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
Claims 1 – 4, 7, 9, and 11 – 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 should be amended to recite “rubber selected from the group”;
Claim 1 should also be amended to recite “p-toluenesufonyl hydrazide; and”;
it is suggested Claim 2 be amended to recite “the of the weights of 4,4’-oxybis(benzenesulfonyl hydrazide) and p-toluenesulfonyl hydrazide to the weight of azodicarbonic acid diamide”;
it is suggested Claim 3 be amended to recite “the the weight of the solid rubber to the sum of the weights of 4,4’-oxybis(benzenesulfonyl hydrazide), p-toluenesulfonyl hydrazide, and azodicarbonic acid diamide”;
it is suggested Claim 4 be amended to recite “are each – 30”;
Claim 7 should be amended to recite “the weight ratio of styrene-butadiene to cis-1,4-polybutadiene”;
Claim 9 should be amended to recite the at least one processing oil comprises;
it is suggested Claim 11 be amended to recite “the of the weight to the weight
Claim 12 should be amended to recite “that
Claim 13 should be amended to recite “b) contacting the rubber composition applied to the first substrate with” and “c) curing the rubber composition
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 – 15 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.
Claim 1 sets forth 0.25 and 0.55 wt-% of 4,4’-oxybis(benzenesulfonyl hydrazide); 0.25 and 0.55 wt-% of p-toluenesulfonyl hydrazide; and 0.1 and 0.5 wt-% azodicarbonic acid diamide. It is unclear how the rubber composition can comprise two different amounts of each of these compounds simultaneously. For the purposes of further examination, Claim 1 will be interpreted as setting forth the rubber composition comprises between 0.25 and 0.55 wt-% of 4,4’-oxybis(benzenesulfonyl hydrazide); between 0.25 and 0.55 wt-% of p-toluenesulfonyl hydrazide; and between 0.1 and 0.5 wt-% azodicarbonic acid diamide.
As Claims 2 – 15 ultimately depend on Claim 1, they incorporate the subject matter thereof and are also therefore rejected under this statute.
Claim 2 is additionally rejected, as the recitation of two different weight ratio ranges renders the scope of the claim unclear. For the purposes of examination, Claim 2 will be interpreted as requiring only the broader weight ratio range of 1.5 to 6 be met.
Claim 3 is additionally rejected, as the recitation of multiple weight ratio ranges renders the scope of the claim unclear. For the purposes of examination, Claim 3 will be interpreted as requiring only the broader weight ratio range of 2 to 30 be met.
There is also a lack of antecedent basis for the solid rubber recited in each instance in Claims 3 – 5 and 11. It is unclear to which of the initially recited “at least one” solid rubber the claims refer. For the purposes of further examination, “solid rubber” in the aforementioned claims will be interpreted as referring to the at least one solid rubber.
Claim 5 is additionally rejected, as the recitation of two different weight ratio ranges renders the scope of the claim unclear. For the purposes of examination, Claim 5 will be interpreted as requiring only the broader weight ratio range of 20 – 100 be met.
Claim 7 sets forth a weight ratio between styrene-butadiene rubber and cis-1,4-butadiene. However, Claim 7 depends on Claim 6, which only requires one of these species of rubber be present. Consequently, for the purposes of examination, Claim 7 will be interpreted as setting forth the at least one solid rubber comprises both styrene-butadiene rubber and cis-1,4-butadiene, wherein the weight ratio of styrene-butadiene rubber to cis-1,4-butadiene is from 4:1 to 1:2.
There is also a lack of antecedent basis for the processing oil recited in each instance in Claims 10 and 11. It is unclear to which of the initially recited “at least one” processing oil the claims refer. For the purposes of further examination, “processing oil” in the aforementioned claims will be interpreted as referring to the at least one processing oil.
Claim 15 sets forth “using” the rubber composition. A claim is indefinite where it merely recites a use without any active, positive steps delimiting how this use is actually practiced (see MPEP 2173.05(q)). For the purposes of further examination, Claim 15 will be interpreted as simply setting forth bonding substrates with the rubber composition according to Claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 – 15 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art does not teach or suggest a rubber composition comprising all of the instantly claimed ingredients in the instantly claimed amounts as interpreted by the Office in the rejection of Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), including between 0.25 and 0.55 wt-% of 4,4’-oxybis(benzenesulfonyl hydrazide); between 0.25 and 0.55 wt-% of p-toluenesulfonyl hydrazide; and between 0.1 and 0.5 wt-% azodicarbonic acid diamide.
WO 2020/048902 to Eyholzer et al. (hereinafter Eyholzer) corresponds to the closest prior art. Eyholzer teaches a rubber composition comprising: at least one solid rubber selected from the group consisting of styrene-butadiene rubber, cis-1,4-polybutadiene, synthetic isoprene rubber, natural rubber, ethylene-propylene-diene rubber (EPDM), nitrile rubber, butyl rubber and acrylic rubber; a processing oil; at least one vulcanization system; at least one filler G; and at least one blowing agent (Page 2, Lines 23 – 33). Suitable blowing agents include 4,4’-oxybis(benzenesulfonyl hydrazide); p-toluenesulfonyl hydrazide; and azodicarbonamide (Page 7, Line 37 – Page 8, Line 2), which is alternatively referred to in the art as azodicarbonic acid diamide. The blowing agent is included in an amount of more preferably 0.2 to 0.6 weight percent, based on the total weight of the rubber composition (Page 8, Lines 16 – 19).
However, while Eyholzer envisions combinations of blowing agents may be used, Eyholzer does not teach an embodiment in which 4,4’-oxybis(benzenesulfonyl hydrazide); p-toluenesulfonyl hydrazide; and azodicarbonic acid diamide are provided. The specific selection, then, of between 0.25 and 0.55 wt-% of 4,4’-oxybis(benzenesulfonyl hydrazide); between 0.25 and 0.55 wt-% of p-toluenesulfonyl hydrazide; and between 0.1 and 0.5 wt-% azodicarbonic acid diamide based on the disclosure of Eyholzer would appear to be possible only through improper hindsight gleaned from applicant’s own disclosure. Additionally, no other prior art reference provides the necessary teaching or guidance to remedy the deficiencies of Eyholzer to arrive at the instantly claimed invention.
Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
The art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited references also discuss the use of 4,4’-oxybis(benzenesulfonyl hydrazide); p-toluenesulfonyl hydrazide; and azodicarbonic acid diamide as foaming agents in thermally expandable compositions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MELISSA RIOJA whose telephone number is (571)270-3305. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 am - 6:30 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, Arrie Lanee Reuther can be reached at (571)270-7026. 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.
/MELISSA A RIOJA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights