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 .
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s response to a Nonfinal rejection filed July 10, 2026.
The Double Patenting rejection over copending application 18/516301 is withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendments.
The examiner notes that claim 18 was originally cancelled in the previously filed set of claims dated July 26, 2023. However, claim 18 is present in the claims filed July 10, 2026. Claim 18 is cancelled, following the previously examined claim set.
The previous 112(b) rejection of claim 10 and 11 are withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendments.
Claims 1-17 and 19-20 are currently pending.
This Office Action is FINAL.
Claim Analysis
Summary of Claim 1:
A rubber composition comprising, expressed as parts by weight per hundred parts of rubber (phr): 100 phr of an elastomer component, the elastomer component comprising:
a) a polybutadiene rubber, and
b) a styrene butadiene rubber;
a filler component comprising:
a) at least 10 phr aluminum hydroxide,
b) at least 70 phr silica, and
c) 0-20 phr carbon black;
an organosilane coupling agent;
one or more processing aids, selected from the group consisting of:
a) a liquid plasticizer,
b) a wax,
c) a resin, and mixtures thereof; and
a cure package comprising:
a) a sulfur-based curing agent,
b) an activator selected from inorganic activators, organic activators, and combinations thereof, and
c) a cure accelerator.
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.
Claims 1-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Miyazaki et al. (US 20160052340 as listed on IDS dated February 17, 2025) in view of Whelan (US 4246359).
Regarding claim 1, Miyazaki et al. disclose in Example 3 a tread rubber composition comprising 30 parts by mass of a polybutadiene rubber and 70 parts by mass of a styrene butadiene rubber equivalent to 100 phr of an elastomer component, 10 phr of aluminum hydroxide having a D60 of 0.6 µm, 75 phr of µsilica, 15 phr of carbon black, an organosilane coupling agent, oil, thereby reading on liquid plasticizer, a wax, a resin, a sulfur based curing agent, zinc oxide as the activator, and a cure accelerator (Table 1), thereby lying within the claimed ranges of the instant claim.
Miyazaki et al. is silent on an aluminum hydroxide having a d10 particle size as recited in the instant claim.
Whelan teaches a rubber composition comprising an aluminum hydroxide Hydral 710 (page 8, line 27-68), which is the same aluminum hydroxide used in the instant specification and has a d50 of 1.1 µm and d10 of 0.7 µm (see instant specification page 10, [0059]), thereby lying within the claimed particle size range. Whelan offers the motivation that the alumina hydroxide is a conventional additive to rubber formulations (page 9, line 1-17). Therefore, it would have been obvious to add the aluminum hydroxide of Whelan to the rubber composition of Miyazaki et al. since both are related to the same field of endeavor of rubber formulations with aluminum hydroxide and aluminum hydroxide is a conventional additive for rubber compositions.
Regarding claim 2, 3, and 4, Miyazaki et al. disclose the rubber composition of Example 3 comprises 30 phr of polybutadiene rubber and 70 phr of a styrene butadiene rubber (Table 1), equivalent to a 3:7 ratio and thereby lying within the claimed ranges of instant claim 2, 3, and 4.
Regarding claim 5, 6, and 7, Miyazaki et al. disclose the rubber composition of Example 3 comprises 10 phr of aluminum hydroxide, 15 phr of carbon black, and 6 phr of organosilane coupling agent (Table 1), thereby lying within the claimed ranges of instant claim 5, 6, and 7.
Regarding claim 8, Miyazaki et al. disclose the rubber composition comprises a ratio of 6:75 of organosilane coupling agent to silica (Table 1), thereby lying within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 9, Miyazaki et al. disclose the rubber composition of Example 3 comprises silane coupling agent is Si75 (Table 1), which is a bis(3-triethoxysilylpropyl)disulfide as evidenced by the data sheet provided (?), thereby reading on the instant claim.
Regarding claim 10, Miyazaki et al. disclose the rubber composition of Example 3 comprises 10 phr of an oil (Table 1), thereby lying within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 11 and 13, Miyazaki et al. disclose the rubber composition of Example 3 comprises 10 phr of resin (Table 1), thereby lying within the claimed range of at least 2 phr.
Regarding claim 12, Miyazaki et al. disclose the resin of the rubber composition of Example 3 is an alpha-methylstyrene resin (Table 1, [0091]), thereby reading on the instant claim.
Regarding claim 14, Miyazaki et al. disclose the rubber composition of Example 3 comprises 1.060 phr (Table 1), thereby lying within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 15, Miyazaki et al. disclose the rubber composition of Example 3 comprises zinc oxide and stearic acid (Table 1), which is a fatty acid, thereby reading on the instant claim.
Regarding claim 16 and 17, Miyazaki et al. disclose the rubber composition of Example 3 is used to form a tire tread (Table 1, [0096-0097]), thereby reading on the instant claim.
Regarding claim 19, Miyazaki et al. disclose in Example 3 a rubber composition comprising 30 parts by mass of a polybutadiene rubber and 70 parts by mass of a styrene butadiene rubber equivalent to 100 phr of an elastomer component, 10 phr of aluminum hydroxide, 75 phr of silica, 15 phr of carbon black, 6 phr of an organosilane coupling agent, 10 phr of oil, 1.5 phr of a wax, 10 phr of a resin, 1.060 phr of a sulfur based curing agent, 2.5 phr zinc oxide, 3 phr of stearic acid, which is a fatty acid, and 3.6 phr of a cure accelerator, thereby reading on the instant claim (Table 1).
Miyazaki et al. is silent on an aluminum hydroxide having a d10 particle size as recited in the instant claim.
Whelan teaches a rubber composition comprising an aluminum hydroxide Hydral 710 (page 8, line 27-68), which is the same aluminum hydroxide used in the instant specification and has a d50 of 1.1 µm and d10 of 0.7 µm (see instant specification page 10, [0059]), thereby lying within the claimed particle size range. Whelan offers the motivation that the alumina hydroxide is a conventional additive to rubber formulations (page 9, line 1-17). Therefore, it would have been obvious to add the aluminum hydroxide of Whelan to the rubber composition of Miyazaki et al. since both are related to the same field of endeavor of rubber formulations with aluminum hydroxide and aluminum hydroxide is a conventional additive for rubber compositions.
Regarding claim 20, Miyazaki et al. disclose in Example 3 a tire tread formed from a rubber composition comprising 30 parts by mass of a polybutadiene rubber and 70 parts by mass of a styrene butadiene rubber equivalent to 100 phr of an elastomer component, 10 phr of aluminum hydroxide, 75 phr of silica, 15 phr of carbon black, 6 phr of an organosilane coupling agent, 10 phr of oil, 1.5 phr of a wax, 10 phr of a resin, 1.060 phr of a sulfur based curing agent, 2.5 phr zinc oxide, 3 phr of stearic acid, which is a fatty acid, and 3.6 phr of a cure accelerator, thereby reading on the instant claim (Table 1, [0096-0097]).
Miyazaki et al. is silent on an aluminum hydroxide having a d10 particle size as recited in the instant claim.
Whelan teaches a rubber composition comprising an aluminum hydroxide Hydral 710 (page 8, line 27-68), which is the same aluminum hydroxide used in the instant specification and has a d50 of 1.1 µm and d10 of 0.7 µm (see instant specification page 10, [0059]), thereby lying within the claimed particle size range. Whelan offers the motivation that the alumina hydroxide is a conventional additive to rubber formulations (page 9, line 1-17). Therefore, it would have been obvious to add the aluminum hydroxide of Whelan to the rubber composition of Miyazaki et al. since both are related to the same field of endeavor of rubber formulations with aluminum hydroxide and aluminum hydroxide is a conventional additive for rubber compositions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 2, filed July 10, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-17 and 19-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Miyazaki et al. (US 20160052340 as listed on IDS dated February 17, 2025) in view of Whelan (US 4246359).
Applicant states “The claimed d10 range of 0.4 to 0.8 µm is not taught or suggested by Miyazaki, and Miyazaki provides no reason to select or optimize for that particular particle size distribution.
The examiner agrees and directs attention to the new grounds of rejection for claims 1, 19, and 20, wherein Miyazaki et al. is silent on an aluminum hydroxide having a d10 particle size as recited in the instant claim.
However, Whelan teaches a rubber composition comprising an aluminum hydroxide Hydral 710 (page 8, line 27-68), which is the same aluminum hydroxide used in the instant specification and has a d50 of 1.1 µm and d10 of 0.7 µm (see instant specification page 10, [0059]), thereby lying within the claimed particle size range. Whelan offers the motivation that the alumina hydroxide is a conventional additive to rubber formulations (page 9, line 1-17). Therefore, it would have been obvious to add the aluminum hydroxide of Whelan to the rubber composition of Miyazaki et al. since both are related to the same field of endeavor of rubber formulations with aluminum hydroxide and aluminum hydroxide is a conventional additive for rubber compositions.
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 ANDREA WU whose telephone number is (571)272-0342. The examiner can normally be reached M F 8 - 5.
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, Joseph Del Sole can be reached at (571) 272-1130. 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.
/ANDREA WU/Examiner, Art Unit 1763
/JOSEPH S DEL SOLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1763
