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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “the rubber component” in line 17 should be written as –[[the]]a rubber component— for consistency in claim language. 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 8, 10-11, 14, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyazaki (US 20140228495) (of record) and any one of Shemenski et al. (US 4545834) (of record), Seynhaveve et al. (US 20150184335) (of record), and/or Futaba (WO 2018139615, see machine translation) (of record), and optionally Kanou (JP 2004323662, see updated machine translation) (of record).
Regarding claim 1, Miyazaki discloses a tire comprising a reinforcement layer comprising a reinforcing material and a vulcanized rubber covering the reinforcing material ([0018], [0107], [0126]), the reinforcing material contains a metal where a steel cord surface is covered with a plating ([0078], [0080]), the reinforcement layer is arranged on the inside of a tread surface in a tire radial direction (Figs. 1-3) ([0001], [0007]-[0008], [0013]-[0014]).
Miyazaki further discloses the vulcanized rubber is a vulcanized rubber of a rubber composition containing a benzothiazolyl sulfide group or a cycloalkyl group ([0095]). Miyazaki also discloses the benzothiazolyl sulfide group may preferably include a cycloalkyl group including cyclohexyl ([0102]-[0103]), wherein examples include N,N-di(2-ethylhexyl)-2-benzothiazolylsulfenamide, N,N-di(2-methylhexyl)-2-benzothiazolylsulfenamide, N-tert-butyl-2-benzothiazolylsulfenimide, and N-ethyl-N-t-butylbenzothiazole-2-sulfenamide ([0105]). Furthermore, vulcanization accelerators such as N,N'-dicyclohexyl-2-benzothiazolylsulfenamide, N-tert-butyl-2-benzothiazolylsulfenimide, N,N-di(2-ethylhexyl)-2-benzothiazolylsulfenamide, and N-tert-butyl-2-benzothiazolylsulfenamide may be used ([0149]-[0152]). Accordingly, Miyazaki teaches that these accelerators belong to a finite, art-recognized class in which the benzothiazolylsulfenamide group may include alkyl or cycloalkyl substituents, including cyclohexyl, and that variation of the N-substituent predictably affects cure performance (as they are vulcanization accelerators), handling stability, fuel economy, and durability ([0094]). In view of these teachings, selection of N-cyclohexyl-2-benzothiazolylsulfenamide from the disclosed class of interchangeable sulfenamide accelerators, including N,N'-dicyclohexyl-2-benzothiazolylsulfenamide and related alkyl-substituted substituents, would have been a routine and predictable optimization to achieve desired vulcanization properties, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Optionally, Kanou discloses a coating rubber composition for steel cords for tires ([0017]), as discussed above, wherein the rubber composition may comprise polyisoprene rubber and N-cyclohexyl-2-Benzothiazylsulfenamide or N, N'-dicyclohexyl-2-benzothiazolylsulfenamide ([0017], [0026]). In other words, it is generally known in the substantially similar art that N-cyclohexyl-2-Benzothiazylsulfenamide and N, N'-dicyclohexyl-2-benzothiazolylsulfenamide are interchangeable for the same purposed. Case law holds that it is prima facie obvious to substitute equivalents known for the same purpose. See MPEP 2144.06. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Miyazaki in order to substitute N-cyclohexyl-2-Benzothiazylsulfenamide for N, N'-dicyclohexyl-2-benzothiazolylsulfenamide as is generally known in the substantially similar art, as taught by Kanou.
Miyazaki further discloses the rubber composition may or may not contain cobalt ([0011], [0107], [0109]). Accordingly, in the event cobalt is not included, the rubber composition has a cobalt-containing compound content of 0 % by mass, which falls within the claimed range of 0.01 % by mass or less.
