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 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “member and” in line 6 should be written as –member, and— for grammatical clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “nanotubes, wherein” in lines 19-20 should be written as –nanotubes, and wherein— for grammatical clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
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 10, 12-15, and 24-25 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.
Regarding claim 10, the phrase “less than 1 phr of black colorants, including black colorants selected from carbon black, graphene, or carbon nanotubes” in lines 18-19 is unclear as the listing of colorants reads as an open exemplary group, rather than a closed group of which to select from. For the purposes of examination, the examiner assumes –less than 1 phr of black colorants selected from the group consisting of carbon black, graphene, and carbon nanotubes—.
Regarding claim 10, the phrase “such that the textile strength member is visible from the outside” in lines 22-23 is unclear. It is unclear from what “outside” the member is visible. Moreover, it is unclear what to what the boundaries of “visible” are. The examiner also notes that the limitation does not add any further structural or procedural differentiation for the claim, and suggests removing the limitation. For the purposes of examination, the examiner assumes that so long as the crosslinkable and crosslinked rubberization mixture comprises the claimed components and is transmissive to visible light in the claimed range that the member will be “visible from the outside.”
Claims 12-15 and 24-25 are indefinite by dependence on claim 10.
Regarding claim 25, the phrase “the rubberization mixture” in line 2 is unclear. It is unclear if it is the crosslinkable rubberization material of claims 10 and 24, or if it is the crosslinked rubberization material of claim 10. For the purposes of examination, the examiner assumes either interpretation will satisfy the claim limitation.
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) 10-15 and 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Acar et al. (EP 3702521) (of record), Waddell et al. (US 20040044118), Joseph et al. (US 20040144467), and as evidenced by Sliney (What is light? The visible spectrum and beyond, Eye, 2016 Jan 15, pp. 1-21).
Regarding claim 10, Acar discloses a process for producing a vulcanizable composite material, comprising the steps of: a) producing or providing a textile strength member ([0001]), b) treating the textile strength member with an aqueous dispersion for adhesive activation of the textile strength member and to obtain an adhesion-activated textile strength member ([0001], [0043]-[0046]), and c) arranging the adhesion-activated textile strength member on the surface of a base material comprising a crosslinkable rubberization mixture to obtain the vulcanizable composite material ([0048]-[0055]), wherein the aqueous dispersion is essentially free of free resorcinol and resorcinol precondensates ([0001], [0006], [0034]), and is free of free formaldehyde and formaldehyde-releasing substances ([0001], [0006], [0034]), and comprises (x1) at least one rubber latex ([0001], [0010]-[0013]), and (x2) at least one blocked (i.e., protected) isocyanate ([0001], [0014]-[0016]), and wherein the crosslinkable rubberization mixture is processible by vulcanization to give a crosslinked rubberization mixture ([0049], [0056]).
Acar further discloses that the at least one protected isocyanate in a proportion by mass based on the dry weight of the aqueous dispersion of 0.1% to 4.5% ([0001], [0008]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.1% to 10%. Acar further discloses the at least one rubber latex is in a proportion by mass based on the dry weight of the aqueous dispersion of 4% to 50% ([0001], [0008]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 40% to 60%. 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 amounts of the at least one protected isocyanate in a proportion by mass based on the dry weight of the aqueous dispersion and the at least one rubber latex is in a proportion by mass based on the dry weight of the aqueous dispersion.
Acar further discloses a preferable example for the composition of the rubberization mixture ([0051]), but also discloses that it can be any suitable rubberization mixture ([0050]). While Acar does not expressly recite the composition comprises 15 to 50 phr of a brominated copolymer of isobutylene and para-methylstyrene, and less than 1 phr of black colorants selected from carbon black, graphene, or carbon nanotubes, it is known in the tire art to provide elastomeric compositions for tires that have such compositions. For instance, Waddell discloses a colorable elastomeric composition (i.e., crosslinkable rubberization mixture) for use in tires ([0001], [0008], [0042]-[0045]), comprising a brominated copolymer of isobutylene and para-methylstyrene ([0014]-[0015], [0023], [0078]), and no black colorants ([0073], [0090], Table 10). Waddell further provides an example comprising 20 phr of a brominated copolymer of isobutylene and para-methylstyrene, which falls within the claimed range of 15 to 50 phr, and no black colorants selected from carbon black, graphene, or carbon nanotubes (i.e., 0 phr), which falls within the range of less than 1 phr ([0073], [0090], Table 10). 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 a brominated copolymer of isobutylene and para-methylstyrene and black colorant in the crosslinkable rubberization mixture. The invention preferably does not contain carbon black so as to maintain its transparent feature of the composition ([0025]). Waddell also discloses how the disclosed mixture provides a colorable elastomeric composition that has improved abrasion resistance and other improved physical characteristics, while maintaining the colorability and transparency of the composition ([0007]). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Acar in order to provide the crosslinkable rubberization mixture with the aforementioned composition for the advantages as taught by Waddell.
