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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 07/28/2025 has been entered. Claim 1 has been amended. Claim 3 has been cancelled. Claims 1-2 and 4-12 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 4, 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griebel et al. (US 2019/0389256 A1 – of record), in view of Takahashi (JP 2021046488 A – of record).
Regarding claim 1, Griebel discloses it is common to form a tire sealant layer suitable for use with pneumatic tires and disposed on a tire interior portion, see [0002] - (construed as a sealant composition constituting a sealant layer of a pneumatic tire provided with the sealant layer on a tire inner surface). The sealant to include a composition having a natural rubber as rubber portion, see at least [0010]; a tackifier, plasticizer and crosslink initiator, see [0004], [0094], [0070] – (construed as a rubber component, a tackifier, a plasticizer, and a crosslinking component).
While Griebel discloses a sealant composition measure of peel strength; it does not explicitly disclose a measure of adhesive force. However, it is well-known and conventional in the art to provide sealant layers with suitable adhesion characteristics to enhance the sealing features of the layer. In any event, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Griebels’s sealant layer to have an adhesive force to a steel material of 12 N or more. Since, Takahashi discloses a sealant layer to include a property of adhesive force being important for sealing a hole when the tire is punctured. Wherein the adhesive force with respect to a metal such as steel is preferably 0.20 N/mm or more, see page 20 paragraph 6. It being readily seen that for Takahashi’s test tire size of 255/40R20, the tire has dimensions of: sidewall height = section width * aspect ratio/100 ≈ 255*(40/100) ≈ 102 mm; a diameter = (2 * sidewall) + rim diameter ≈ (2*102) + 20*25.4 ≈ 712 mm; and a circumference = diameter * pi ≈ (712 * 3.14) ≈ 2,237 mm. Therefore, one would reasonably determine the tire sealant to have an adhesive force of 2,237 mm * 0.20 N/mm ≈ 447 N when coating the entire circumference of the tire – (construed as and overlaps an adhesive force to a steel material of 12 N or more). Concerning the claimed ranges: It has been held 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(I).
Regarding claims 4, 8-12, modified Griebel discloses the tackifier is a hydrocarbon resin, see Griebel [0043]; the plasticizer is a plant oil and provided in an amount of 5 to 40% by weight, see Griebel [0094]; the crosslinking component comprises sulfur and a vulcanization accelerator, see Griebel [0065]; the sulfur is provided in an amount of 0.1 – 10 phr, see Griebel [0066] – (construed as and overlaps a blended amount of the sulfur is from 0.1 to 10 parts by mass per 100 parts by mass of the rubber component); and a tire using the sealant composition, see Griebel claim 26. Concerning the claimed ranges: It has been held 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(I).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griebel et al. (US 2019/0389256 A1 – of record), in view of Takahashi (JP 2021046488 A – of record), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Matsunami (JP 2018075897 A).
Regarding claim 2, modified Griebel does not explicitly disclose a viscosity value. Matsunami discloses a tire sealant composition. The composition to include a viscosity of 3000 Pa*s or more at 40° C. This being beneficial for maintaining a shape of the sealant layer, see page 23 paragraph 5. It being considered 40° is sufficiently close to the claimed measurement temperature of 30° that one would expect the same properties to be exhibited. Thus, Matsunami’s viscosity at 40° C of 3,000 Pa s or higher is construed as and overlaps the claimed viscosity at 30° C is 1,000 Pa s or more. Concerning the claimed ranges: It has been held 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(I). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust modified Griebel’s sealant composition to have a viscosity (30°C) as claimed and reasonably suggested by Matsunami to provide the tire with a means for maintaining the shape of the sealant layer.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griebel et al. (US 2019/0389256 A1 – of record), in view of Takahashi (JP 2021046488 A – of record), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Zhou et al. (US 2021/0245459 A1 – of record).
