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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-11, 13, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gianni (WO 2017/163219, newly cited).
Gianni is directed to a sealing composition comprising at least one diene elastomer (claimed solid rubber), 0.1-6 phr of a peroxide crosslinking agent, 20-200 phr of at least one tackifying resin (e.g. hydrocarbon resin), 10-200 phr of a plasticizer (oil or liquid), and 1-40 phr of a reinforcing filler (e.g. carbon black or silica) (Pages 8-14). While Gianni fails to expressly teach a sealing composition that satisfies the claimed invention, there is a substantial overlap in loadings between the claimed invention and that taught by Gianni- one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form a single sealing composition with the claimed combination of materials and loadings absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results.
Regarding claims 2, 3, and 7, Gianni teaches a plurality of peroxide materials that correspond with those disclosed as being inventive by Applicant (Page 11 of Gianni). As such, it reasons that the claimed 10-hour half-life temperature and molecular weight would be present in the peroxides of Gianni.
With respect to claim 4, Gianni teaches rubber materials that satisfy the claimed invention (Page 10, Lines 1+).
As to claim 5, Gianni specifically teaches a plasticizer in the form of an oil or liquid.
Regarding claim 6, a multitude of hydrocarbon resins disclosed by Gianni (Page 11) are consistent with the hydrocarbon resins taught by Applicant and as such, it reasons that the softening point of the hydrocarbon resins in Gianni would satisfy the claimed invention.
With respect to claim 8, the sealing composition of Gianni includes a peroxide crosslinking agent and is devoid of a sulfur system (sulfur and accelerator).
Claim(s) 12 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gianni as applied in claim 1 above and further in view of Naito (US 2016/289400, newly cited).
As detailed above, Gianni teaches a sealing composition including a peroxide crosslinking agent. On Page 11, Gianni discloses a plurality of exemplary peroxide materials. While Gianni fails to disclose any of the claimed peroxide materials, said materials are recognized as being consistent with those that are commonly used in tire compositions, as shown for example by Naito (Paragraph 56). It is emphasized that Gianni teaches a plurality of exemplary peroxide materials- one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use any number of known peroxide materials that are commonly used in the tire industry, including those required by the claimed invention. Also, Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed peroxide materials.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 JUSTIN R FISCHER whose telephone number is (571)272-1215. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 5:30-2:00.
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, Katelyn Smith can be reached at 571-270-5545. 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.
Justin Fischer
/JUSTIN R FISCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749 March 13, 2026
Prosecution Insights