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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 17, 18, and 19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 8/17/2026.
Claims 1-16 and 20 remain pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 6/26/2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
[0015] and Table 2: “3-octoanoylthio-1-propyltriethoxysilane” is a typographical error and should read “3-octanoylthio-1-propyltriethoxysilane”.
[0084] “CATB” is a typographical error and should read “CTAB”.
Appropriate correction is required.
The use of the terms M0511, BUDENE, HI-SIL, HUBERSIL, ZEOSIL, ULTRASIL, ZEOPOL, NEWSIL, TOKUSIL, NXT SILANE, SI69, OPPERA, and SP-1068, which are trade names or marks 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 Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: “3-octoanoylthio-1-propyltriethoxysilane” is a typographical error and should read “3-octanoylthio-1-propyltriethoxysilane”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-5, 7-11, and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Delville and Kaes et al (US 20250019526 A1, priority date 7/10/2023), hereinafter “Kaes”, in view of Delville and Kanz et al (US 20230082511 A1, priority date 8/26/2021), hereinafter “Kanz”.
Regarding claims 1-4, Kaes discloses a rubber composition for winter tire treads with improved wet traction and rolling resistance (Table 3) while maintaining snow and ice traction and dry handling [0133], comprising (Abstract):
100 phr of an elastomer component, comprising:
30-50 of a polybutadiene rubber [0025], and
50-70 phr of a styrene-butadiene rubber [0025], which may be solution-polymerized [0049], which may have a bound styrene content (styrene content) of 15-25 wt% [0051], which may be alkoxy-silyl functionalized [0054],
A filler component, including
At least 10 phr of aluminum hydroxide,
20 to 140 phr [0067] of silica, and
0-20 phr of carbon black
0.1-20 phr of an organosilane coupling agent [0013], which may be a blocked mercapto silane [0082] such as 3-triethoxysilyl-1-propylthiooctanoate [0091].
One or more processing aids selected from:
Liquid plasticizers,
Waxes, and
2-20 phr of one or more resins [0105], such as alkylphenol-formaldehyde resins [0109] or dicyclopentadiene homopolymer or copolymer resins [0107]
A cure package containing:
A sulfur-based curing agent,
An activator, such as zinc oxide [0021], and
A cure accelerator.
A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Kaes further discloses that the weight ratio of polybutadiene rubber to styrene butadiene rubber is from 1:1 to 1:3 (weight ratio of styrene butadiene rubber to polybutadiene rubber ranging from 1:1 to 3:1) [0010]. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Kaes does not particularly disclose 2-10 wt% of styrene content in the solution-polymerized styrene-butadiene rubber or its Tg. Kaes also does not disclose at least 40 phr of the hydrocarbon traction resin.
In the same field of endeavor, Kanz discloses a rubber composition for tire treads with improved rolling resistance and good wet breaking [0004], comprising (Abstract):
70-95 phr of styrene butadiene rubber, comprising:
At least 5 phr of a styrene butadiene rubber having a Tg from -49 to -15°C, and
At least 45 phr of of a styrene butadiene rubber having a Tg from -50 to -89°C
5-30 phr of one or more of natural rubber and synthetic polyisoprene,
135-200 phr of silica,
At least 55 phr of at least one hydrocarbon resin (hydrocarbon traction resin), and
Optionally, an additional diene-based rubber, such as cis-1,4-butadiene [0035].
With respect to the Tg disclosed by Kanz and the at least 55 phr of a resin disclosed by Kanz, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Kanz further discloses that either of the styrene butadiene rubbers may be solution-polymerized [0017], with the first and second styrene butadiene rubbers having a bound styrene content (styrene content) of 5-50% and 5-30%, respectively [0034]. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
In the alternative, based on the teachings of Kaes, it is well established that ordinary creativity is presumed on the part of one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007) (“[a] person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.”). Thus, it would have been prima facie obvious, using no more than ordinary creativity, to vary the amounts of bound styrene anywhere within the range of 5-50% so long as the desired wet performance, rolling resistance, and abrasion resistance is achieved, which thus renders the claimed ratio prima facie obvious. See Ex Parte Jean-Paul Mardon, Jean Senevat, & Daniel Charquet, 101728,237, 2012 WL 1141738, at *2 (2012); In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980) (“[D]iscovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable...is ordinarily within the skill of the art.”); In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.”).
