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. Warning Applicant is advised that should claims 3 and 4 be found allowable, claims 14 and 15 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). In this case, “a filler derived from the calcination of egg shells” as claimed in claim 14 is the same as “ CaO derived from the calcination of egg shells.” The calcination of egg shells takes place by heating the shells causing calcium carbonate to break down into calcium oxide and carbon dioxide , of which calcium oxide is the only one that can be a filler. Claim Objections Claims 2-13 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities: Regarding claim 2 , for clarity, please write out CaO as calcium oxide. Regarding claim 5 , this claim recites that the natural rubber comprises polyisoprene . However, by definition, natural rubber comprises polyisoprene as polyisoprene is the main component of natural rubber. Therefore, this claim has the same scope of claim 1 and fails to add any new limitations to the invention. Regarding claim 9 , for clarity, please write out ZnO as zinc oxide. Regarding claim 17 , for clarity, please write out CO 2 as carbon dioxide and CaO as calcium oxide. Regarding claims 3 , 4, 6- 8 , and 10-13 , these claims depend from an objected to claim and include all of the limitations thereof. Therefore, they are also subject to the objection. 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. Claims 2-17 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 claim 2 , claim 2 recites the limitation "the calcination of egg shells" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of further examination, this phrase will be interpreted as “a process of calcinating egg shells.” Regarding claim 14 , claim 14 recites the limitation "the calcination of egg shells" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of further examination, this phrase will be interpreted as “a process of calcinating egg shells.” Regarding claim 16 , claim 16 recites the limitation "the mixed tire tread formulation" in lines 6 and 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of further examination, this phrase will be interpreted as referring to the composition that is formed by mixing the ingredients in the mixing step of the claim. Further, in lines 8 and 9, claim 16 recites “the duration for each stage” and “their ratio” and it is unclear to what these phrases refer. Is the duration for each stage the time for each mixing stage, or the time for stages of forming the continuous slab? Also, does the ratio refer to the position of the rollers to each other, the speed of the rollers, or something else entirely? For the purpose of further examination, “the duration for each stage” will be interpreted as the time of each of the mixing stages; and “their ratio” will be interpreted as referring to any ratio regarding the rollers. Regarding claims 3-13, 15, and 17 , these claims depend from a rejected claim and include all of the limitations thereof. Therefore, they are also rejected. 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 1-6 and 8-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balnis et al. (US 2017/0368874). Regarding claim s 1 -6, 8-10, 14, and 15 , Balnis et al. teaches a rubber composition (¶31) comprising a rubber component which contains at least one of styrene-butadiene rubber, polybutadiene rubber and natural rubber (¶55), a silane coupling agent (¶53), aromatic process oil (lubricant) (¶63), vulcanization activators (curing agents) such as zinc oxide and stearic acid (¶70), plasticizers (¶65) , sulfur as a vulcanizing agent (cross-linking agent) (¶68), vulcanizing accelerators (¶69), a vulcanization inhibitor (¶71), and calcium oxide (¶49). The composition may further comprise carbon black (¶39) and silica (¶51 ). The disclosed rubber composition is used in tires or tire retreads (¶79). Balnis et al. does not teach that the filler derived from a bio-waste material, specifically of calcium oxide derived from the calcination of egg shells. However, this limitation is a product-by-process limitation. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe , 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) . In this case, there is no evidence on the record that a composition formed with calcium oxide derived from the calcination of egg shells would not be the same as or obvious from the very same composition except formed with calcium oxide derived from some other source. While there is not an example in Balnis et al. which teaches a rubber composition comprising all of the above components, Balnis et al. does teach that each of the components are suitable for use together to form a rubber composition useful in 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 form a rubber composition comprising all of the components disclosed, and would have been motivated to do so because Balnis et al. teaches that they are each suitable for use within the rubber composition and suitable for use together in the composition. Regarding claims 11 and 12 , Balnis et al. additionally teaches that the rubber composition comprises antidegradants such as antioxidants and antiozonants (¶65) . Regarding claim 13 , Balnis et al. does not teach that the calcium oxide is processed to nano level fine structures. However, this limitation is a product-by-process limitation. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe , 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) . In this case, there is no evidence on the record that a composition comprising calcium oxide which has been processed to nano level fine structures is not the same as or obvious from the very same composition except comprising calcium oxide not processed to nano level fine structures. Moreover, absent unexpected results, changes in size or proportion of a component are not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art. MPEP 2144.04 IV A. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balnis et al. (US 2017/0368874) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Matsumoto (US 2019/0315946). Regarding claim 7 , Balnis et al. teaches the composition of claim 2 as set forth above. Balnis et al. does not teach that the silane coupling agent is bis( triethoxysilylpropyl ) tetrasulfide or bis( triethoxysilylpropyl ) disulfide or combinations thereof. However, Matsumoto teaches a similar rubber composition for tires which comprises silica and a silane coupling agent wherein the silane coupling agent is bis( triethoxysilylpropyl ) tetrasulfide or bis( triethoxysilylpropyl ) disulfide (¶15, 44, 45). Balnis et al. and Matsumoto are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor as that of the instant invention, namely rubber compositions used in 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 at least one of bis( triethoxysilylpropyl ) tetrasulfide or bis( triethoxysilylpropyl ) disulfide as the silane coupling agent, as taught by Matsumoto, in the composition, as taught by Balnis et al., and would have been motivated to do so because these are two of the most used and ubiquitous silane coupling agents and Matsumoto teaches that they are suitable to use for this purpose in rubber compositions for tires. Claim s 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balnis et al. (US 2017/0368874) in view of Fleury et al. (US 2017/0158782) and Zapata Ramirez et al. (WO 2021/046661). For convenience, the citations below for Zapata Ramirez et al. are taken from an English language machine translation included herewith. Regarding claims 16 and 17 , Balnis et al. teaches a process of preparing a rubber composition by mixing the ingredients together (¶73), wherein the ingredients comprise a rubber component which contains at least one of styrene-butadiene rubber, polybutadiene rubber and natural rubber (¶55), a silane coupling agent (¶53), aromatic process oil (lubricant) (¶63), vulcanization activators (curing agents) such as zinc oxide and stearic acid (¶70), plasticizers, sulfur as a vulcanizing agent (cross-linking agent) (¶68), vulcanizing accelerators (¶69), a vulcanization inhibitor (¶71), and calcium oxide (¶49). The composition may further comprise carbon black (¶39) and silica (¶51). The disclosed rubber composition is used in tires or tire retreads (¶79). Balnis et al. additionally teaches that the rubber composition is incorporated into a tire or tire retread according to ordinary tire manufacturing techniques including standard rubber shaping, molding, and curing techniques (¶79). Balnis et al. does not teach forming the mixed rubber composition into a continuous slab by passing the mixed rubber composition through rollers, wherein parameters such as the duration of each stage of mixing or pressure are controlled. However, Fleury et al. teaches preparing a rubber composition by first mixing all the ingredients in multiple stages and controlling the time of each of them (¶189), and then after vulcanization (mixing with curing agents), the composition is calendared (through rollers) into the form of a slab (¶192). Balnis et al. and Fleury et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor as that of the instant invention, namely that of rubber compositions 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 form the mixed/vulcanized composition, as taught by Balnis et al., into a slab through calendaring/rollers, as taught by Fleury et al., and would have been motivated to do so in order to test the properties of the invention (¶192). Balnis et al. does not teach that the calcium oxide is derived by calcinating egg shells by heating the egg shells to a temperature to drive off carbon dioxide and form solid calcium oxide. However, Zapata Ramirez et al. teaches a process of making calcium oxide nanoparticles by taking food by-products/waste rich in calcium carbon (¶4) such as egg shells and subjecting them to calcination (by definition, the egg shell is heated which drives off carbon dioxide and leaves calcium oxide) (¶21). Zapata Ramirez et al. is analogous art because it is reasonably pertinent to a problem to be solved by the instant invention, namely obtaining calcium oxide from a waste source. At the time of the filing of the instant invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to obtain calcium oxide through calcination of egg shells, as taught by Zapata Ramirez et al., and use the calcium oxide in the composition, as taught by Balnis et al., and would have been motivated to do so in order to make something useful from a waste product. Correspondence 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