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 .
Status of Application
Claims 1-5 are pending and presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
1. Claim(s) 1, 2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ogawa et al. (JP 2018 145239, of which reference is made to the provided English translation).
Regarding claims 1, 2 and 4, Ogawa teaches a rubber composition for a tire (abstract) comprising: 100 parts of a diene rubber which comprises 70 parts of natural rubber, which is an isoprene rubber, and 30 parts of a modified styrene-butadiene rubber having a glass transition temperature of -85 ºC (Table 1, Example 3, page 16 and Specific Copolymer 2, page 15); 40 parts silica (Table 1, Example 3); 2.4 parts silane coupling agent (Table 1, Example 3, and this correlates to 6% with respect to the amount of silica); 3 parts zinc oxide (Table 1, Example 3, and this correlates to 7.5% with respect to the amount of silica); and carbon black in an amount of 10% with respect 100 parts of diene rubber (Table 1, Example 3), and wherein the carbon black has a N2SA of 119 m2/g (page 16). Ogawa teaches all the limitations of claims 1, 2 and 4; therefore, Ogawa anticipates the claims.
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.
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.
2. Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa in view of Yonemoto et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 9765202).
Regarding claim 3, Ogawa anticipates claim 1, but fails to teach the inclusion of a glycerin fatty acid ester in an amount as claimed. However, Yonemoto teaches including glycerin fatty acid ester in rubber compositions that include silica (abstract) for use in tires (column 14, lines 32-44). Yonemoto further teaches that a glycerin fatty acid triester is present in 1.25% with respect to the silica in the rubber composition (see Table 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ogawa’s rubber composition by including a glycerin fatty acid ester in the amount as claimed as disclosed by Yonemoto. One would have been motivated to make this modification as Yonemoto teaches that the inclusion of the glycerin fatty acid ester compounds provides a rubber composition with improved dispersibility of the silica and enhances processability, suppresses rubber yellow and inhibits shrinkage (column 4, lines 63-67).
3. Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa in view of Koda et al. (U.S. PGPUB No. 2020/0332090).
Regarding claim 5, Ogawa anticipates claim 1, but fails to teach the inclusion of a modified polybutadiene rubber in an amount as claimed. However, Koda teaches including a modified polybutadiene rubber in an amount of 6% with respect to 100% of the diene rubber which includes natural rubber (Table 2 and 0188-0189). Koda teaches these rubber compositions for use as heavy-duty tire rubber compositions (abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ogawa’s rubber composition by including a modified polybutadiene rubber in an amount as claimed as disclosed by Koda. One would have been motivated to make this modification as Koda teaches that the inclusion of this modified polybutadiene rubber provides improved low heat generation property to the rubber composition (0209).
Conclusion
Claims 1-5 are pending.
Claims 1-5 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT S WALTERS JR whose telephone number is (571)270-5351. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at 571-272-1295. 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.
/ROBERT S WALTERS JR/
July 13, 2026Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights