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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
3. Claim(s) 1 and 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yonemoto (EP 2,206,730, of record) in view of Demarcq (US 4,083,899, newly cited), Ehrich (US 4,248,632, newly cited), and McGill (US 4,386,209, newly cited)
Yonemoto is directed to a rubber composition comprising natural rubber, a hydrazide compound, and 5-100 phr of a filler (Paragraphs 15 and 34). More particularly, Yonemoto teaches the use of picolinohydrazide as said hydrazide compound (Paragraph 23). It is noted that picolinohydrazide corresponds with picolinic acid hydrazide and is extremely similar to compound (2) in the claimed invention (combination of a pyridyl group and a hydrazide, wherein said hydrazide is branched from a 2nd carbon position). Thus, there is an express disclosure to use a 2-pyridyl structure.
While Yonemoto fails to include a functional group in the pyridyl group, it is extremely well known and conventional that the general class of pyridyl groups (pyridine) convers both substituted, such as hydroxy substituted, and unsubstituted pyridyl groups, as shown for example by Demarcq (Column 4, Lines 55+), Ehrich (Column 3, Lines 10+), and McGill (Column 5, Lines 19+). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the language “picolinohydrazide” as encompassing compounds that are substituted (e.g. with a hydroxyl group- would result in a compound in which n=1) absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results (lack of conclusive showing of unexpected results for a substituted picolinohydrazide as compared to an unsubstituted picolinohydrazide). It is emphasized that substituents or functional groups are extremely well known and conventional in a wide variety of compounds and a wide variety of applications, including those involving pyridyl groups or bases.
Also, it is noted that natural rubber and said hydrazide compound are initially mixed (Paragraphs 30 and 31) in a first step, after which additional ingredients, such as said hydrazide compound, are mixed in a second step (Paragraph 45). Thus, the rubber composition of Yonemoto does in fact comprise a diene rubber, a hydrazide compound, and a filler.
With respect to claim 6, Yonemoto discloses the inclusion of silica (Paragraphs 35 and 36).
Regarding claim 7, the rubber composition is entirely formed with natural rubber.
As to claim 8, Yonemoto describes a tire tread component (Paragraph 38).
4. Claim(s) 1-4 and 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yonemoto in view of Hojo (WO 9844040, newly cited).
Yonemoto is directed to a rubber composition comprising natural rubber, a hydrazide compound, and 5-100 phr of a filler (Paragraphs 15 and 34). More particularly, Yonemoto teaches the use of picolinohydrazide as said hydrazide compound (Paragraph 23), which corresponds with a 2-pyridyl structure.
It is noted that picolinohydrazide corresponds with picolinic acid hydrazide and is extremely similar to compound (1) in the claimed invention (combination of a pyridyl group and a hydrazide), with the difference being a double bond between a nitrogen and a carbon atom at the end of the chain branching from the 2nd carbon position of the pyridyl group).
It is well recognized, though, that the general class of hydrazides includes structures having an additional double bond and carbon atom (removal of hydrogen items from basic picolinohydrazide and replacement with carbon group).
Hojo is similarly directed to a rubber composition and teaches a compound comprising a pyridyl group and a hydrazide group. More particularly, Hojo describes a plurality of compounds in which a basic hydrazide group is modified with an additional double bond and carbon groups in accordance to the claimed invention (e.g. N’ (1,3-dimethylbutylidene) isonicotinic acid hydrazide). These compounds are well recognized as representing a species under the genus of hydrazide compounds and Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the specific hydrazide required by the claimed invention (Examples 2 and 4 actually demonstrate slightly inferior heat buildup properties as compared to Examples 1 and 3). It is emphasized that N’ (1,3-dimethylbutylidene) isonicotinic acid hydrazide is extremely similar to the claimed compound, with the difference being where the hydrazide component is located on the pyridyl group (2nd position in picolinic acid vs 4th position in isonicotinic acid). As detailed above, though, Yonemoto specifically states that a hydrazide component can be branched form the 2nd carbon position of the pyridyl group in accordance to the claimed invention (picolinohydrazide). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include N’ 1,3-dimethylbutylidene in either of the disclosed hydrazide compounds of Yonemoto.
Also, it is noted that natural rubber and said hydrazide compound are initially mixed (Paragraphs 30 and 31) in a first step, after which additional ingredients, such as said hydrazide compound, are mixed in a second step (Paragraph 45). Thus, the rubber composition of Yonemoto does in fact comprise a diene rubber, a hydrazide compound, and a filler.
As to claims 2 and 3, N’ 1,3-dimethylbutylidene is seen to satisfy the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 4, the pyridyl group of Yonemoto is not described as including an additional substituent.
With respect to claim 6, Yonemoto discloses the inclusion of silica (Paragraphs 35 and 36).
Regarding claim 7, the rubber composition is entirely formed with natural rubber.
As to claim 8, Yonemoto describes a tire tread component (Paragraph 38).
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-8 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
6. 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.
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN R FISCHER whose telephone number is (571)272-1215. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 5:30-2:00.
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 at 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 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.
Justin Fischer
/JUSTIN R FISCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749 March 6, 2026