Moreover, Joseph discloses it is well known in the art to make textile cables visible through the sidewalls of a tire ([0002]), wherein a rubber composition in the cross-linked condition which is permeable to visible light (i.e. transparent or translucent) is bonded to textile fibers ([0039]). Jospeh merely provides a preferential example as to what the rubber composition may be ([0040]), but this is merely a preferable example and does not explicitly limit the disclosure to such a limitation. Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or non-preferred embodiments. It is also well settled that an applied reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one of the ordinary skill in the art, including not only preferred embodiments, but less preferred and even non-preferred. See MPEP 2123. In general, Joseph discloses that it is well known in the art to provide sidewalls of a tire having a rubber composition wherein the cords within are visible. Acar discloses providing cords with an adhesive onto a rubber composition, and Waddell discloses a known rubber composition for a sidewall in the tire art that has improved abrasion resistance and other improved physical characteristics, while maintaining the colorability and transparency. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to provide the adhesion-activated textile strength member of Acar onto a base member comprising a crosslinkable rubberization mixture that is transparent so as to have visible members through the sidewall as is well known in the art and for the advantages as discussed above.
Furthermore, both Waddell and Joseph discuss transparency in terms of being permeable to visible light. It is well known that visible light has a wavelength in the range of 360 to 830 nm and even 310 to about 1100 nm (Pages 1, 11, 16), which overlaps with the claimed range of 380 to 780 nm. 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 wavelength of visible light. Accordingly, modified Acar discloses the crosslinkable rubberization mixture is processible by vulcanization to give a crosslinked rubberization mixture which is at least partly transmissive to visible light having a wavelength in the range from 380 to 780 nm, such that the textile strength member is visible from the outside, at least in sections.
Regarding claims 12-13, Acar further discloses the aqueous dispersion comprises at least one compound containing an epoxy group in a proportion by mass based on the dry weight of the aqueous dispersion of up to 6%, and at least one polymer having carboxylic acid-functional groups in a proportion by mass based on the dry weight of the aqueous dispersion of up to 15% ([0001], [0008], [0023]-[0029]).
Regarding claim 14, Acar further discloses the aqueous dispersion comprises at least one filler in a proportion by mass based on the dry weight of the aqueous dispersion of 0.02% to 20% ([0001], [0008], [0017]-[0022]).
Regarding claim 15, Acar further discloses producing an unvulcanized vehicle tire blank comprising the vulcanizable composite material ([0048]).
Regarding claim 24, Waddell further discloses the crosslinkable rubberization mixture further comprises: 10 to 90 phr of natural and/or synthetic polyisoprene ([0040]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 25 to 85 phr; 10 to 90 phr of cis-1,4-butadiene rubber ([0039]-[0040]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 15 to 50 phr; and 10 to 100 phr of silica (i.e., amorphous silicon dioxide) as filler ([0025]-[0027]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 15 to 40 phr. 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 natural and/or synthetic polyisoprene, cis-1,4-butadiene rubber, and amorphous silicon dioxide in the crosslinkable rubberization mixture.
Regarding claim 25, Waddell further discloses forming an outermost surface of a tire sidewall with the rubberization mixture ([0050]). Waddell discloses how in tire sidewalls there is a need for resistance to curb-scuffing, and the disclosed mixture provides a colorable elastomeric composition that has improved abrasion resistance and other improved physical characteristics, while maintaining the colorability and transparency of the composition ([0007]). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to further modify Acar in order to form an outermost surface of a tire sidewall with the rubberization mixture for the advantages as taught by Waddell.
