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 Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed 6/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues none of the cited references teaches or suggests features (i) –(iii). However,
Magg teaches the content of (D) N-phenyl-N-(trichloromethylthio)benzenesulfonamide is 0.1 parts by mass or more per 100 parts by mass of (A) the rubber component (col 5, lines 19-28, retarders are in the range from 0-2 parts per 100 of rubber, col 4 lines 15-25 disclose Vulkalent E/C as a retarder; Vulkalent E/C is the industry name for N-phenyl-N-(trichloromethylthio)benzenesulfonamide, Magg);
Sugihara in view of Magg discloses the total content of (B) sulfur, (C) the sulfenamide vulcanization accelerator, and (D) N-phenyl-N-(trichloromethylthio)benzenesulfonamide is 4.1 to 5.5 parts by mass per 100 parts by mass of (A) the rubber component (table 1, all examples have 2.6 parts of sulfur and 1.7 parts of accelerator per 100 parts of rubber (50 parts of NBR1 and 50 of NBR2), for a total of 4.3 parts in total, Sugihara, and the N-phenyl-N-(trichloromethylthio)benzenesulfonamide of Magg can be 0-2 parts, thus the total of B+C+D can be within 4.1-5.5 parts by mass per 100 of A); and
Sugihara in view of Miyamoto discloses the total content of (B) sulfur and (C) the vulcanization accelerator is 4.6 parts by mass or more per 100 parts by mass of (A) the rubber component (para 0031, Miyamoto, the vulcanization accelerator can be between 0.5-3.5 parts per 100, para 0025, Miyamoto, sulfur can be between 0.5-4 per 100, thus the total of B+C can be 4.6 parts or more per 100).
Applicant argues that (D) is incorporated in the claimed invention for a different purpose; however, the purpose of the component does not change the fact that the claimed ranges were disclosed or taught.
Applicant argues it is impossible for total content of B+C+D to be between 4.1 to 5.5, citing example 10 of Miyamoto. However, Miyamoto discloses a wider range of sulfur and accelerator than what is listed in the examples, at 0.5-3.5 parts per 100 for accelerator and 0.5-4 parts per 100 for sulfur (para 0031, Miyamoto, the vulcanization accelerator can be between 0.5-3.5 parts per 100, para 0025, Miyamoto, sulfur can be between 0.5-4 per 100, thus the total of B+C can be 4.6 parts or more per 100). Under the full disclosed range of Miyamoto, it is possible for total content of B+C+D to be between 4.1 to 5.5.
Applicant argues reducing the total of sulfur (B)+ accelerator (C) of Miyamoto to within the claimed range would result in loss of desired properties. However, even taking the most restrictive ranges of sulfur and accelerator, the “even more preferably” ranges set in paragraphs 0025 and 0031 of Miyamoto, the ranges are still 1.0-2.5 parts per 100 for accelerator and 0.7-3.0 parts per 100 for sulfur. Thus, the claimed range of 4.1-5.5 in total of sulfur and accelerator can be met while staying within the “even more preferably” ranges of Miyamoto, and there is no evidence to suggest that lowering the total to be within the claimed ranges results in loss of desired properties.
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 1,4,5,8,9 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim discloses that N-phenyl-N-(trichloromethylthio) benzenesulfonamide component (D) is optional but also discloses its content to be 0.1 parts by mass per 100 parts of rubber (A) or more, which signifies that component (D) is not optional. Is it unclear how the two statements can be true simultaneously. For purposes of compact prosecution component (D) is read to not be optional. Claims 4,5,8,9 depend on claim 1 and are rejected as well.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1,4,5,8,9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugihara (JP2017019984A), hereafter known as Sugihara, in view of Magg (US 6573333 B2), hereafter known as Magg, in further view of Miyamoto (JP 2015218251 A), hereafter known as Miyamoto.
Regarding claim 1, Sugihara discloses a rubber composition for a hose inner tube (para 0004, Sugihara), comprising:
a rubber component A) containing acrylonitrile butadiene rubber (para 0002, rubber can be acrylonitrile butadiene rubber or NBR; table 1, the examples use two types of NBR, Sugihara).
sulfur B) (para 0046, table 1, first column, sulfur is added as vulcanizing agent, Sugihara); and
a vulcanization accelerator C) (para 0036, table 1, first column, aldehyde-ammonia-based vulcanization accelerator, Sugihara).
and as optional components, further comprises N-phenyl-N- (trichloromethylthio)benzenesulfonamide D) (not disclosed).
and a cobalt compound E),
wherein a total content of the sulfur B), the vulcanization accelerator C), and the N-phenyl-N- (trichloromethylthio)benzenesulfonamide D) is 4.1 to 5.5 parts by mass per 100 parts by mass of the rubber component A) (table 1, all examples have 2.6 parts of sulfur and 1.7 parts of accelerator per 100 parts of rubber (50 parts of NBR1 and 50 of NBR2), for a total of 4.3 parts in total, Sugihara),,
a mass ratio (B/C) of a content of the sulfur B) to a content of the vulcanization accelerator C) is 1.2 or more (table 1, all examples have 2.6 parts of sulfur and 1.7 parts of accelerator, for a ratio of 2.6/1.7=1.53, Sugihara),
and a content of the cobalt compound E) is 0.1 mass% or less, in terms of cobalt content, of the rubber composition for a hose inner tube overall (Sugihara does not disclose cobalt, so the content is 0),
wherein the rubber component A) contains two or more types of acrylonitrile butadiene rubber (table 1, rubber component uses two types of acrylonitrile butadiene rubber (NBR), Sugihara),
wherein a total content of the sulfur B) and the vulcanization accelerator C) is 4.6 parts by mass or more per 100 parts by mass of the rubber component A) (not disclosed),
wherein a content of the N-phenyl-N-(trichloromethylthio) benzenesulfonamide D) is 0.1 parts by mass or more per 100 parts by mass of the rubber component A) (not disclosed), and
wherein the vulcanization accelerator C) is a sulfenamide vulcanization accelerator (not disclosed).
Sugihara does not disclose wherein a content of the N-phenyl-N-(trichloromethylthio) benzenesulfonamide D) is 0.1 parts by mass or more per 100 parts by mass of the rubber component A). However, Magg teaches using retarders such as N-phenyl-N-(trichloromethylthio)benzenesulfonamide in the range of 0 to 2 parts per 100 parts of rubber ( col 5, lines 19-28, retarders are in the range from 0-2 parts per 100 of rubber, col 4 lines 15-25 disclose Vulkalent E/C as a retarder; Vulkalent E/C is the industry name for N-phenyl-N-(trichloromethylthio)benzenesulfonamide, Magg). Magg describes a rubber composition for many applications including hoses, a field closely related to Sugihara and the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before time of filing to have incorporated the teachings of Magg into Sugihara and add the Vulkalent E/C retarder of Magg into the rubber composition of Sugihara. Chemical retarders are very well known in the art, and Vulkalent E/C can increase the scorch time of the rubber, allowing for more time to mold or process the rubber before it hardens.
Sugihara in view of Magg does not disclose wherein a total content of the sulfur B) and the vulcanization accelerator C) is 4.6 parts by mass or more per 100 parts by mass of the rubber component A), nor wherein the vulcanization accelerator C) is a sulfenamide vulcanization accelerator. However, Miyamoto teaches a rubber hose with sulfur and accelerator total to be more than 4.6 parts per 100 of rubber (para 0031, Miyamoto, the vulcanization accelerator can be between 0.5-3.5 parts per 100, para 0025, Miyamoto, sulfur can be between 0.5-4 per 100, thus the total of B+C can be 4.6 parts or more per 100), as well as a sulfenamide vulcanization accelerator (para 0029 and 0030, accelerators can be sulfenamide based, Miyamoto.) Miyamoto describes a rubber hose with reinforcements, a field closely related to Sugihara, Magg, and the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before time of filing to have incorporated the teachings of Miyamoto into Sugihara in view of Magg and used the sulfur and accelerator of Miyamoto at the concentrations described in Miyamoto to make the rubber of Sugihara in view of Magg. The added sulfur improves the adhesion of rubber to metal (para 0025, Miyamoto), and the accelerator of Miyamoto improves adhesion between rubber and metal as well, (para 0030, 0031, Miyamoto), allowing the rubber to bond better to the reinforcement wires of Sugihara.
Regarding claim 4, Sugihara in view of Magg and Miyamoto discloses the rubber composition for a hose inner tube according to claim 1, further comprising silica (table 1, example 5 has silica, Sugihara), wherein a content of the silica is 2 parts by mass or more and 20 parts by mass or less per 100 parts by mass of the rubber component A) (table 1, example 5 has silica content of 5 parts per 100 of rubber, Sugihara).
Regarding claim 5, Sugihara in view of Magg and Miyamoto discloses the rubber composition for a hose inner tube according to claim 4, wherein the content of the silica is 5 parts by mass or more and 10 parts by mass or less per 100 parts by mass of the rubber component A) (table 1, example 5 has silica content of 5 parts per 100 of rubber, Sugihara).
Regarding claim 8, Sugihara in view of Magg and Miyamoto discloses a laminated body comprising a layer composed of a vulcanizate of the rubber composition for a hose inner tube according to claim 1 (para 0049 discloses a hose with the rubber of Sugihara, para 0051 discloses an inner tube, reinforcing layer, and outer tube, Sugihara), and a brass-plated wire (para 0049, reinforcing layer can be made of brass plated steel wire, Sugihara).
Regarding claim 9, Sugihara in view of Magg and Miyamoto discloses a hose comprising the laminated body according to claim 8 disposed on an inner side in a hose radial direction and an outer rubber layer disposed on an outer side in the hose radial direction (para 0051, hoses can include an inner tube, reinforcing layer outside of inner tube, and outer tube outside of reinforcing layer, with the inner and outer tube made of the rubber of Sugihara).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Watanabe (US 20200354548 A1) discloses rubber composition with sulfur and sulfenamide accelerators
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAOTIAN LU whose telephone number is (571)272-0444. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am-5:00 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, Kenneth Rinehart, can be reached at (571) 272-4881. 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.
/H.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3753
/KENNETH RINEHART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights