DETAILED ACTION
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 to 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 2155698, as interpreted by the English language equivalent Lee et al. 2022/0220243.
Lee et al. teach hydrogenated petroleum resins and rubber compositions that
contain said resin. See for instance paragraph 32. The hydrogenated petroleum resin is formed from cyclic pentadiene (paragraph 41) and a C9 fraction containing aromatic olefins such as styrene, vinyl toluene and others (paragraph 43). Additionally Lee et al. teach that the softening point can be as high as 150o C (paragraph 53).
This differs from that claimed in that it does not teach the particular ratio of mono-mers in the resin having a softening point of 150o C. However, one having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to adjust the monomer ratio and polymerization conditions to arrive at a softening point of 150o C and as such would have found a resin having the monomer ratio and softening point as claimed to have been obvious.
To support this position the Examiner refers to the working examples. Note for instance in Table 3 that Examples 10 and 11 have softening points of 140 and 145, respectively, while Table 1 shows that the only difference in these resins is in the heat-ing temperatures and resulting bromine value. Further comparisons and evaluation of the data in the Tables indicate how adjusting various ratios and reaction conditions allow one to fine tune the resulting softening point. This, coupled with the fact that Lee et al. embraces softening points as high as 150o C would lead one having ordinary skill in the art to fine the resin of claim 1 obvious and well within routine experimentation for the skilled artisan.
In this manner claims 1 to 4 are rendered obvious.
For claims 5 and 6, see paragraph 99 which teaches isoprene based rubber and paragraph 110 which teaches crosslinking agents.
For claim 7, note that the process by which the resin is prepared has both a first and second heating step. See the working examples as well as paragraphs 70 to 93 which refer to steps S1 and S2.
For claims 8 and 9, note that there is no monomer ratio requirement for this petroleum resin additive such that the above analysis regarding monomer ratios for claim 1 is not relevant. The fact that Lee et al. teach a petroleum resin with raw materials as found in claim 8 and a softening point of 150o C is sufficient to render this claim obvious.
For claim 10 again see paragraphs 99 and 110.
For claim 11, see paragraph 12 which teaches a tire tread (thread).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARGARET MOORE whose telephone number is (571)272-1090. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday, 10 am to 5 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Heidi Kelly, can be reached at 571-270-1831. 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.
/MARGARET G MOORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765
Prosecution Insights