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 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 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (CN 112280233, with English machine translation).
Regarding claim 11, Liu discloses an adhesive sealant formulation for tires ([0002]) that reads on the claimed composition comprising:
- from a minimum of 20% to a maximum of 35% by weight of the total formulation of block copolymers chosen from the group consisting of: polyisobutadiene (PIB), styrene-isoprene-styrene (SIS), styrene-butadiene-styrene (SBS), styrene-isoprene-butadiene-styrene (SIBS), styrene-ethylene-butadiene-styrene (SEBS), styrene-ethylene-propylene-styrene (SEPS), thermoplastic elastomers (TPE) (Liu discloses 30 wt% polymer rubber elastomer that includes SBS, SIBS, SEBS, SEPS [0039,0040]);
- from a minimum of 55% to a maximum of 75% by weight of the total formulation of resins chosen from the group consisting of: rosin resins, esterified rosin resins and other rosin derivatives, hydrocarbon resins, hydrogenated cycloaliphatic hydrocarbon resins, phenolic resins, styrene resins, or mixtures thereof (Liu discloses 55 wt% tackifier that includes rosin resins, petroleum resins, phenolic resins, [0039,0041]);
- from a minimum of 0.2% up to a maximum of 2.0% by weight of the total formulation of a mixture of stabilizers and antioxidants, wherein the quantity of stabilizers within the mixture varies from 0 up to a maximum of 1.50% by weight of the total formulation, and the amount of antioxidants varies from 0 up to a maximum of 1.50% by weight of the total formulation (Liu discloses 1 wt% antioxidant, [0039,0043])
- from a minimum of 5% up to a maximum of 35% by weight of the total formulation of paraffinic or naphthenic plasticizers (Liu discloses 11 wt% compatibilizer that includes hydrogenated cyclohexane oil, [0039,0042]); and
- from a minimum of 2% up to a maximum of 5% by weight of the total formulation of mineral fillers, including calcium carbonate and carbon black (2 wt% filler that includes calcium carbonate, carbon black, or a mixture thereof ([0039,0044]).
While Liu discloses multiple elastomers, resins, tackifiers and does not expressly disclose a specific combination, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have configured the composition with the claimed components since Liu discloses the claimed weight percentages and suggests elastomers, resins, tackifiers, and mineral fillers that satisfy the claimed composition.
Regarding claim 12, Liu does not expressly disclose the melting temperature of the formulation as 160C to 180C; however, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention for the formulation to satisfy the claimed melting temperature since Liu discloses a formulation having weight percentages and components that are substantially identical to the components of the claimed composition and thus the formulation is presumed to have a substantially identical melting temperature. See MPEP 2112.01 (I,II).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Liu discloses multiple elastomers, resins, and tackifiers but does not expressly teach the exact composition now claimed, including the specific stabilizer/antioxidant mixture and the dual filler system. Therefore, Liu fails to teach or suggest ever limitation of claim 11. Applicant argues that a person having ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to combine the specific elements of Liu to arrive at the claimed formulation.
Examiner disagrees. While Liu does not disclose a specific combination of components for the composition of claim 11, Liu does disclose a composition comprising elastomer, tackifier, antioxidant, compatibilizer, and filler in amounts that satisfy the claimed weight ranges and discloses a limited number of elastomers, tackifiers, compatibilizers, and fillers suitable for the composition, said selections including the claimed components (detailed in rejection above; also see [0039-0044]). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select the claimed components because Liu expressly discloses the components as suitable for the sealant composition. As to the amended limitation of claim 11, Examiner notes that Liu discloses "calcium carbonate, carbon black, or a mixture of several thereof" ([0044]). Thus, Liu expressly contemplates the filler as comprising a mixture of calcium carbonate and carbon black. Applicant has provided no showing of unexpected results.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ROBERT C DYE whose telephone number is (571)270-7059. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at (571) 270-3614. 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 C DYE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619