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 § 101 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the “use” claim does not claim a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (see MPEP 2173.05(q). Appropriate correction is required. 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. Claim s 7, 11 and 15 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. As to claim 7, the claim recites “especially…” The limiting effect of the recitation is unclear. It is not clear whether the materials recited after “especially” are exemplary or required materials. Appropriate correction and clarification are required. Claim 11 is directed to a “use”. It is not clear what is necessarily required within the scope of the claim (see MPEP 2173.05(q)). Appropriate correction is required. As to claim 15, the claim recites A shaped body, especially tire, tire part or industrial rubber article”. The limiting effect of the recitation is unclear. It is not clear whether “especially” requires the shaped body to be one of the recited articles or whether these are exemplary articles. Appropriate correction and clarification are required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale , or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim s 1 , 2 , 11 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Rosenwald (US 3,502,615) . Regarding claims 1 , 2, and 17 Rosenwald teaches a rubber mixture comprising at least one natural rubber and N,N'- dicyclohexyl -p-phenylenediamine in an amount as claimed (col. 6, lines 39-43; Example VI; 70% of 3.5% = 2.45%; also see claims 1, 2 , 7 and 9 ; col. 2, lines 27-32; col. 3, lines 50 -75; col. 4, lines 47-62 ) . As to claim 11, Rosenwald “use” the ingredient as claimed (col. 1, lines 10-col. 2, line 32; Example VI). 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. 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. Claim s 3- 6 , 13, 15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a ) (1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Rosenwald (US 3,502,615) , as applied to claims 1, 2 , 11 and 17 above. As to claim 3, Rosenwald teach incorporating of conventional additives (col. 3, lines 70-75) and exemplify stearic acid in an amount as claimed (col. 5, lines 10-34). While the example does not utilize N,N'- dicyclohexyl -p-phenylenediamine , the disclosed phenylene diamine antioxonants are readily taught and suggested as being utilized as equivalent alternatives or as mixtures together (col. 1, line 63-col. 2, lines 32; claim 1). This is understood to anticipate the claim. Alternatively, combining or substituting materials disclosed as being suitable is prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.06-2144.07). As to claim s 4 and 19 , Rosenwald teach incorporating of conventional additives (col. 3, lines 70-75) and exemplify carbon black/furnace black in an amount as claimed (col. 5, lines 10-34). While the example does not utilize N,N'- dicyclohexyl -p-phenylenediamine , the disclosed phenylene diamine antioxonants are readily taught and suggested as being utilized as equivalent alternatives or as mixtures together (col. 1, line 63-col. 2, lines 32; claim 1). This is understood to anticipate the claim. Alternatively, combining or substituting materials disclosed as being suitable is prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.06-2144.07). As to claim 5, Rosenwald teach incorporating of conventional additives (col. 3, lines 70-75) and exemplify sulfur(col. 5, lines 10-34). While the example does not utilize N,N'- dicyclohexyl -p-phenylenediamine , the disclosed phenylene diamine antioxonants are readily taught and suggested as being utilized as equivalent alternatives or as mixtures together (col. 1, line 63-col. 2, lines 32; claim 1). This is understood to anticipate the claim. Alternatively, combining or substituting materials disclosed as being suitable is prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.06-2144.07). As to claim 6, Rosenwald teaches vulcanization accelerators may be utilized (col. 3, lines 61-75), including sulfeneamides (col. 5, lines 19-21). While the example does not utilize N,N'- dicyclohexyl -p-phenylenediamine , the disclosed phenylene diamine antioxonants are readily taught and suggested as being utilized as equivalent alternatives or as mixtures together (col. 1, line 63-col. 2, lines 32; claim 1). This is understood to anticipate the claim. Alternatively, combining or substituting materials disclosed as being suitable is prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.06-2144.07). As to claim s 13 and 15 , Rosenwald teach a rubber vulcanizate (col. 5, lines 10-34) and an article (col. 4, lines 31-40; col. 5, lines 10-34); . While the example does not utilize N,N'- dicyclohexyl -p-phenylenediamine , the disclosed phenylene diamine antioxonants are readily taught and suggested as being utilized as equivalent alternatives or as mixtures together (col. 1, line 63-col. 2, lines 32; claim 1). This is understood to anticipate the claim. Alternatively, combining or substituting materials disclosed as being suitable is prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.06-2144.07). Claim s 7-10, 12, 14, 16, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosenwald (US 3,502,615) , as applied to claims 1, 2 , 11, and 17 above . As to claims 7-9, 16 and 20, Rosenwald teaches conventional additives can be utilized (col. 3 ,lines 71-col. 4, line 62). Selecting the precise type and amount of these additives is understood to be a routine expedient and readily suggested by the prior art and is understood to render the claims prima facie obvious. As to claim 10, Rosenwald further teach synthetic rubbers may be utilized (claims 9 and 10; col. 4, lines 46-62). Combining or substituting equivalent alternatives is prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.06-2144.07). As to claim 12, in view of the teaching of Rosenwald (col. 3, line 71-col. 4, line 62) one having ordinary skill would have readily determined an applicable mixing temperature for the materials as a routine expedient. As to claim 14, Rosenwald exemplify a curing temperature (col. 5, lines 10-34). One having ordinary skill in the art would have readily optimized and determined a suitable curing temperature in view of the particular composition and rubber being utilized and the article being produced. Determining the temperature is a routine expedient in the art and is rendered prima facie obvious in view of the teaching or Rosenwald. As to claim 16, in view of the teaching of Rosenwald (col. 3, line 71-col. 4, line 62) one having ordinary skill would have readily formed a bonding mixture/adhesive with the rubber mixture including conventional bonding agents as claimed. Such a combination of known materials for such a use is understood to be rendered prima facie obvious in view of the teaching of Rosenwald. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosenwald (US 3,502,615), as applied to claims 1, 2, 11, and 17 above, and further in view of Ackermann et al. (US 2002/0091187) . Note: this is an alternative rejection of claim 7. As to claim 7, while Rosenwald is understood to readily suggest and render prima facie obvious conventional materials as claimed, Rosenwald does not explicitly teach the material However, Ackermann et al. teach an analogous composition wherein the material is utilized (Abstract; paragraphs [0001]-[0077]) for use with silicas and natural rubber (paragraphs [0078]-[0083]) and other materials (paragraphs [0085]-[0102) as claimed. It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Rosenwald and Ackermann et al. and to have utilized the material as claimed in the composition of Rosenwald, as suggested by Ackermann et al., for the purpose, as suggested by the references, of improving the properties of the rubber and/or for achieving desired properties for a given application. It is noted that similar analyses and references can be reasonably utilized for other conventional and well-known additives , mixing steps, and temperatures set forth in the claims, for use in the composition set forth by Rosenwald absent a showing of new or unexpected results and are properly understood to be common knowledge (see MPEP 2144.03). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Jeff Wollschlager whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-8937 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 7:00-3:30 . 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 Christina Johnson can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-1176 . 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. /JEFFREY M WOLLSCHLAGER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742