DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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 applicant regards as his invention.
2. Claims 1-18 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.
Independent claim 1 recites a tire component formed from a rubber composition comprising a majority weight percent of renewable materials, the rubber composition comprising, based on 100 parts per weight (phr) of elastomer: a blend of at least two rubber elastomers selected from a group consisting of: greater than 50 phr of at least one mass balanced polymer; at least one bio-derived plasticizer; and a bio-derived filler system comprising silica and carbon black, wherein said carbon black
filler is at least partially derived from a bio-based feedstock prior to its addition to the rubber composition.
However, the phrase “a blend of at least two rubber elastomers selected from a group consisting of: greater than 50 phr of at least one mass balanced polymer; at least one bio-derived plasticizer; and a bio-derived filler system comprising silica and carbon black, wherein said carbon black filler is at least partially derived from a bio-based feedstock prior to its addition to the rubber composition” is unclear – the Markush group presented in claim 1 does not list any rubber elastomers and it unclear how the two rubber elastomers are selected from the recited group. The Markush recites “a greater than 50 phr of at least one mass balanced polymer; at least one bio-derived plasticizer; and a bio-derived filler system comprising silica and carbon black, wherein said carbon black filler is at least partially derived from a bio-based feedstock prior to its addition to the rubber composition” – does the rubber composition comprise one of these elements in addition to the rubber elastomers? For purposes of examination the Examiner is interpreting claim 1 to recite a tire component formed from a rubber composition comprising a blend of at least two rubber elastomers and one of greater than 50 phr of at least one mass balanced polymer; at least one bio-derived plasticizer; or a bio-derived filler system comprising silica and carbon black, wherein said carbon black
filler is at least partially derived from a bio-based feedstock prior to its addition to the rubber composition.
Claim 4 is dependent on claim 1 and recites a plasticizer comprising a vegetable triglyceride rubber processing oil; and optionally a bio-based terpene resin. However, claim 4 does not positively recite either a vegetable triglyceride rubber processing oil or a bio-based terpene resin. A similar ambiguity exists in claim 5.
Claim 7 recites that “the blend of rubber elastomers comprises: a majority of at least one SBR; and at least one polybutadiene” and it is unclear what is meant by “a majority of at least one SBR.” Furthermore, the Examiner recommends clarifying the abbreviation SBR to avoid any ambiguity in claims 7, 10, and 11.
Claim 8 recites that the “the first and second polybutadienes having about the same glass transition temperatures (Tgs) and cis contents” and it is unclear what is meant by “having about the same” and how does one distinguish the first and second polybutadienes from each other?
Appropriate clarification or correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(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.
3. Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Styer (US 2018/0009971 A1).
Styer discloses a rubber composition (equivalent to the rubber composition of the claimed invention) comprising recycled elements and/or renewable resources, such as recycled carbon black or recycled carbon black and recycled particulate rubber, that are incorporated into a rubber composition. The rubber composition can be used to manufacture tires or various tire components including tire subtreads (equivalent to the tire component of the claimed invention). The composition comprises elastomers having rubber properties (i.e., rubber elastomers) and examples include polyisoprene, polybutadiene (equivalent to the SBR of claim 7), poly(styrene-co-butadiene) (equivalent to the SBR of claim 7), chlorinated polyethylene rubber, thermoplastic rubber, and mixtures thereof. Any of the aforementioned rubber elastomers can have a myriad of macromolecular structures including linear, branched (meeting the limitations of claim 9) and star shaped. In one embodiment, the rubber composition comprises one rubber elastomer in combination with at least one other rubber elastomer to obtain the desired final viscoelastic properties of a rubber compound formed from the elastomer(s) (meeting the limitation that the rubber composition comprises a blend of at least two rubber elastomers). In certain embodiments a blend of more than one rubber elastomer is utilized in the rubber compositions, the ratios (expressed in terms parts per hundred rubber (phr)) of such rubber elastomer blends can be adjusted according to the desired final viscoelastic properties desired for the rubber composition. For example, in certain embodiments natural rubber or polyisoprene may comprise about 5 phr to about 100 phr, such as about 25 phr to about 90 phr, or 50 phr to about 85 phr. In certain embodiments, polybutadiene rubber or poly(styrene-butadiene) rubber may comprise about 95 phr to about 5 phr, such as about 75 phr to about 10 phr, or about 50 phr to about 15 phr (meeting the limitations of claims 11 and 12). In certain embodiments, a reinforcing filler can be incorporated into the rubber composition, where the reinforcing filler may be selected from the group consisting of carbon black, silica, and mixtures thereof (equivalent to the filler system comprising silica and carbon black as recited in claim 1). As an alternative or additional filler, carbon black can be sourced from a recycled material. Such recycled material can include reclaimed or recycled vulcanized rubber, whereby the vulcanized rubber is typically reclaimed from manufactured articles