CTNF 18/460,597 CTNF 85056 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Status of Application Claims 1-5 are pending and presented for examination. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA 1. Claim (s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horie et al. (U.S. PGPUB No. 2014/0329946) . Initially, note that the language in the preamble of “A flame-retardant vibration isolation rubber composition” is a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention and must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In this case, the prior art as outlined below makes obvious an identical composition to that claimed, and as such, is capable of performing the intended use and meets this limitation of the claim. Regarding claims 1-3, Horie teaches a rubber composition comprising: 100 parts of a diene rubber (Example 56, Table 8); 50 parts of an inorganic filler, which is silica (Example 56, Table 8); 1 part adipic dihydrazide (Example 56, Table 8); and 10 parts carbon black (Example 56, Table 8). Horie fails to teach an exemplary embodiment wherein the inorganic filler is a metal hydroxide. However, Horie does teach that the inorganic filler used in the composition can be selected from a group including silica and a metal hydroxide, such as aluminum hydroxide (0093-0095). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Horie’s Example 56 to substitute aluminum hydroxide for the silica. One would have been motivated to make this modification as one could have substituted aluminum hydroxide for silica with a reasonable expectation of success (particularly given that Horie actually teaches that both silica and aluminum hydroxide can be employed as the inorganic filler in their rubber compositions), and the predictable result of providing a rubber composition with improved low heat generation property (see Horie at 0089) . 07-21-aia AIA 2. Claim (s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ochiai (U.S. PGPUB No. 2017/0204248) in view of Muratani et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 10479878) . Regarding claims 1-5, Ochiai teaches an anti-vibration rubber composition (abstract) and an anti-vibration rubber member composed of the vulcanized anti-vibration rubber composition (abstract), the composition comprising: 100 parts of a diene rubber (Example D1, Table 1, note that natural rubber is a type of diene rubber); 35 parts carbon black having a DBP oil absorption of 121 mL/100 g and an iodine adsorption of 43 mg/g (Example D1, Table 1 and 0093); 0.2 parts of isophthalic dihydrazide (Example D1, Table 1 and 0095). Ochiai fails to teach the inclusion of 20-150 parts of a metal hydroxide, selected from aluminum hydroxide and magnesium hydroxide. However, Muratani teaches a similar anti-vibration rubber composition (abstract) comprising: 100 parts rubber (Example 1, Table 1), 40 parts carbon black (Example 1, Table 1) and 80 parts aluminum hydroxide (Example 1, Table 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ochiai’s composition by including 80 parts of aluminum hydroxide. One would have been motivated to make this modification as Muratani teaches that the inclusion of the aluminum hydroxide provides flame retardant properties to the rubber composition (column 4, lines 4-14). Conclusion Claims 1-5 are pending. Claims 1-5 are rejected. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT S WALTERS JR whose telephone number is (571)270-5351. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at 571-272-1295. 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. /ROBERT S WALTERS JR/ March 3, 2026Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1717 Application/Control Number: 18/460,597 Page 2 Art Unit: 1717 Application/Control Number: 18/460,597 Page 3 Art Unit: 1717 Application/Control Number: 18/460,597 Page 4 Art Unit: 1717 Application/Control Number: 18/460,597 Page 5 Art Unit: 1717