Regarding claims 5-7, modified Griebel does not explicitly disclose the tackifier glass transition temperature. Zhou discloses a tire sealant composition. The sealant composition includes a hydrocarbon resin suitable as a tackifier for use as a diluent and/or extender when compounding, see [0063]; and the glass transition temperature (Tg) of the tackifier is higher than -50° C, see Zhou [0063] – (overlaps 0°C); and a number average molecular weight of the tackifier is from 400 g/mol to 2000 g/mol, see Zhou [0067] - (overlaps 400 to 2000); and the tackifier is provided in an amount of 10 phr to 60 phr, see Zhou [0072] – (construed as and overlaps a blended amount of the tackifier is less than 30 parts by mass per 100 parts by mass of the rubber component).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed date have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s Argument #1
Applicant argues that: Based on this persons of ordinary skill in the art will understand that Griebel does not disclose or reasonably suggest the claimed sealant composition in which "the rubber component is natural rubber, synthetic isoprene rubber, styrene-butadiene copolymer rubber, butadiene rubber, or a blend of the rubbers", or in other words does not include a butyl rubber or EPDM.
Examiner’s Response #1
Examiner respectfully disagrees: The applicant’s written description clearly discloses its inventive composition uses butyl rubber, see at least page 3 line 12. To the extent the applicant rejects the use of butyl rubber as a component of the rubber composition. Griebel clearly discloses the rubber portion of the sealant layer comprises 100 parts of natural rubber among other choices, see [0010]. There being no explicit requirement to use only or a mixture to include butyl rubber or EPDM. Thus, a more than reasonable pathway exists for using natural rubber as a component for the sealant composition without the use of butyl rubber or EPDM.
Applicant’s Argument #2
Applicant argues that: Further regarding the Griebel reference, the Examiner asserts that Griebel discloses use of a plasticizer in his sealant composition, with reference to Griebels’s para. [0094]. Applicant respectfully disagrees with this because the Examiner's comment is not accurate. Griebel's paragraph [0094] relates to a coating composition which is expressly different from the sealant composition, as more specifically set forth in US Provisional Patent Application 62/434,591, which is referenced in Griebel' s para. [0094]. In fact, Griebel never discloses that his sealant composition includes a plasticizer, contrary to the requirement of present claim 1.
Examiner’s Response #2
Examiner respectfully disagrees: Griebel's discloses embodiments of its inventive composition that the radially inward facing surface of the inner liner includes application of a coating composition comprising a plasticizer, see [0094]. It being noted, the applicant written description identifying the sealant composition is provided as a sealant layer on an inner side of an innerliner layer of a tire, see page 7 lines 16-17. Therefore, one of ordinary skill would clearly envision use of a plasticizer according to Griebel’s disclosure.
Applicant’s Argument #3
Applicant argues that: The Examiner presents a calculation where he determines that Takahashi's force/area equation results in a force of 447 N, but applicant respectfully disagrees. For example, the Examiner's calculation involves consideration of a tire sidewall, but this does not make sense given that the sealant composition is only applied on the inner liner located inward of a tire tread, but not applied on an inner surface of the sidewall. Further, in the invention examples and comparison example presented in the present application, the adhesive force is 9.4 (N) for the comparison example and ranges from 14.2 20 22.0 (N) for the invention examples. See Table 1. As will be recognized these values are more than a factor of 10 smaller than the Examiner's calculated value.
Examiner’s Response #3
Examiner respectfully disagrees: While the rejection contains a typo (height is missing after sidewall). It is clearly understood that a tire’s section width * aspect ratio is equivalent to the tire sidewall height. And 2 * the section height + the rim diameter allows for calculating the circumference of the tire. This providing a reasonable pathway to establishing a composition’s desirable amount of adhesive force necessary for adhesion to puncture items such as steel nails and the like. As to the amount of adhesive force calculated. The claim requires a minimum but does not limit the amount of adhesive force the composition must have.
The rejections are maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CEDRICK S WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571) 272-9776. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday 8:00am-5:00pm.
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.
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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/CEDRICK S WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749