebe teaches a content of a silane coupling agent in the preferable range of 0.1-30 parts by mass (col. 40, lines 59-60). A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside the ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP § 2144.05. It is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use. See MPEP § 2144.07.
Regarding claim 10, maintaining the modification of Kikuchi in view of Hasebe previously detailed, Kikuchi teaches the inventive composition may further comprise a softener (p. 8, [0090]). Hasebe teaches a content of a softener in the preferable range of 10-90 parts by mass (col. 41, lines 26-27). A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside the ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP § 2144.05. It is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use. See MPEP § 2144.07.
Regarding claims 11 & 12, maintaining the modification of Kikuchi in view of Hasebe previously detailed, Kikuchi teaches the inventive composition may comprise inorganic fillers, which are preferably silica and carbon black (p. 8, [0080]). These may be present in amounts of 40-150 parts by mass (p. 8, [0081]). A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside the ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP § 2144.05. It is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use. See MPEP § 2144.07.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTIAAN ROELOFSE whose telephone number is (571)272-2825. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:00 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, Robert Jones can be reached at (571)270-7733. 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.
/CHRISTIAAN ROELOFSE/Examiner, Art Unit 1762
/ROBERT S JONES JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1762