Regarding claim 5, Kanz further discloses that the first or second styrene butadiene rubbers may be aminosilane-functionalized [0028]. Kanz particularly discloses that both styrene butadiene rubbers are preferably functionalized to allow for coupling to silica [0027]. 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 functionalize the solution-polymerized styrene-butadiene rubber disclosed by Kaes, motivated by a desire to enable coupling to silica, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 7, as set forth above with respect to claim 1, Kaes discloses 20-140 phr of silica. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
In the alternative, as set forth above with respect to claim 1, Kanz discloses 135-200 phr of silica. Kanz particularly notes that highly silica filled compounds provide an advanced balance between wet performance, rolling resistance, and abrasion [0008]. 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 combine the rubber composition disclosed by Kaes with the higher silica filler contents disclosed by Kanz, motivated by a desire to balance wet performance, rolling resistance, and abrasion, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 8, as set forth above with respect to claim 1, Kaes particularly discloses that the organosilane coupling agent may be a blocked mercapto silane [0082] such as 3-triethoxysilyl-1-propylthiooctanoate [0091]. It has been established that selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obvious (Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)). “Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle,” (325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301). See also In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 445 (CCPA 1971) (obviousness rejection affirmed where the genus of the prior art was “huge, but it undeniably include[d] at least some of the compounds recited in appellant's generic claims and [was] of a class of chemicals to be used for the same purpose as appellant's additives”).
Regarding claim 9, as set forth above with respect to claim 1, Kaes discloses 0.1-20 phr of a blocked mercapto organosilane coupling agent. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 10, Kaes discloses “an organosilane coupling agent” [0013]. The singular article “an” discloses embodiments wherein only one coupling agent is present (totaling no more than 2 phr), which reads on claim 10.
Regarding claim 11, as set forth above with respect to claim 1, Kanz discloses at least 55 phr of a hydrocarbon resin (hydrocarbon traction resin). A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claims 13 and 14, as set forth above with respect to claim 1, Kaes discloses 2-20 phr of one or more resins, such as alkylphenol-formaldehyde resins [0105, 0109]. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claims 15 and 16, as set forth above with respect to claim 1, Kaes discloses that the rubber composition comprises one or more processing aids selected from liquids plasticizers and waxes as well as a filler component comprising 0-20 phr of carbon black. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claims 6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Delville and Kaes et al (US 20250019526 A1, priority date 7/10/2023), hereinafter “Kaes”, in view of Delville and Kanz et al (US 20230082511 A1, priority date 8/26/2021), hereinafter “Kanz” as applied to claims 1 and 5 above, and further in view of Jacoby et al (US 20210102047 A1, priority date 10/4/2019).
The above rejection of Kaes in view of Kanz is incorporate herein by reference in its entirety.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Kaes and Kanz discloses all limitations of claim 5 as set forth above. Although Kanz discloses functionalization of the solution-polymerized styrene butadiene rubber with an aminosilane, neither Kaes nor Kanz particularly discloses functionalization with an alkoxyaminosilane.
In the same field of endeavor, Jacoby discloses a pneumatic tire with improved low temperature properties, wet grip properties, and rolling resistance (RR) (Table 2) having a tread comprising a vulcanizable rubber composition comprising, based on 100 parts by weight of elastomer (Abstract):
(A) About 20-100 phr of a solution-polymerized functionalized isoprene-butadiene rubber which may be functionalized with a silyl group substituted with one or more of an alkoxy group and an alkyl amino group, among others (alkoxyaminosilane) [0019],
(B) about 0-40 phr of a polybutadiene,
(C) 0-20 phr of a process oil (liquid plasticizer),
(D) 40-80 phr of a resin, and
(E) 100-180 phr of silica.
Jacoby et al particularly discloses that these alkoxyaminosilane functional groups are capable of chemically interacting with silica and carbon black fillers as well as unsaturated polymers [0036]. 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 functionalize the solution-polymerized styrene-butadiene rubber in the rubber composition disclosed by Kaes and Kanz with alkoxyaminosilane groups as disclosed by Jacoby, motivated by the desire to enable chemical interactions with silica, carbon black, and unsaturated polymers, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 12, Kaes discloses that dicyclopentadiene homopolymers or copolymers are suitable resins [0107], but does not particularly disclose hydrogenated dicyclopentadiene/C9 resins.
In the same field of endeavor, Jacoby particularly discloses that hydrogenated DCPD (dicyclopentadiene)/C9 resins as particularly suitable, such as OPPERA 383 [0066]. It has been established that selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obvious (Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)). “Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle,” (325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301). See also In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 445 (CCPA 1971) (obviousness rejection affirmed where the genus of the prior art was “huge, but it undeniably include[d] at least some of the compounds recited in appellant's generic claims and [was] of a class of chemicals to be used for the same purpose as appellant's additives”). 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 select a hydrogenated DCPD/C9 resin as disclosed by Jacoby into the rubber composition disclosed by Kaes and Kanz with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Delville and Kaes et al (US 20250019526 A1, priority date 7/10/2023), hereinafter “Kaes”, in view of Delville and Kanz et al (US 20230082511 A1, priority date 8/26/2021), hereinafter “Kanz”, and Onishi et al (US 5380798 A, priority date 9/30/1992), hereinafter “Onishi”.
The above rejection with respect to Kaes in view of Kanz is incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding claim 20, as set forth above with respect to claim 1, the combination of Kaes and Kanz discloses all limitations of claim 20 with the exception of the solution-polymerized styrene butadiene rubber having a cis-1,4-butadiene content of less than 45.
In the same field of endeavor, Onishi discloses a styrenic polymer resin composition, comprising (Abstract):
70-97 wt% of a styrenic polymer resin, and
3-30 wt% of a toughening agent, which comprises:
10-98 wt% of a styrene-butadiene di-block copolymer, and
2-90 wt% of a styrene butadiene copolymer rubber, polybutadiene, or mixture thereof, with a styrene content from 0-15 wt% and which has a cis-1,4-butadiene content of 10-80 wt%.
Onishi further discloses that the cis-content is preferably 10-50 wt% in view of compatibility with the other components, of which a low-cis styrene-butadiene rubber prepared by solution polymerization is particularly mentioned (page 3, column 3, line 65 to column 4, line 6). 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 combine the low-cis styrene-butadiene rubber disclosed by Onishi with the rubber composition disclosed by Kaes and Kanz, motivated by a desire to improve compatibility of the styrene-butadiene rubber with other components, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 20 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/349,489 (reference application) in view of Miyazaki et al. (US 20160052340 A1, priority date 4/30/2013). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both claims refer to a rubber composition comprising styrene butadiene, polybutadiene, silica, a resin, an organosilane coupling agent, a sulfur-based curing agent, an activator which may be inorganic (zinc oxide), and a cure accelerator.
The instant application differs from the copending application in that the copending application comprises aluminum hydroxide and carbon black. In the same field of endeavor, Miyazaki discloses a rubber composition for pneumatic tires comprising 1-60 phr of aluminum hydroxide [0012] and 20-80 phr of carbon black [0078]. Miyazaki further discloses that the addition of aluminum hydroxide improves wet grip performance [0025-0027] and that addition of carbon black and adjustment of its quantity affects the tire properties, such as flex crack growth resistance [0079], wet grip performance, or abrasion resistance [0067]. 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 add the aluminum hydroxide and carbon black to the rubber composition of the instant application, motivated by a desire to improve wet grip performance, flex crack growth resistance, and abrasion resistance, thereby arriving at the claims of the copending application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-16 and 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 and 20 of copending Application No. 18/516,233 in view of Sato et al (US 20110086943 A1, priority date 4/14/2011).
