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 .
1) 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.
2) 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.
3) Claims 26, 29-30 and 35 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.
In claim 25, the description of “10 to 80%” is ambiguous [by weight?]. In claim 25, line 3, it is suggested to change “10 to 80%” to --10 to 80%wt--.
Claim 29 is indefinite because this claim is dependent on canceled claim 1.
In claim 29 line 1, it is suggested to change “claim 1” to --claim 16--.
Claim 35 is indefinite because this claim is dependent on canceled claim 1.
In claim 35 line 1, it is suggested to change “claim 1” to --claim 16--.
4) The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
5) 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.
China 056
6) Claims 16-17, 22-23 and 29-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by China 056 (CN 112143056).
China 056 discloses a rubber composition for a tread of a tire comprising:
100 parts non-modified solution polymerized styrene butadiene rubber,
100 parts carbon black,
5 parts sulfur modified soybean oil,
37.5 parts filling oil.
See embodiment 3 of machine translation. China 056 teaches the filling oil is selected from straight chain hydrocarbon oil, naphthenic oil and aromatic hydrocarbon oil. See machine translation. Thus, China 056 teaches with sufficient specificity a rubber composition for a tire tread comprising a plasticizer comprising 5 parts sulfur modified soy bean oil (vegetable oil) and 37.5 parts naphthenic oil (petroleum based oil) [42.5 parts plasticizer with 12%wt sulfur modified soy bean oil (vegetable oil) and 88%wt naphthenic oil (petroleum based oil)]. The tire has very high dry ground grabbing performance [machine translation].
As to claims 16-17, 22-23 and 29-33, the claimed rubber composition, tread and tire are anticipated by China 056.
Thompson et al
7) Claims 16-18, 22-23, 25-26 and 29-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Thompson et al (US 2013/0096248).
Thompson et al discloses a rubber composition for a tread of a tire comprising:
36 parts polybutadiene rubber,
64 parts styrene butadiene rubber,
6.4 parts MES oil,
36 parts sunflower oil,
130 parts silica,
10 parts carbon black.
See rubber formulation F1 [TABLE 1, paragraphs 59-60]. Hence, Thompson et al discloses making a rubber composition for a tread of a tire made by adding sunflower oil (vegetable oil) and MES oil (petroleum based oil) into 36 parts polybutadiene rubber (36%wt) and 64 parts styrene butadiene rubber (64%wt) (rubber polymers) wherein the plasticizer comprising MES oil and sunflower oil is used in an amount of 42.4 parts (6.4 + 36 = 42.4). The tire has marked increase in wet and dry grip properties.
As to claims 16-18, 22-23, 25-26 and 29-33, the claimed rubber composition, tread, tire and method are anticipated by Thompson et al.
Lopitaux
8) Claims 16-17, 23, 25, 29-30 and 32-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lopitaux (US 2013/0345336).
Lopitaux discloses a rubber composition for a tread of a tire comprising:
diene rubber comprising a blend of
polybutadiene rubber and styrene butadiene rubber,
thermoplastic polyurethane block copolymer,
70 to 150 parts silica,
0.5 to 20 parts carbon black,
5 to 60 parts liquid plasticizer comprising
MES oil and vegetable oil (sunflower oil).
See paragraphs 8-15, 28-37, 41, 47, 63-73 and Table 1. Lopitaux discloses a composition C2 comprising:
80 parts styrene butadiene rubber,
20 parts thermoplastic polyurethane block copolymer,
110 parts silica,
4 parts carbon black (N234),
30 parts liquid plasticizer comprising sunflower oil and MES oil.
Hence, Lopitaux teaches with sufficient specificity making a rubber composition for tire tread by adding a liquid plasticizer (e.g. 30 parts) comprising sunflower oil (vegetable oil) and MES oil (petroleum based oil) into at least one rubber polymer (styrene butadiene rubber or a blend of styrene butadiene rubber and polybutadiene rubber). The tire has improved wet grip.
As to claims 16-17, 23, 25, 29-30 and 32-33, the claimed rubber composition, tire, tire tread and method are anticipated by Lopitaux.
9) Claims 24, 34 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lopitaux (US 2013/0345336).
As to claims 24, 34 and 35, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Lopitaux’s rubber composition such that the rubber composition comprises 5 to 50 phr of carbon black and 10 to 90 phr of silica [claim 24], 10 to 40 phr of carbon black selected from grade of N375, grade N220, grade 234 or grade N134 and 40 to 80 phr of silica [claim 34], 20 to 30 phr carbon black and 50 to 75 phr of silica [claim 35] since Lopitaux teaches using 70 to 150 parts (e.g. 70 parts) silica and
0.5 to 20 parts (e.g. 20 parts) carbon black (e.g. N234).
Korea 337
10) Claims 16-19, 21-23 and 25-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korea 337 (KR 2021-0003337) in view of Lopitaux (US 2013/0345336).
Korea 337 discloses a rubber composition for a tread of a tire comprising:
100 parts rubber such as
styrene butadiene rubber (SBR) and polybutadiene (BR),
40 to 100 parts filler such as silica and carbon black wherein
the carbon black has N2SA = 30-300 m2/g and DBP = 60 to 210 cc/100g,
5 to 50 parts epoxidized vegetable oil (e.g. epoxidized soybean oil),
0-150 parts softening agent (processing oil such as petroleum oil).
See machine translation. Korea 337 discloses an EXAMPLE 1 in which the rubber composition comprises:
80 parts styrene butadiene rubber (SBR),
20 parts polybutadiene rubber (BR),
60 parts carbon black,
20 parts process oil,
10 parts epoxidized soybean oil.
See TABLE 1. Korea 337 teaches that the process oil may be petroleum oil [machine translation]. The tire has improved ozone resistance, prevents cracks generated in grooves of the tread and prevents deterioration of marketability due to discoloration [machine translation]. Korea 337 is silent as to the process oil being naphthenic oil, TDAE oil or MES oil.
AS to claims 16, 19, 21-23 and 25-33, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Korea 337’s rubber composition for tire tread [claims 29, 30], which comprises epoxidized soybean oil (vegetable oil) [claims 19, 21, 27, 28], such that
the process oil (petroleum based oil) is naphthenic oil, TDAE oil or MES oil [claims 16, 25],
the process oil includes MES oil [claim 21],
the plasticizer is 50 to 99% by weight petroleum oil and 1-50% by weight vegetable oil based on the total weight of the plasticizer [claim 22],
the rubber composition comprises 5 to 80 phr plasticizer [claim 23],
the plasticizer is 60 to 90% by weight petroleum oil and 10-40% by weight vegetable oil based on the total weight of the plasticizer [claim 31],
the rubber composition comprises 20-60 phr plasticizer [claim 32],
the rubber composition comprises 30-44 phr plasticizer [claim 33]
wherein petroleum based oil (naphthenic oil, MES oil or TDAE oil ) and vegetable oil (epoxidized soybean oil) is added into the rubber polymers (styrene butadiene rubber and polybutadiene) since (1) Korea 337 teaches using softening agent (plasticizer) comprising epoxidized soybean oil (vegetable oil) and process oil (e.g. petroleum oil) in the rubber composition for tire tread, (2) Korea 337 discloses an example in which the rubber composition comprises 20 parts process oil and 10 parts epoxidized soybean oil (30 parts total plasticizer, 33%wt epoxidized soybean oil and 67% process oil) [EXAMPLE 1] and (3) Lopitaux, also directed to a rubber composition for tire tread, discloses that known liquid plasticizing agents (known process oils) include naphthenic oil, MES oil and TDAE oil [paragraph 70]; each of these oils being a petroleum based oil.
As to claims 16-18 and 25-26 [rubber polymer(s)], Korea 337 discloses using
80 parts styrene butadiene rubber (SBR) and 20 parts polybutadiene rubber (BR) in the rubber composition.
11) Claims 24 and 34-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korea 337 (KR 2021-0003337) in view of Lopitaux (US 2013/0345336) as applied above and further in view of Miyazaki (US 2012/0016056) and optionally Mark et al (Science and Technology of Rubber).
As to claims 24 and 34-35, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Korea 337’s rubber composition such that the rubber composition comprises 5 to 50 phr of carbon black and 10 to 90 phr of silica [claim 24], 10 to 40 phr of carbon black selected from grade of N375, grade N220, grade 234 or grade N134 and 40 to 80 phr of silica [claim 34], 20 to 30 phr carbon black and 50 to 75 phr of silica [claim 35] since (1) Korea 337 teaches that the rubber composition comprises 40 to 100 parts filler such as a mixture of silica and carbon black wherein the carbon black has N2SA = 30 to 300 m2/g and DBP = 60 to 210 cc/100g [machine translation], (2) Miyazaki teaches providing a rubber composition for a tire tread such that this composition comprises filler comprising 50 to 100 parts silica and 20 to 40 parts carbon black (45 to 95%wt of the filler is silica); the silica improving fuel economy and wet grip performance and the carbon black providing good reinforcement, ultraviolet degradation resistance and handling stability [paragraphs 43, 46, 52-53], (3) Miyazaki discloses an example rubber composition comprising 70 parts silica and 30 parts carbon black (N220) and optionally (3) Mark et al discloses carbon black N220 having DBP = 114 (cc/100g) and N2SA (Nitrogen absorption) = 119 (m2/g) [page 433].
