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 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Izumo (EP 3 922 670 A1) In regards to claims 1 – 7 , Izumo teaches tire containing rubber composition (abstract). The composition preferably contains 5 to 30% of styrene-butadiene rubber, or preferably 20 to 70% of isoprene rubber, or preferably 10 to 70% polybutadiene, resins such as terpene resins etc. [007 – 0020]. The rubber generally contains diene rubbers such as isoprene, polybutadiene (BR), styrene butadiene (SBR) etc., wherein any one alone may be used as rubber or two or more [0036]. The rubber is modified rubber which is modified with a functional group such as epoxy, ether, carbonyl, sulfide etc. (i.e., heteroatoms) and thus provides modified diene [0037 – 0039]. Isoprene rubber can be present at from 5 to 80% of the rubber preferably [0041]. SBR can be present at from 5 to 45% of the rubber [0043]. Any Br may be used alone or in combination at 20 to 100% of rubber components [0050 – 0053]. Terpene can be solely b -pinene , or in combination with other terpenes, and wherein the terpene is present at from 3 to 30% of the rubber composition [0091 – 0093]. In regards to claims 8 – 15, Izumo teaches the rubber component useful in a tire tread [0005, 0024]. The intended use of the tire as an all season would be intrinsically provided. Double Patenting Claims 1 – 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting a s being unpatentable over claims 1 – 13 of U.S. Patent No. 18/237,605 in view of Izumo (EP 3 922 670 A1) . The copending application teach analogous rubber composition comprising the same ingredients in the same amounts but fails to recite that the butadiene rubber is modified butadiene rubber. Izumo teaches similar butadiene tire composition which can comprise the modified butadiene which is modified with heteroatom containing groups as claimed. It would have been obvious for persons of ordinary skill in the art to have used the modified butadiene of Izumo in the composition of the copending application as Izumo teaches the use of modified and non-modified butadiene are interchangeable. While the copending application does not recite oil, claim 2 limits the amount of the terpene resin and oil content to less than 60% and thus the presence of oil is not required. Claims 1 – 15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 15 of copending Application No. 18/374,183. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the copending application teaches the claimed ingredients for the rubber composition but further requires transition temperature values which are not present in the instant claims, thus anticipating or obviating the claims. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT TAIWO OLADAPO whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3723 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 8-5pm . 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 Prem Singh can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-6381 . 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. /TAIWO OLADAPO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771