The instant and copending claims require a solution-polymerized styrene butadiene rubber with a styrene content of 2-10 wt%, a polybutadiene rubber, silica filler, a blocked mercapto organosilane coupling agent, a hydrocarbon traction resin, a sulfur-based curing agent, zinc oxide, and cure accelerator. The copending claims differ slightly from the instant claims in their phr ranges. However, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
The instant claims also differ in that they require a substituted or unsubstituted phenol aldehyde resin. In the same field of endeavor, Sato discloses a rubber composition for use in tire treads which preferably includes a softener such as phenol-aldehyde resin [0067], present from 5-40 parts by mass to improve mixing processability without sacrificing physical properties [0068]. Sato particularly discloses that inclusion of such softeners allows for adjustment of the rubber composition’s hardness. 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 include or exclude a softener such as a phenol-aldehyde resin, motivated by a desire to adjust the hardness of a rubber composition.
The copending and instant claims also differ in that the instant application requires a solution-polymerized styrene butadiene rubber with a cis-1,4-butadiene content of less than 45, while the copending claims require a cis-1,4-butadiene content of at least 95. In the same field of endeavor, Sato discloses that both high-cis and low-cis butadiene rubbers can be used in their rubber composition [0021]. It is prima facie obvious to substitute equivalents known for the same purpose, so long as the equivalency is recognized in the prior art. In re Ruff, 256 F.2d 590, 118 USPQ 340 (CCPA 1958). An express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). See MPEP 2144.06.
In the alternative, it is well established that ordinary creativity is presumed on the part of one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007) (“[a] person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.”). Thus, it would have been prima facie obvious, using no more than ordinary creativity, to vary the cis-1,4-butadiene content anywhere within the range of 0-100 so long as the desired wet skid resistance, low rolling resistance, and snow performance is achieved, which thus renders the claimed ratio prima facie obvious. See Ex Parte Jean-Paul Mardon, Jean Senevat, & Daniel Charquet, 101728,237, 2012 WL 1141738, at *2 (2012); In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980) (“[D]iscovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable...is ordinarily within the skill of the art.”); In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.”).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Martter et al (US 20210179822 A1, priority date 12/16/2019) discloses a pneumatic tire comprising a vulcanizable rubber composition, comprising (Abstract):
30-90 phr of a functionalized styrene butadiene rubber having a Tg from -70 to -50°C,
10-50 phr of a functionalized styrene butadiene rubber having a Tg from -110 to -70°C,
0-40 phr of at least one additional rubber or elastomer [0013], which are preferably butadiene homopolymers and specifically polybutadiene (including cis-1,4-butadiene) [0013],
50-150 phr of silica,
0.5-20 phr [0036] of a sulfur-containing organosilicon compound [0033], preferably 3-octanoylthio-1-propyltriethoxysilane [0034],
0-50 phr of a hydrocarbon traction resin, of which modified DCPD resins are representative [0025], and
10-50 phr of an oil.
Both the first and second functionalized styrene butadiene rubbers are preferably solution-polymerized [0008] with a styrene content of 5-50% [0018] and may be aminoalkoxysilane-functionalized (Table 1).
Jacoby et al (US 20210354512 A1, priority date 5/13/2020) discloses a pneumatic tire having a tread comprising a vulcanizable rubber composition, comprising (Abstract):
(A) 45-100 phr of a low-cis polybutadiene,
(B) 0-40 phr of a solution-polymerized styrene butadiene rubber having a Tg from -85 to -50°C,
(C) 0-30 phr of natural rubber or synthetic polyisoprene,
(D) 0-20 phr of a process oil (liquid plasticizer),
(E) 55-80 phr of a resin, of which hydrogenated DCPD/C9 resins such as Oppera 383 are disclosed as particularly suitable [0063]
(F) 110-160 phr of silica, and
Optionally, additive materials such as waxes, zinc oxide, sulfur vulcanizing agents (sulfur-based curing agents), and accelerators [0082-0083].
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-Th 8-6 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