Claim(s) 10-13, 15, and 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda et al. (US 20120041113) (of record), Waddell et al. (US 20040044118), Joseph et al. (US 20040144467), as evidenced by Sliney (What is light? The visible spectrum and beyond, Eye, 2016 Jan 15, pp. 1-21), and optionally Acar et al. (EP 3702521) (of record).
Regarding claim 10, Ikeda discloses a process for producing a vulcanizable composite material, comprising the steps of: a) producing or providing a textile strength member ([0010]-[0011]), b) treating the textile strength member with an aqueous dispersion for adhesive activation of the textile strength member and to obtain an adhesion-activated textile strength member ([0015]-[0017], [0038]), and c) arranging the adhesion-activated textile strength member on the surface of a base material comprising a crosslinkable rubberization mixture to obtain the vulcanizable composite material ([0001], [0010], [0015]-[0017], [0019]-[0020], [0036], [0039]), wherein the aqueous dispersion is essentially free of free resorcinol and resorcinol precondensates ([0010]-[0011], [0020]), and is free of free formaldehyde and formaldehyde-releasing substances ([0010]-[0011], [0020]), and comprises (x1) at least one rubber latex ([0012], [0022], [0025]), and (x2) at least one blocked (i.e., protected) isocyanate ([0012], [0022]-[0023]), and wherein the crosslinkable rubberization mixture is processible by vulcanization to give a crosslinked rubberization mixture ([0032]-[0034], [0039]).
Ikeda further discloses preferred mass ratios of various components, including the blocked isocyanate and rubber latex ([0023], [0029]-[0031]) (Tables 1-5). Varying the various ratio affects the flexibility, tensile strength, cohesive failure resistance, and adhesive strength of the adhesive composition ([0029]-[0030]). Moreover, varying the ratios affects heat curing, stability of heat processing, emulsion stability, and uniform application of the adhesive composition ([0031]). In other words, the amounts and proportions of the various components in the adhesive composition (i.e., aqueous dispersion) are considered to be result effective variables that will affect various properties and functionalities of the composition. Accordingly, while Ikeda does not explicitly disclose the value for the at least one protected isocyanate in a proportion by mass based on the dry weight of the aqueous dispersion or the at least one rubber latex is in a proportion by mass based on the dry weight of the aqueous dispersion, 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 proportions. 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 at least one protected isocyanate in a proportion by mass based on the dry weight of the aqueous dispersion and the at least one rubber latex is in a proportion by mass based on the dry weight of the aqueous dispersion in order to achieve desirable and advantageous effects of the properties discussed above (i.e., flexibility, strength, adhesiveness, etc.).
Ikeda further discloses a preferable example for the composition of the rubberization mixture ([0033]), but also discloses that the rubber ingredients are not particularly restricted ([0033]). While Ikeda does not expressly recite the composition comprises 15 to 50 phr of a brominated copolymer of isobutylene and para-methylstyrene, and less than 1 phr of black colorants selected from carbon black, graphene, or carbon nanotubes, it is known in the tire art to provide elastomeric compositions for tires that have such compositions. For instance, Waddell discloses a colorable elastomeric composition (i.e., crosslinkable rubberization mixture) for use in tires ([0001], [0008], [0042]-[0045]), comprising a brominated copolymer of isobutylene and para-methylstyrene ([0014]-[0015], [0023], [0078]), and no black colorants ([0073], [0090], Table 10). Waddell further provides an example comprising 20 phr of a brominated copolymer of isobutylene and para-methylstyrene, which falls within the claimed range of 15 to 50 phr, and no black colorants selected from carbon black, graphene, or carbon nanotubes (i.e., 0 phr), which falls within the range of less than 1 phr ([0073], [0090], Table 10). 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 a brominated copolymer of isobutylene and para-methylstyrene and black colorant in the crosslinkable rubberization mixture. The invention preferably does not contain carbon black so as to maintain its transparent feature of the composition ([0025]). Waddell also discloses how the disclosed mixture provides a colorable elastomeric composition that has improved abrasion resistance and other improved physical characteristics, while maintaining the colorability and transparency of the composition ([0007]). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Ikeda in order to provide the crosslinkable rubberization mixture with the aforementioned composition for the advantages as taught by Waddell.
