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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites the Mt is 60,000 or more. However, claim 1 recites the Mt is 3,000 to 200,000. As claim 3 recites a different range than claim 1, it is unclear whether claim 3 is intended to be bound by the limits of the range of claim 1. It is suggested that claim 3 be amended to recite the range of 60,000 to 200,000.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 7, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuniya (US 2002/0045043) in view of Asada (WO 2019/230700). As the WO document is not in English, citations are made to the US equivalent, US 2021/0222036.
Kuniya teaches an adhesive composition comprising 100 pbw rubber component, 30-170 pbw of a rubber component that is liquid, and 50-400 pbw of a tackifier (abstract). Kuniya teaches the rubber component includes styrene/butadiene block copolymer (¶16). Kuniya teaches the adhesive can form a layer (¶ 28).
Kuniya does not explicitly recite the liquid rubber component is a farnesene based rubber having the claimed properties (I) and (II).
However, Asuda teaches an adhesive component which includes a modified conjugated diene (abstract) and includes an example of a modified diene rubber having farnesene monomers (¶ 179-181) which is a farnesene based rubber. Asuda teaches the modified conjugated diene rubber is liquid (¶88-89) and the examples have a Mw of 60-166, a Mw/Mn of 1.1 and 1.3 and a melt viscosity at 38˚C of 291 and 176 Pa∙s (Table 1).
While Asuda does not explicitly recite the maximum peak molecular weight (Mt), the Mt is about the same as the Mw as evidenced by Table 1 of the instant specification which shows a Mw of 135,000 has a Mt of 155,000 and an Mw of 66,000 has a Mt of 74,000 and a Mw of 146,000 has an Mt of 141,000. The Mw of the polymers of Asuda are about the same as the Mw of the polymers in Table 1, and thus the Mt of the polymers of Asuda fall in the claimed range of 3,000-200,000 recited in claim 1 and 60,000 or more recited in claim 3.
It would have been obvious to use the polymer of Asuda because it improves the adhesiveness (¶25).
The examples of Asuda include 100 mol% farnesese (¶179) which meets claim 4.
Claim(s) 1, 3-7, 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitson (US 2009/0312483) in view of Asada (WO 2019/230700). As the WO document is not in English, citations are made to the US equivalent, US 2021/0222036.
Kitson teaches an adhesive composition containing a solid rubber, a liquid rubber, and a tackifier component (abstract) where the solid rubber includes SBS rubbers (¶8) or natural rubber (¶ 10). Kitson teaches 100 pbw solid rubber, 5-24 pbw liquid rubber, and 100-170 pbw tackifier (¶7). Kitson teaches a plasticizer is present (¶ 18-21) and gives example have 10.66 wt% plasticizer (¶ 25) which corresponds to about 45 pbw per 100 parts of the solid rubber and meets the range of claim 5. Kitson teaches additives including antioxidants, fillers, and heat stabilizers (¶20). Kitson teaches adding the adhesive as a layer (¶ 26).
Kitson does not explicitly recite the liquid rubber component is a farnesene based rubber having the claimed properties (I) and (II).
However, Asuda teaches an adhesive component which includes a modified conjugated diene (abstract) and includes an example of a modified diene rubber having farnesene monomers (¶ 179-181) which is a farnesene based rubber. Asuda teaches the modified conjugated diene rubber is liquid (¶88-89) and the examples have a Mw of 60-166, a Mw/Mn of 1.1 and 1.3 and a melt viscosity at 38˚C of 291 and 176 Pa∙s (Table 1). Asuda teaches a crosslinking agent is present (¶ 156-158) which generates a strong cohesive force (¶25).
While Asuda does not explicitly recite the maximum peak molecular weight (Mt), the Mt is about the same as the Mw as evidenced by Table 1 of the instant specification which shows a Mw of 135,000 has a Mt of 155,000 and an Mw of 66,000 has a Mt of 74,000 and a Mw of 146,000 has an Mt of 141,000. The Mw of the polymers of Asuda are about the same as the Mw of the polymers in Table 1, and thus the Mt of the polymers of Asuda fall in the claimed range of 3,000-200,000 recited in claim 1 and 60,000 or more recited in claim 3.
It would have been obvious to use the polymer of Asuda because it improves the adhesiveness (¶25).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitson (US 2009/0312483) in view of Asada (WO 2019/230700) and Koda (JP 2016/089051). As the WO document is not in English, citations are made to the US equivalent, US 2021/0222036. As the JP reference is not in English, citations are made to the attached translation.
The discussion with respect to Kitson and Asada above is hereby incorporated by reference.
Kitson and Asada do not explicitly recite the metal content.
However, Koda teaches rubber compositions derived from farnesene (¶ 1) which have a metal content of 0-200 ppm (¶ 30) which meets the range of claim 2.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use an amount of metal content taught by Koda because when the amount of catalyst residue is within the above range, the tack does not decrease during processing, and the heat resistance of the crosslinked material of the rubber composition of the present invention is improved (¶ 42, 49).
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 7, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuniya (US 2002/0045043) in view of Asada (WO 2019/230700) and Koda (JP 2016/089051). As the WO document is not in English, citations are made to the US equivalent, US 2021/0222036. As the JP reference is not in English, citations are made to the attached translation.
The discussion with respect to Kuniya and Asada above is hereby incorporated by reference.
Kuniya and Asada do not explicitly recite the metal content.
However, Koda teaches rubber compositions derived from farnesene (¶ 1) which have a metal content of 0-200 ppm (¶ 30) which meets the range of claim 2.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use an amount of metal content taught by Koda because when the amount of catalyst residue is within the above range, the tack does not decrease during processing, and the heat resistance of the crosslinked material of the rubber composition of the present invention is improved (¶ 42, 49).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT C BOYLE whose telephone number is (571)270-7347. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 10am-4pm.
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, Arrie (Lanee) Reuther can be reached at (571)270-7026. 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 BOYLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights