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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed 2/13/2024, 4/5/2024, 7/17/2024, 9/30/2024, 11/25/2024, 3/11/2025, 4/24/2025, 6/26/2025, 9/17/2025, 11/4/2025, 1/21/2026, and 4/6/2026 fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because they do not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Applicant is reminded that only those references pertinent to the instant application need be submitted on an IDS.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: [0002] “Paraffin waxes, Fischer Tropsch waxes, and/or microcrystalline waxes can be used in tire formulations to aid in reducing the damage of ozone” is missing a punctuation mark. Appropriate correction is required.
The use of the term “CV60”, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
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.
Claims 13 and 20 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.
Claim 13 contains the trademark/trade name “CV60”. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe the natural rubber and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "said amount of anti-ageing agent". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 1-12 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyazaki et al (US 20160130426-A1) in view of Kumar et al (US-8664458-B2).
Regarding claims 1, 8, 9, and 16, Miyazaki discloses a tire rubber composition (Abstract) comprising: a petroleum-derived wax [0014], styrene butadiene rubber [0025], silica filler [0086], polybutadiene [0025], and carbon black [0083]. Miyazaki further discloses that the petroleum-derived wax is present in the amount of 0.0-6.0 parts by mass [0014].
Miyazaki does not specifically disclose a depolymerized wax nor that this depolymerized wax is polypropylene-based or polyethylene-based.
Kumar discloses that depolymerized waxes may be derived from petroleum (page 11, column 2, lines 45-46) and further that these depolymerized petroleum-based waxes may be polypropylene-based (page 12, column 3, lines 1-2) and polyethylene-based (page 11, column 2, line 60).
Miyazaki and Kumar are both directed toward petroleum waxes and therefore are analogous to applicant’s claimed invention.
Miyazaki further discloses that petroleum-derived waxes of varying hydrocarbon lengths (C20 or higher, such as those resulting from depolymerization) impart excellent ozone resistance, discoloration resistance, and crack resistance [0044-0048].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the petroleum-derived wax taught by Miyazaki with the depolymerized wax of Kumar because such simple substitution of known elements will obtain predictable results.
Regarding claims 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7, Miyazaki further discloses a tire rubber composition comprising: an antioxidant [0010], sulfur [0094], stearic acid [0093], and a rubber accelerator [0093].
Regarding claim 3, Miyazaki discloses that the tire rubber composition further comprises paraffin wax [0044].
Regarding claims 10 and 17, Miyazaki discloses that the tire rubber composition further comprises natural rubber [0027] in the amount of 10-80% by mass [0028].
Regarding claims 11 and 18, Miyazaki discloses that the tire rubber composition further comprises zinc oxide [0093] and further discloses specific embodiments wherein the zinc oxide is present at 4% by mass (Table 1). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Regarding claims 12, 14, and 19, Miyazaki discloses that the tire rubber composition further comprises an anti-aging agent [0010] which is a paraphenylenediamine [0079] and is present at 1.0 to 8.0 parts by mass [0014].
Regarding claim 15, Miyazaki discloses that the rubber accelerator is N-tert-butyl-2 benzothiazolesulfenamide [0116].
Regarding claim 20, Miyazaki discloses a tire rubber composition comprising: a petroleum-derived wax [0014], styrene butadiene rubber [0025], silica filler [0086], polybutadiene [0025], carbon black [0083], an antioxidant [0010], sulfur [0094], stearic acid [0093], a rubber accelerator [0093] which is N-tert-butyl-2-benzothiazolesulfenamide [0116], zinc oxide [0093], and paraphenylenediamine [0079] wherein the petroleum-derived wax is present in the amount of 0.0-6.0 parts by mass [0014], the zinc oxide is present at 4% by mass (Table 1), the anti-ageing agent is present at 1.0 to 8.0 parts by mass [0014], the sulfur is present between 1.0 and 3.0 parts by mass [0095], the styrene butadiene rubber is present at 20 wt% (Table 1), and the silica is present at 0.1-30 parts by mass [0087].
Miyazaki does not disclose that the petroleum-derived wax is a depolymerized wax nor that it is polypropylene-based.
The combination of Miyazaki (Abstract) and Kumar (page 12, column 3, lines 1-2) discloses petroleum-derived depolymerized waxes which are polypropylene-based as described above in relation to claims 1, 8, 9, and 16.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyazaki (US 20160130426-A1) and Kumar et al (US-8664458-B2) as applied to claims 1-12 and 14-20 above, and further in view of Ondrušová et al (WO-2020130952-A1).
The discussion with respect to Miyazaki et al (US 20160130426-A1) and Kumar et al (US-8664458-B2) set forth in the above rejection is incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding claim 13, Miyazaki and Kumar disclose the tire formulation according to claim 10.
Miyazaki further discloses that the natural rubber component to their tire composition may be SIR20, RSS#3, TSR20, or the like [0027].
Miyazaki does not specifically disclose CV60.
Ondrušová lists TSRs (technical specified rubbers) such as SMR10, SIR20, and CV60 as examples of suitable elastomeric rubbers (page 4, paragraph 6 - page 5, paragraph 1).
Ondrušová further states that these TSRs are exemplary natural rubbers for an elastomer rubber mixture (page 4, paragraph 6 - page 5, paragraph 1).
Ondrušová, Miyazaki, and Kumar are directed towards polymeric compositions and therefore are analogous to applicant’s claimed invention.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the natural rubbers taught by Miyazaki with the natural rubbers disclosed by Ondrušová because such simple substitution of known elements will obtain predictable results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Xu et al (CN 109134979 A) discloses a tire rubber composition comprising a polybutadiene, styrene butadiene rubber, paraffin wax, a microcrystalline wax, silica nanotubes, carbon black, a paraphenylenediamine antioxidant, an accelerator, stearic acid, sulfur, and zinc oxide. Misaki et al (JP 7834270 B2) discloses a pneumatic tire composition comprising rubber (such as styrene butadiene rubber, natural rubber, or polybutadiene rubber), stearic acid, zinc oxide, antioxidants (such as N-t-butyl-2-benzothiazolesulfenamide), anti-aging agents (such as paraphenylenediamines), waxes, accelerators, and sulfur. Cambon et al (US 20080121324 A1) discloses a tire tread comprising a rubber (such as styrene butadiene rubber, natural rubber, or polybutadiene rubber), carbon black, silica, anti-ozone waxes, antioxidants (such as paraphenylenediamine), sulfur, accelerators (such as N-tert-butyl-2-benzothiazolesulfenamide), zinc oxide, and stearic acid. Horikawa et al (JP 2015103219 A) discloses a rubber composition comprising natural rubber or styrene butadiene rubber and stearic acid, an antioxidant, paraffin or polyethylene wax, zinc oxide, silica, carbon black, accelerators (such as N-tert-butyl-2-benzothiazolesulfenamide), and anti-aging agents (such as paraphenylenediamine). Yasumoto et al (EP 3950814 A1) discloses a conjugated diene polymer composition containing: carbon black, silica, anti-aging agents (such as paraphenylenediamines), waxes (such as paraffin, microcrystalline, and polyethylene or polypropylene waxes), stearic acid, accelerators (such as N-t-butyl-2-benzothiazolesulfenamide), zinc oxide, sulfur, and antioxidants. Kitago et al (JP 2015077737) discloses a rubber composition which can comprise a natural rubber, polybutadiene rubber, or styrene butadiene rubber, carbon black, sulfur, stearic acid, zinc oxide, silica, anti-aging agents (such as paraphenylenediamine), waxes, and accelerators (such as N-t-butyl-2-benzothiazolylsulfenamide).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Savannah G Phillips whose telephone number is (571)270-0822. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 ET.
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, Joseph Del Sole can be reached at (571)272-1130. 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.
/SAVANNAH G. PHILLIPS/Examiner, Art Unit 1763 /JOSEPH S DEL SOLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1763
Prosecution Insights