Moreover, Joseph discloses it is well known in the art to make textile cables visible through the sidewalls of a tire ([0002]), wherein a rubber composition in the cross-linked condition which is permeable to visible light (i.e. transparent or translucent) is bonded to textile fibers ([0039]). Jospeh merely provides a preferential example as to what the rubber composition may be ([0040]), but this is merely a preferable example and does not explicitly limit the disclosure to such a limitation. Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or non-preferred embodiments. It is also well settled that an applied reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one of the ordinary skill in the art, including not only preferred embodiments, but less preferred and even non-preferred. See MPEP 2123. In general, Joseph discloses that it is well known in the art to provide sidewalls of a tire having a rubber composition wherein the cords within are visible. Ikeda discloses providing cords with an adhesive onto a rubber composition, and Waddell discloses a known rubber composition for a sidewall in the tire art that has improved abrasion resistance and other improved physical characteristics, while maintaining the colorability and transparency. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to provide the adhesion-activated textile strength member of Ikeda onto a base member comprising a crosslinkable rubberization mixture that is transparent so as to have visible members through the sidewall as is well known in the art and for the advantages as discussed above.
Furthermore, both Waddell and Joseph discuss transparency in terms of being permeable to visible light. It is well known that visible light has a wavelength in the range of 360 to 830 nm and even 310 to about 1100 nm (Pages 1, 11, 16), which overlaps with the claimed range of 380 to 780 nm. 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 wavelength of visible light. Accordingly, modified Acar discloses the crosslinkable rubberization mixture is processible by vulcanization to give a crosslinked rubberization mixture which is at least partly transmissive to visible light having a wavelength in the range from 380 to 780 nm, such that the textile strength member is visible from the outside, at least in sections.
Optionally, Acar discloses a process for producing a vulcanizable composite material, similar to Ikeda, as discussed above in the separate prior art rejection of claim 10. Acar further discloses that the at least one protected isocyanate in a proportion by mass based on the dry weight of the aqueous dispersion of 0.1%o to 4.5% ([0001], [0008]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.1%o to 10%. Acar further discloses the at least one rubber latex is in a proportion by mass based on the dry weight of the aqueous dispersion of 4% to 50% ([0001], [0008]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 40% to 60%. 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 amounts of the at least one protected isocyanate in a proportion by mass based on the dry weight of the aqueous dispersion and the at least one rubber latex is in a proportion by mass based on the dry weight of the aqueous dispersion. Acar discloses the aqueous dispersion composition as discussed above for coating a textile reinforcing material which provides a still further improved bonding between a strengthening member and an elastomeric compound, and which at the same time is easy to handle and allows the treated textile reinforcing materials to be stored over a long period of time, wherein the specific combination of components of the claimed aqueous dipping composition enables a multitude of chemical reactions by which the textile reinforcing material undergoes activation which leads to a further improved bonding between the textile reinforcing material and an elastomeric compound as compared to the dipping compositions of the prior art, wherein it has surprisingly been found that the storage stability of a textile reinforcing material treated with the claimed composition is improved as compared to the RF-free dipping compositions of the prior art, and wherein the aforementioned aqueous dipping composition is easy to handle and can be used for a broad variety of textile reinforcing materials ([0006]-[0009]). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to further modify Ikeda in order to provide the aqueous dispersion comprises at least one compound containing an epoxy group in a proportion by mass based on the dry weight of the aqueous dispersion and/or at least one polymer having carboxylic acid-functional groups in a proportion by mass based on the dry weight of the aqueous dispersion in the aforementioned ranges as is generally known in the substantially similar art as taught by Acar, and for the advantages discussed above as taught by Acar.
Regarding claims 12-13, Ikeda further discloses the aqueous dispersion comprises: (y1) at least one compound containing an epoxy group ([0012]-[0013], [0022], [0024]), and/or (y2) at least one polymer having carboxylic acid-functional groups ([0025]).
As discussed above in claim 10, Ikeda further discloses preferred mass ratios of various components, including the at least one compound containing an epoxy group and the rubber latex comprising the carboxyl group ([0013], [0025], [0029]-[0031]) (Tables 1-5). Varying the various ratio affects the flexibility, tensile strength, cohesive failure resistance, and adhesive strength of the adhesive composition ([0029]-[0030]). Moreover, varying the ratios affects heat curing, stability of heat processing, emulsion stability, and uniform application of the adhesive composition ([0031]). In other words, the amounts and proportions of the various components in the adhesive composition (i.e., aqueous dispersion) are considered to be result effective variables that will affect various properties and functionalities of the composition. Accordingly, while Ikeda does not explicitly disclose the value for the at least one compound containing an epoxy group in a proportion by mass based on the dry weight of the aqueous dispersion or the at least one polymer having carboxylic acid-functional groups in a proportion by mass based on the dry weight of the aqueous dispersion, 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 proportions. 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 at least one compound containing an epoxy group in a proportion by mass based on the dry weight of the aqueous dispersion and the at least one polymer having carboxylic acid-functional groups in a proportion by mass based on the dry weight of the aqueous dispersion in order to achieve desirable and advantageous effects of the properties discussed above (i.e., flexibility, strength, adhesiveness, etc.).
Optionally, Acar further discloses the aqueous dispersion comprises at least one compound containing an epoxy group in a proportion by mass based on the dry weight of the aqueous dispersion of up to 6% and at least one polymer having carboxylic acid-functional groups in a proportion by mass based on the dry weight of the aqueous dispersion of up to 15% ([0001], [0008], [0023]-[0029]). The addition of such amount of epoxy group-containing compound further improves the adhesion of the textile reinforcing material to the elastomeric compound ([0024]). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to further modify Ikeda in order to provide the aqueous dispersion comprises at least one compound containing an epoxy group in a proportion by mass based on the dry weight of the aqueous dispersion and/or at least one polymer having carboxylic acid-functional groups in a proportion by mass based on the dry weight of the aqueous dispersion in the aforementioned ranges as is generally known in the substantially similar art as taught by Acar, and for the advantages discussed above as taught by Acar.
Regarding claim 15, Ikeda further discloses producing an unvulcanized vehicle tire blank comprising the vulcanizable composite material ([0001], [0010], [0015]-[0017], [0019]-[0020], [0036], [0039]).
Regarding claim 24, Waddell further discloses the crosslinkable rubberization mixture further comprises: 10 to 90 phr of natural and/or synthetic polyisoprene ([0040]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 25 to 85 phr; 10 to 90 phr of cis-1,4-butadiene rubber ([0039]-[0040]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 15 to 50 phr; and 10 to 100 phr of silica (i.e., amorphous silicon dioxide) as filler ([0025]-[0027]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 15 to 40 phr. 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 natural and/or synthetic polyisoprene, cis-1,4-butadiene rubber, and amorphous silicon dioxide in the crosslinkable rubberization mixture.
Regarding claim 25, Waddell further discloses forming an outermost surface of a tire sidewall with the rubberization mixture ([0050]). Waddell discloses how in tire sidewalls there is a need for resistance to curb-scuffing, and the disclosed mixture provides a colorable elastomeric composition that has improved abrasion resistance and other improved physical characteristics, while maintaining the colorability and transparency of the composition ([0007]). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to further modify Ikeda in order to form an outermost surface of a tire sidewall with the rubberization mixture for the advantages as taught by Waddell.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda et al. (US 20120041113) (of record), Waddell et al. (US 20040044118), Joseph et al. (US 20040144467), as evidenced by Sliney (What is light? The visible spectrum and beyond, Eye, 2016 Jan 15, pp. 1-21), and optionally Acar et al. (EP 3702521) (of record) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Acar et al. (EP 3702521) (of record).
Regarding claim 14, Ikeda further discloses the crosslinkable rubberization mixture may comprise fillers ([0035]), but does not expressly recite the aqueous dispersion comprises one of the following components: (z1) at least one filler in a proportion by mass based on the dry weight of the aqueous dispersion of 0.02% to 20%, (z2) at least one polyisoprene rubber latex in a proportion by mass based on the dry weight of the aqueous dispersion of 1% to 20%, or (z3) at least one wax in a proportion by mass based on the dry weight of the aqueous dispersion of 0.3% to 30%.
Acar discloses a process for producing a vulcanizable composite material as discussed above. Acar further discloses the aqueous dispersion comprises at least one filler in a proportion by mass based on the dry weight of the aqueous dispersion of 0.02% to 20% ([0001], [0008], [0017]-[0022]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.02% to 20%. 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 at least one filler in a proportion by mass based on the dry weight of the aqueous dispersion. Acar discloses the aqueous dispersion composition as discussed above for coating a textile reinforcing material which provides a still further improved bonding between a strengthening member and an elastomeric compound, and which at the same time is easy to handle and allows the treated textile reinforcing materials to be stored over a long period of time, wherein the specific combination of components of the claimed aqueous dipping composition enables a multitude of chemical reactions by which the textile reinforcing material undergoes activation which leads to a further improved bonding between the textile reinforcing material and an elastomeric compound as compared to the dipping compositions of the prior art, wherein it has surprisingly been found that the storage stability of a textile reinforcing material treated with the claimed composition is improved as compared to the RF-free dipping compositions of the prior art, and wherein the aforementioned aqueous dipping composition is easy to handle and can be used for a broad variety of textile reinforcing materials ([0006]-[0009]). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to further modify Ikeda in order to provide the aqueous dispersion comprises at least one filler in a proportion by mass based on the dry weight of the aqueous dispersion in the aforementioned ranges as is generally known in the substantially similar art as taught by Acar, and for the advantages discussed above as taught by Acar.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 10, 13-15, and 24-25 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.
Applicant's arguments filed 04/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 6-7 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that the amended independent claim recites structural material properties and thereby cannot be characterized as intended use. The examiner notes this argument is moot in view of the newly cited references teaching the newly added claim limitations as discussed above, and further notes that intended use is no longer relied upon in the rejection above in view of the additional claim limitations.
On page 7 of the Remarks, Applicant argues Acar does not teach the rubberization mixture of the amended claim because “provides a laundry list of rubber latex types” but “[b]rominated copolymers of isobutylene and para-methylstyrene are absent from Acar’s disclosure entirely.” Applicant further argues “there is no motivation to substitute the claimed rubber in the claimed amount starting from the teachings of Acar.”
Firstly, the examiner notes that the claimed rubber latex, which is also disclosed in Acar, is comprised in the aqueous dispersion and not the rubberization mixture. Secondly, as discussed in the detailed rejection above, Acar discloses preferable examples for the composition of the rubberization mixture, but also discloses that it can be any suitable rubberization mixture, which leaves it open to modification. Finally, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). The examiner refers to the detailed rejection above as to the motivations and advantages for modifying Acar in view of the newly cited references having a rubberization mixture composition that satisfies the claim limitations.
On pages 7-8 of the Remarks, Applicant argues Acar does not teach the claimed low-black, visible-light-transmissive vulcanized rubberization. Applicant argues that Acar permits colorants in the aqueous dipping composition, but does not discuss a vulcanized rubberization layer through which the textile remains visible from outside. Applicant also argues that Acar’s preferred rubberization mixture has substantial carbon black filler loading and diene-rubber emphasis and does not teach the mixture having less than 1 phr of black colorants as claimed.
As discussed above, Acar in view of the newly cited references discloses providing textiles with an aqueous dispersion and a rubberization mixture, wherein the rubberization mixture may be modified for the advantages as discussed in the detailed rejection above. Acar’s preferable examples for the rubberization mixture does not limit it to just those compositions, especially given that Acar also discloses any suitable rubberization material may be used. Moreover, the newly cited references in the tire art are considered to be suitable rubberization materials with particular advantages and motivations as discussed above. Additionally, the examiner notes that Acar discloses the “rubberizing mixture preferably further comprises at least one filler selected from the group consisting of carbon black, silica and combinations thereof” ([0054]). In other words, carbon black is not a required filler in the rubberization mixture, but merely an exemplary filler, wherein silica may be used instead.
On page 8 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that Ikeda teaches an adhesion composition and bonding method, but not the claimed rubberization mixture composition.
The examiner again refers to the detailed rejection above as to the motivations and advantages of modifying Ikeda in view of the newly cited references to satisfy the claim limitations. In particular, Ikeda discloses preferable examples for the composition of the rubberization mixture, but also discloses that the rubber ingredients are not particularly restricted, which leaves it open to modification.
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