DETAILED ACTION
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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 15-23 in the reply filed on 7/31/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 24-28 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 7/31/2026.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 15-17, 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (US 2022/0127403).
Claims 15-16, 21: Lee teaches a rubber polymer including a unit structure derived 1,3-butadiene and is functionalized with at least one of compounds represented by Chemical Formula 1 to Chemical Formula 4 (abstract, examples). The examples show functionalized rubbers with different molecular weight. The degree of branching (i.e. linearity) of the rubber polymer is 1.5-2.5 [0020]. The rubber polymer has a cis content of 90wt% or more (table 1).
Lee does not explicitly teach a rubber mixture of a high molecular weight rubber and a low molecular weight rubber.
However, case law holds that “it is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art.” In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980). A mixture of any two rubbers from examples resulting in a rubber mixture of a high molecular weight rubber and a low molecular weight rubber as claimed.
Claims 15-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (US 2022/0127403) in view of Miller et al (US 6,437,205) and Tanaka et al (JP2010229253).
In setting forth this rejection a machine translation of JP2010229253 has been relied upon and all citations to paragraph numbers in the discussion below are with respect to the machine translation.
Claims 15-16: Lee teaches a rubber polymer for tires including a unit structure derived 1,3-butadiene and is functionalized with at least one of compounds represented by Chemical Formula 1 to Chemical Formula 4 (abstract, examples).
Lee does not teach a mixture of both high Mw and low Mw rubber polymer.
However, it is known that the properties of polymers are affected by the molecular weight. Some of the desired properties are favored by having smaller molecules and some of the desired properties are favored by having longer molecules. A bimodal polybutadiene provides both high mechanical properties and improved processability: the presence of a high molecular weight fraction gives high hardness, tensile strength, tear resistance and abrasion resistance for a longer tread life; and the low molecular weight fraction acts as an internal lubricant to ensure smooth milling, extrusion and optimal filler dispersion.
Additionally, Miller teaches a low molecular weight high cis polybutadiene having properties suitable for blending with a high molecular weight high-cis polybutadiene, the resultant blend being useful in tire tread compounds (2:16-22, 1:15-21).
Tanaka teaches a rubber mixture of a high Mw modified polybutadiene and a low Mw modified polybutadiene for a tire. The first conjugated diene-based polymer having a cis-1,4-bond content of 75% or more and a weight average molecular weight (Mw) of 250,000-800,000 and a second conjugated diene-based polymer having a weight average molecular weight (Mw) of 10,000-150,000.
Therefore, based on the above teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to prepare a low molecular weight of the functionalized polybutadiene of Lee to be blended with the high Mw rubber and use the mixture in tire industry to provide both high mechanical properties and improved processability.
Claim 17: the high Mw rubber polymer has a Mw of 557k-630K (table 1).
Claim 18: Miller teaches the low Mw polymer has a Mn of 2000-50,000, and a molecular weight distribution of less than 3.1 (2:27-42). Therefore, the Mw of the low Mw polymer overlaps the claimed range.
Claim 19: Miller teaches the blend contains 20-80wt% of low Mw polymer and 20-80wt% of high Mw polymer (2:55-68).
Claim 20: It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make a blend of low and high Mw polymers with the same functional group so that the mixture has improved compatibility.
Claim 21: the combination of teachings from Lee and Miller have rendered obvious the claimed Mw and contents thereof. Therefore, it is reasonable that one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the claimed molecular weight distribution to naturally arise, because the molecular weight distribution is controlled by weight fractions and dispersity of the parent polymers.
Claim 22: Lee teaches the degree of branching (i.e. linearity) of the rubber polymer is 1.5-2.5 [0020]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to recognize that the linearity of the low Mw polymer of Mill should be in the same range.
Claim 23: Lee teaches the rubber polymer has a cis content of 90wt% or more (table 1). Miller teaches the low Mw polymer has a cis content of at least 85% (claim 2). Therefore, the cis content of the mixture would overlap the claimed range.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WENWEN CAI whose telephone number is (571)270-3590. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9am-6pm.
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 on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WENWEN CAI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763
Prosecution Insights