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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 6, 2026 has been entered.
Claims 11-20, 23, and 24 are amended and pending.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 12-16, 18-20 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN 107652489) in view of Steiner et al. (US 2021/0032442). For convenience, the citations below for Wang et al. are taken from an English language machine translation included herewith.
Regarding claims 12, 14-16, 20, and 23, Wang et al. teaches a low-zinc rubber composition for a tire tread (Page 1, line 4) comprising 100 parts by weight of a rubber component, 1 to 10 parts by weight of a zinc fatty acid compound (zinc salt), 1 to 10 parts by weight of rare earth metal fatty acid compound, 0.5 to 10 parts by weight of sulfur (vulcanizing agent), 0.5 to 5 parts by weight of a vulcanization accelerator, 40 to 130 parts by weight of silica (reinforcing filler), and 0 to 110 parts by weight of carbon black (Page 2, lines 21-26). The rubber component can be 100 parts by weight of a styrene butadiene rubber (Page 2, lines 27-28). The zinc fatty acid compound can be zinc neodecanoate (Page 2, lines 34-35), which has the structure of
PNG
media_image1.png
276
436
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein in the formula in claim 20, R2 and R3 are hydrogen atoms, and R1 is a branched C8 alkyl group. Neodecanoic acid is the same compound as claimed 7,7-dimethyloctanoic acid. The composition also comprises from 10 to 40 parts by weight of process oil and may further contain a resin/plasticizer (Page 3, lines 27-38).
Wang et al. does not teach that the composition comprises a resin in an amount wherein the combination of the resin and the oil is 50 to 100 parts by weight. However, Steiner et al. teaches a rubber composition for a tire tread comprising 100 parts by weight of a styrene butadiene rubber and from 20 to 80 parts by weight of a hydrocarbon resin (¶13). This amount of resin, when combined with the process oil of Wang et al., provides a combined range of 30 to 120 parts by weight, which overlaps with the claimed range. Wang et al. and Steiner et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor as that of the instant invention, namely that of styrene butadiene rubber compositions for tire treads. At the time of the filing of the instant invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to add from 20 to 80 parts by weight of a hydrocarbon resin, as taught by Steiner et al., to the composition, as taught by Wang et al., and would have been motivated to do so in order to ensure proper processing of the composition
Regarding claim 13, Wang et al. does not teach a zinc salt wherein one of the alkyl chains represented by R1, R2 and R3 comprises from 2 to 6 carbon atoms, and the other two alkyl chains represented by R1, R2 and R3 comprise from 1 to 3 carbon atoms. However, compounds which are position isomers (compounds having the same radicals in physically different positions on the same nucleus) or homologs (compounds differing regularly by the successive addition of the same chemical group, e.g., by -CH2- groups) are generally of sufficiently close structural similarity that there is a presumed expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. In re Wilder, 563 F.2d 457, 195 USPQ 426 (CCPA 1977). MPEP 2144.09 II. The fatty acid of neodecanoic acid (7,7-dimethyloctanoic acid) is a position isomer of 2,2-dimethyloctanoic acid, wherein the two methyl groups move from the 7 position to the 2 position in the compound. This modification provides a compound wherein R1 comprises 6 carbon atoms and R2 and R3 each comprise 1 carbon atom. At the time of the filing of the instant invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use a compound such as 2,2-dimethyloctanoic acid to form the zinc salt, and would have been motivated to do so because it is a position isomer of 7,7-dimethyloctanoic acid and one would expect them to have similar properties. Additionally, there is no evidence on the record to show that they don’t possess similar properties.
Regarding claims 18 and 19, these claims further define optional components of the composition as the amount of isoprene rubber and/or butadiene rubber can be 0.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN 107652489) in view of Steiner et al. (US 2021/0032442) as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Meuret et al. (US 2010/0012248). For convenience, the citations below for Wang et al. are taken from an English language machine translation included herewith.
Regarding claim 11, Wang et al. and Steiner et al. teach the composition of claim 20 as set forth above. Wang et al. does not teach that the tire comprises a carcass structure with opposite side edges associated with respective bead structures; a belt structure applied in a radially external position with respect to the carcass structure; and a tread band applied in a radially external position with respect to the carcass structure, the belt structure, or both. However, Meuret et al. teaches a tire comprising a carcass structure having opposite lateral edges associated with respective bead structures, a belt structure applied in a radially external position with respect to the carcass structure; and a tread band radially superimposed on said belt structure (¶27). Wang et al. and Meuret et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor as that of the instant invention, namely that of tires comprising styrene butadiene rubber and fillers used for tire treads. At the time of the filing of the instant invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the tread rubber composition to form the tread of a tire, as taught by Wang et al., and use the tire tread as part of the overall tire construction, as taught by Meuret et al., and would have been motivated to do so because the claimed tire construction is standard for a pneumatic tire and one of ordinary skill in the art would know to form a tire in this way.
Claims 17 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN 107652489) in view of Steiner et al. (US 2021/0032442) as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Aurisicchio et al. (US 2023/0192999). For convenience, the citations below for Wang et al. are taken from an English language machine translation included herewith.
Regarding claims 17 and 24, Wang et al. and Steiner et al. teach the composition of claim 20 as set forth above. Wang et al. does not teach that the styrene butadiene rubber of the composition has a styrene content of 20% to 45% and a vinyl bond content of 15% to 65%. However, Aurisicchio et al. teaches a rubber composition for tire treads comprising a styrene butadiene rubber with a styrene content of from 10% to 30% by weight and a vinyl content of 50% to 75% by weight (¶122). Wang et al. and Aurisicchio et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor as that of the instant invention, namely that of rubber compositions for tire treads comprising styrene butadiene rubber. At the time of the filing of the instant invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use a styrene butadiene with a styrene content of 10% to 30% and a vinyl content of 50% to 75%, as taught by Aurisicchio et al., in the rubber composition, as taught by Wang et al., and would have been motivated to do so because Aurisicchio et al. teaches that these amounts of styrene and vinyl content within the styrene butadiene rubber are suitable for use in rubber compositions for tire treads/parts.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 11-20, 23, and 24 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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELA C SCOTT whose telephone number is (571)270-3303. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30-5:00, 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, Mark Eashoo can be reached at 571-272-1197. 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.
/ANGELA C SCOTT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767