such as a pneumatic tire, an industrial conveyor belt, a power transmission belt, and a rubber hose. The recycled carbon black may be obtained by a pyrolysis process or other methods known for obtaining recycled carbon black. Recycled carbon black is utilized in the rubber compositions in an amount of about 1 to about 80 phr (meeting the limitations of claims 14 and 15). Examples of reinforcing silica fillers which can be used include wet silica (hydrated silicic acid), dry silica (anhydrous silicic acid), and calcium silicate. Among these, precipitated amorphous wet-process, hydrated silicas are preferred. Silica can be employed in an amount of about 1 to about 100 phr (including 1 to 100 phr), or in an amount of about 5 to about 80 phr (including 5 to 80 phr), or in an amount of about 30 to about 70 phr (including 30 to 70 phr) (meeting the limitations of claim 15). The amount of coupling agent in the composition is based on the weight of the silica in the composition. The amount of coupling agent present in the composition may be from about 0.1% to about 20% by weight of silica, or from about 1% to about 15% by weight of silica, or from about 2% to about 10% by weight of silica. For example, typical amounts of coupling agents include about 4, 6, 8, and 10 phr; or in ranges from about 0 to about 30 phr, and in another embodiment, from about 5 to about 15 phr (meeting the limitations of claim 15). When both carbon black and silica are employed in combination as the reinforcing filler, they may be used in a carbon black-silica ratio of about 10:1 to about 1:4, including 10:1 to 1:4, about 5:1 to about 1:3, 5:1 to 1:3, about 2:1 to about 1:2, and 2:1 to 1:2. In certain embodiments, recycled carbon black may be used in the same ratios with silica. In a conventional rubber composition, an aromatic oil or other oil, such as a naphthenic oil, can be incorporated, where such oils can be utilized to facilitate processing of the rubber as well as affecting the road performance of a tire. Oils or processing aids commonly include a broad category of substances that improve various aspects of the process of forming vulcanizable compositions and vulcanizates. For example, oils or processing aids may prevent filler agglomeration and reduce viscosity. However, petroleum-based oils are disfavored in some application and are non-renewable, and hence, substitution of an oil from a renewable source, such as plant oil, may be advantageous if performance characteristics can be maintained. Accordingly, a plant oil or plant fat may be incorporated into a tread composition. In certain embodiments, such components include a plant-based triglyceride ( equivalent to the vegetable triglyceride rubber processing oil of claim 4). In certain embodiments, the total processing oil (e.g., plant oil, or other compound) utilized in a rubber compound can be present in a range from about 1 to about 75 phr, in another embodiment, from about 5 to about 40, and in another embodiment from about 2 to 8 phr. In certain embodiments, the rubber composition is essentially free of any processing or extender oil other than that provided by the plant oil (meeting the limitations of claim 6). The rubber compositions may comprise further ingredients that are known and conventional in the rubber compositions, including additive materials such as, but not limited to, curing agents , activators, retarders and accelerators; processing additives, such as resins, including tackifying resins, reinforcing resins, plasticizers (meeting the limitations of claim 17), pigments, fatty acids, waxes, antioxidants, antiozonants, peptizing agents, and scorch inhibiting agents. In certain embodiments, an antidegradant can be utilized to protect the rubber from the oxidation effects of atmospheric ozone (meeting the limitations of claim 13). The amount of total antidegradant or staining antidegradant in a rubber composition may be, for example, from about 0.1 to about 15 phr, including from 0.1 to 15 phr, from about 0.3 to about 6 phr, from 0.3 to 6 phr, about 2 to about 7 phr, and 2 to 7 phr. (See Abstract and paragraphs 0013, 0015-0019, 0021, 0023-0028, 0034-0038, 0041, 0043, 0044, and 0065).
With regards to the limitations that the rubber composition comprises a majority weight percent of renewable materials, or that the plasticizer and/or filler system is bio-derived; or that the carbon black is produced from a feedstock that excludes fossil carbon, or that the silica is derived from rice husk ash, the Examiner would like to point out that the use of "renewable" or “bio-derived” materials is not a patentable distinction, as it merely goes to the source of the materials and not any structural distinction.
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.
4. Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Styer (US 2018/0009971 A1).
With regards to the specific concentrations of the components of the rubber composition, the Examiner would like to point out that workable physical properties and concentrations are deemed to be obvious routine optimizations to one of ordinary skill in the art, motivated by the desire to obtain the required properties. Differences in concentration will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentrations are critical. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation particularly given that Styer specifically states that the ratios (expressed in terms parts per hundred rubber (phr)) of the rubber elastomer blends can be adjusted according to the desired final viscoelastic properties desired for the rubber composition.
Conclusion
5. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHEEBA AHMED whose telephone number is (571)272-1504. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7am-6pm.
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, CALLIE SHOSHO can be reached at 571-272-1123. 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.
/SHEEBA AHMED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787