Riddle et al
12) Claims 16-20 and 22-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Riddle et al (US 2020/0079935).
Riddle et al discloses a rubber composition for a tire tread comprising:
5 to 95 parts first diene elastomer
(e.g. styrene butadiene rubber and polybutadiene rubber),
5 to 50 parts second diene elastomer
(hydrogenerated styrene block copolymer),
50 to 200 parts filler (silica and carbon black),
0 to 25 parts resin,
0 to 35 parts plasticizer.
See paragraphs 6, 21-23, 25-26, 42-44, 47, 49, 56, 58, 65. Riddle teaches “Suitable plasticizers include, but are not limited to, aliphatic acid esters, hydrocarbon processing oils, tall oil pitch and modified tall oil pitch, and combinations thereof” [paragraph 42, emphasis added]. Riddle teaches “Suitable process oils include aromatic, paraffinic, naphthenic, and low PCA oils, such as MES, TDAE, and heavy naphthenic oils, and vegetable oils such as sunflower, soybean, and safflower oils” [paragraph 44, emphasis added]. Riddle discloses an example rubber composition for a tire tread comprising:
69.8 parts solution styrene butadiene rubber,
30 parts polybutadiene rubber,
10 parts SBC1 (hydrogenated styrene block copolymer),
80 parts silica,
5 parts carbon black,
23.7 parts TDAE oil.
See EXAMPLE 1, TABLE 1. The tire has improved wet grip, rolling resistance and dry handling [paragraph 65].
As to claims 16-20 and 22-33, the claimed rubber composition, tread, tire and method are anticipated by Riddle. IN ANY EVENT: As to claims 16-20 and 22-33, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make a rubber composition for a tire tread by adding pitch tall oil (vegetable oil) and TDAE oil (petroleum based oil) into rubber polymers (styrene butadiene rubber and polybutadiene rubber); there being 50 to 99% by weight of petroleum based oil and 1 to 50% by weight of vegetable oil based on the total weight of the plasticizer [claim 22], there being 5 to 80 phr of the plasticizer [claim 23], there being 60 to 90% by weight petroleum based oil and 10-40% by weight vegetable oil based on the total weight of the plasticizer [claim 31], there being 20 to 60 phr plasticizer [claim 32], there being 30 to 44 phr of the plasticizer [claim 33] since (1) Riddle et al discloses a rubber composition for a tire tread comprising:
5 to 95 parts first diene elastomer
(e.g. styrene butadiene rubber and polybutadiene rubber),
5 to 50 parts second diene elastomer
(hydrogenerated styrene block copolymer),
50 to 200 parts filler (silica and carbon black),
0 to 25 parts resin,
0 to 35 parts plasticizer.
wherein the tire has improved wet grip, rolling resistance and dry handling [paragraphs 6, 21-23, 25-26, 42-44, 47, 49, 56, 58, 65], (2) Riddle et al discloses an example rubber composition for a tire tread comprising:
69.8 parts solution styrene butadiene rubber,
30 parts polybutadiene rubber,
10 parts SBC1 (hydrogenated styrene block copolymer),
80 parts silica,
5 parts carbon black,
23.7 parts TDAE oil.
[EXAMPLE 12 TABLE 1] and (3) (A) Riddle teaches “Suitable plasticizers include, but are not limited to, aliphatic acid esters, hydrocarbon processing oils, tall oil pitch and modified tall oil pitch, and combinations thereof” [paragraph 42, emphasis added] and (B) Riddle teaches “Suitable process oils include aromatic, paraffinic, naphthenic, and low PCA oils, such as MES, TDAE, and heavy naphthenic oils, and vegetable oils such as sunflower, soybean, and safflower oils” [paragraph 44, emphasis added].
Hence, Riddle et al discloses using 0 to 35 parts (e.g. 35 parts) plasticizer in the rubber composition, Riddle et al discloses an example in which the rubber composition comprises 23.7 parts TDAE oil (plasticizer), Riddle et al teaches (a) the plasticizer may include a combination of plasticizers, (b) the plasticizer includes MES, TDAE and heavy naphthenic oils and (c) the plasticizer includes tall oil pitch (pitch tall oil). In view of these disclosures, Riddle et al teaches or at least renders obvious using a combination of TDAE (petroleum based oil) and pitch tall oil (vegetable oil) as claimed.
Remarks
13) The remaining references are of interest.
14) No claim is allowed.
15) Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN D MAKI whose telephone number is (571)272-1221. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30AM-6PM.
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 B Smith (Whatley) 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.
/STEVEN D MAKI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749
October 31, 2025