Miyazaki further discloses the rubber composition contains an alkylphenol resin ([0008], [0014], [0018]). With such an alkylphenol resin, excellent fuel economy, and durability can be obtained ([0045]). Moreover, Miyazaki discloses that there is a predetermined amount of pheon resin and/or an alkylphenol resin ([0018]), such that specific amounts of these components as part of the rubber composition cause the rubber composition to exhibit a synergistic, balanced improvement in handling stability, fuel economy, durability, ride quality, and adhesion (after dry heat aging and after hygrothermal aging) at high levels ([0019]). When there are large amounts of modified phenol resin (i.e., phenol resin and alkylphenol resin), process oil, and activator together it exhibits an unsatisfactory balance of the properties because it had excellent handling stability but poor in other properties including ride quality, adhesion to cords, EB, and durability ([0175]). In the examples using predetermined amounts of an isoprene-based rubber, a phenol or alkylphenol resin, and a partial condensate of HMMM or HMMPME while adjusting the amount of silica to a predetermined value or less, the balance of the properties including handling stability, fuel economy, durability, ride quality, and adhesion was synergistically improved to high levels ([0175]). Additionally, the combined amount of phenol resin and alkylphenol resin is at least 2 parts by mass and at most 3.9 parts by mass so as to achieve sufficient hardness as well as sufficient durability during dry heat aging and during hygrothermal aging ([0066]). In other words, the content of the alkylphenol resin in the rubber composition is considered to be a result effective variable that will affect the properties and characteristics as discussed above. While Miyazaki does not explicitly disclose the value for the content of the alkylphenol resin in the rubber composition, it is considered within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to rely on routine experimentation to arrive at suitable optimum operating parameters for said content. Absent unexpected results, case law holds that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 (II)(B). In the present invention one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to optimize the content of the alkylphenol resin in the rubber composition for the advantages as discussed above.
Moreover, Miyazaki does not expressly teach that the vulcanized rubber covering the reinforcing material has a different modulus at 50 % elongation in a central portion of the reinforcement layer in a tire width direction than a modulus at 50 % elongation in an end portion of the reinforcement layer in a tire width direction. Accordingly, a ratio (a/b) of a modulus (a) at 50 % elongation of the vulcanized rubber covering the reinforcing material in a central portion of the reinforcement layer in a tire width direction and a modulus (b) at 50 % elongation of the vulcanized rubber covering the reinforcing material in an end portion of the reinforcement layer in a tire width direction is 1.0, which falls within the claimed range of 0.94 or more and 1.06 or less. Case law holds that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05. Applicant's original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for a ratio (a/b).
However, Miyazaki does not expressly recite that a steel cord surface is covered with a ternary plating of copper, zinc, and iron.
Shemenski discloses a steel cord useful in the reinforcement of rubber articles in which the steel cord is provided with a coating (i.e., plating) comprising a ternary iron-brass alloy containing copper, zinc, and iron (Abstract; Col. 2 lines 21-34, 61-68; Col. 3 lines 50-68; Col. 4 lines 1-3). The presence of small amounts of iron in brass alloys used to coat steel reinforcing elements in rubber articles greatly improves the adhesion properties between the metal reinforcing element and the rubber, wherein ternary iron-brass alloys described herein are of particular value for coating steel reinforcement elements for use in tires (Col. 2 lines 35-41). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Miyazaki in order to coat/plate the steel cord surface with a ternary plating of copper, zinc, and iron for the advantages discussed above as taught by Shemenski.
Additionally or alternatively, Seynhaveve discloses a steel cord including a coating with ternary or quaternary alloy of copper-M-zinc ([0015]), wherein M may be iron ([0015]), and wherein the steel cord has lower cost and good adhesion performance for reinforcing a rubber product ([0012]). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Miyazaki in order to coat/plate the steel cord surface with a ternary plating of copper, zinc, and iron for the advantages discussed above as taught by Seynhaveve.
Additionally or alternatively, Futaba discloses a plated steel wire that can be processed into a rubber-plated steel wire composite which can suppress deterioration of adhesion with rubber and corrosion fatigue by suppressing the occurrence and progression of corrosion of the steel wire even if the plating film thickness is thin ([0008]), and which can be used in a vulcanized tire component ([0033]). Futaba further discloses the plating comprises at least one element selected from the group consisting of Co (i.e., cobalt), Cr (i.e., chromium), Cu (i.e., copper), Ni (i.e., nickel), P (i.e., phosphorus), Sn (i.e., tin), Mn (i.e., manganese), and Fe (i.e., iron), and Zn (i.e., zinc) ([0011]). By providing a highly corrosion resistant Zn alloy plating film layer with sacrificial corrosion protection capabilities for the steel wire on the surface of the steel wire, it is possible to achieve both corrosion protection of the base steel wire and suppression of corrosion of the plating film layer, even if the plating film thickness is thin ([0012]). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Miyazaki in order to coat/plate the steel cord surface with a ternary plating of copper, zinc, and iron for the advantages discussed above as taught by Futaba.
Regarding claim 2, Shemenski further discloses an amount of the iron in the covering is 0.1 to 10 % by mass of a total mass of the copper, the zinc, and the iron (Abstract; Col. 2 lines 21-34; Col. 3 lines 14-17, 29-42), which overlaps with the claimed range of 1 % by mass or more and less than 10 % by mass. Case law holds that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05. Applicant's original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the amount of the iron in the ternary plating.
Additionally or alternatively, Seyhaveve further discloses an amount of the iron in the covering is 0.5 to 10 % by mass of a total mass of the copper, the zinc, and the iron ([0015]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 1 % by mass or more and less than 10 % by mass. Case law holds that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05. Applicant's original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the amount of the iron in the ternary plating.
Additionally or alternatively, Futaba further discloses an amount of the iron in the covering is 0.1 % by mass or more of a total mass of the copper, the zinc, and the iron ([0011]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 1 % by mass or more and less than 10 % by mass. Case law holds that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05. Applicant's original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the amount of the iron in the ternary plating.
Regarding claim 4, Shemenski further discloses the steel cord is drawn (Col. 4 lines 55-62). Additionally or alternatively, Seyhaveve further discloses the steel cord is drawn ([0043]). Additionally or alternatively, Futaba further discloses the steel cord is drawn ([0040]).
The examiner notes that the claim limitation “is drawn by diamond dies” is a product-by-process limitation wherein determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. See MPEP 2113. In this case, the claim limitation does not require a process step, but rather the structure that is implied by the step (i.e., a drawn steel cord). Moreover, case law holds that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. MPEP 2112.01. The structure that is implied by the step (i.e., a drawn steel cord) is clearly present in modified Miyazaki as discussed above because modified Miyazaki discloses the steel cord is drawn. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious that modified Miyazaki discloses, or is at least capable of, providing the steel cord is drawn by diamond dies.
Regarding claim 5, Miyazaki further discloses the rubber composition contains a rubber component containing 60 % by mass or more of a polyisoprene-based rubber ([0008], [0014], [0018], [0021]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 50 % by mass or more. Case law holds that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05. Applicant's original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for an amount of a polyisoprene-based rubber in the rubber composition.
Regarding claim 8, Miyazaki further discloses the rubber composition may or may not contain cobalt ([0011], [0107], [0109]). Accordingly, in the event cobalt is not included, the rubber composition has a cobalt-containing compound content of 0 % by mass, and thereby a content of cobalt atoms is 0 % by mass, which falls within the claimed range of 1 % by mass or less.
Regarding claim 10, Shemenski further discloses the steel cord is drawn (Col. 4 lines 55-62). Additionally or alternatively, Seyhaveve further discloses the steel cord is drawn ([0043]). Additionally or alternatively, Futaba further discloses the steel cord is drawn ([0040]).
The examiner notes that the claim limitation “is drawn by diamond dies” is a product-by-process limitation wherein determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. See MPEP 2113. In this case, the claim limitation does not require a process step, but rather the structure that is implied by the step (i.e., a drawn steel cord). Moreover, case law holds that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. MPEP 2112.01. The structure that is implied by the step (i.e., a drawn steel cord) is clearly present in modified Miyazaki as discussed above because modified Miyazaki discloses the steel cord is drawn. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious that modified Miyazaki discloses, or is at least capable of, providing the steel cord is drawn by diamond dies.
Regarding claim 11, Miyazaki further discloses the rubber composition contains a rubber component containing 60 % by mass or more of a polyisoprene-based rubber ([0008], [0014], [0018], [0021]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 50 % by mass or more. Case law holds that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05. Applicant's original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for an amount of a polyisoprene-based rubber in the rubber composition.
Regarding claim 14, Miyazaki further discloses the rubber composition may or may not contain cobalt ([0011], [0107], [0109]). Accordingly, in the event cobalt is not included, the rubber composition has a cobalt-containing compound content of 0 % by mass, and thereby a content of cobalt atoms is 0 % by mass, which falls within the claimed range of 1 % by mass or less.
Regarding claim 20, Miyazaki further discloses the rubber composition contains a rubber component containing 60 % by mass or more of a polyisoprene-based rubber ([0008], [0014], [0018], [0021]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 50 % by mass or more. Case law holds that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05. Applicant's original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for an amount of a polyisoprene-based rubber in the rubber composition.
Claim(s) 3, 9, 15-16, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyazaki (US 20140228495) (of record) and any one of Shemenski et al. (US 4545834) (of record), Seynhaveve et al. (US 20150184335) (of record), and/or Futaba (WO 2018139615, see machine translation) (of record), and optionally Kanou (JP 2004323662, see updated machine translation) (of record) as applied to claims 1-2 above, and further in view of Seynhaveve et al. (US 20150184335) (of record).
Regarding claims 3 and 9, Seynhaveve further discloses an amount of phosphorus in the covering ([0024]), wherein adding phosphorus has an improved adhesion property ([0024]). Thereby, the addition of phosphorus in the covering is considered to be a result effective variable that will affect the adhesion property of the covering. While Seynhaveve does not explicitly disclose the value for the amount of phosphorus in the covering, it is considered within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to rely on routine experimentation to arrive at suitable optimum operating parameters for said amount. Absent unexpected results, case law holds that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 (II)(B). In the present invention one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to optimize the amount of phosphorus in the covering in order to improve the adhesion property of the covering, as suggested by Seynhaveve.
Regarding claim 15, Shemenski further discloses the steel cord is drawn (Col. 4 lines 55-62). Additionally or alternatively, Seyhaveve further discloses the steel cord is drawn ([0043]). Additionally or alternatively, Futaba further discloses the steel cord is drawn ([0040]).
The examiner notes that the claim limitation “is drawn by diamond dies” is a product-by-process limitation wherein determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. See MPEP 2113. In this case, the claim limitation does not require a process step, but rather the structure that is implied by the step (i.e., a drawn steel cord). Moreover, case law holds that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. MPEP 2112.01. The structure that is implied by the step (i.e., a drawn steel cord) is clearly present in modified Miyazaki as discussed above because modified Miyazaki discloses the steel cord is drawn. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious that modified Miyazaki discloses, or is at least capable of, providing the steel cord is drawn by diamond dies.
Regarding claim 16, Miyazaki further discloses the rubber composition contains a rubber component containing 60 % by mass or more of a polyisoprene-based rubber ([0008], [0014], [0018], [0021]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 50 % by mass or more. Case law holds that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05. Applicant's original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for an amount of a polyisoprene-based rubber in the rubber composition.
Regarding claim 19, Miyazaki further discloses the rubber composition may or may not contain cobalt ([0011], [0107], [0109]). Accordingly, in the event cobalt is not included, the rubber composition has a cobalt-containing compound content of 0 % by mass, and thereby a content of cobalt atoms is 0 % by mass, which falls within the claimed range of 1 % by mass or less.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 8 of the Remarks, Applicant argues “although Miyazaki discloses the total content of the phenol resin and the alkyl phenol resin, Miyazaki does not disclose the content of the alkylphenol resin itself … There is no suggestion in Miyazaki that the amount of alkylphenol resin itself should be reduced to as low as 0.2 to 1.5 parts by mass per 100 parts by mass of the rubber component, since Miyazaki is silent about the content of the alkylphenol resin. Moreover, Miyazaki requires, as an essential feature, that the combined amount of the phenol resin and the alkylphenol resin is 2 to 3.9 parts by mass … Applicant submits that a person having ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated based upon Miyazaki to employ the presently claimed alkylphenol resin content of 0.2 parts by mass or more and 1.5 parts by mass or less with respect to 100 parts by mass of the rubber component.”
The examiner refers to the detailed rejection above wherein Miyazaki can be relied upon to teach optimizing the content of alkylphenol resin. While Miyazaki may not explicitly disclose the content of only the alkylphenol resin in the rubber composition, it does highly suggest that said content will affect various properties and characteristics of the composition, and thereby is considered to be a result effective variable that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious to vary by routine optimization.
Moreover, the statement “that a person having ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated based upon Miyazaki to employ the presently claimed alkylphenol resin content of 0.2 parts by mass or more and 1.5 parts by mass or less with respect to 100 parts by mass of the rubber component” is counselor’s opinion. Applicant has not provided any factual support or evidence for this statement, and thus it is attorney argument. Attorney arguments cannot take the place of evidence where the asserted relationship involves technical properties of materials. See MPEP 716.01(c)(II), 2145(I). Miyazaki discloses a combined phenol resin and alkylphenol resin content that is greater than the claimed alkylphenol resin content, Miyazaki suggests routine optimization as discussed above in the rejection, and the content of alkylphenol resin once optimized is capable of being within the claimed range and still satisfying the combined phenol resin and alkylphenol resin content in the rubber composition.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEDEF PAQUETTE whose telephone number is (571) 272-5031. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 8:00 AM EST - 4:00 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, KATELYN SMITH can be reached on (571) 270-5545. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300. The fax phone number for the examiner is (571) 273-5031.
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.
/SEDEF E PAQUETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights