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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1-3, 5-8, 10, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori (JP 2004-256745, of record) and further in view of Tsuboi (JP 2009-24134, of record).
Mori is directed to a tire rubber composition (and associated tire) comprising a diene rubber (e.g. polyisoprene or SBR), 0.5-5 phr of a phenylenediamine antioxidant, and 1-20 phr of a void introducing agent (e.g. heat-expandable microcapsules) (Paragraphs 7, 11, 12, 20, 23, and 36). In such an instance, though, Mori fails to describe specific types of phenylene diamine antioxidants.
Tsuboi is similarly directed to a tire rubber composition. More particularly, Tsuboi teaches the specific use of N,N’-bis-(1,4-dimethylpentyl)-p phenylenediamine since it provides ozone protection in the substantial absence of waxes without staining. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use such an antioxidant in the tire rubber composition of Mori for the benefits detailed above.
Lastly, regarding claim 1, Mori teaches a ratio (void introducing agent/antioxidant) as small as 0.2 (1/5) and as large as 40 (20/0.5). This disclosure substantially encompasses the broad range of the claimed invention (99% of claimed range is encompassed by Mori). Absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select a ratio as claimed (lack of comparative examples with ratios less than 0.1 and greater than 10).
Regarding claims 3 and 6, R1 and R2 are saturated hydrocarbon groups (1,4-dimethylpentyl groups).
With respect to claim 13, as is conventional in the tire industry, a wide variety of additives are included in every tire rubber composition. This is consistent with the disclosure of Mori (Paragraph 44). Among the most common additives are waxes, especially in components exposed to the environment to prevent deterioration (e.g. sidewall, tread). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include a common wax in the exposed tire components of Mori. It is also noted that Tsuboi teaches a tire rubber compositions that is substantially free of waxes and such encompasses rubber compositions having a wax loading greater than 0 phr.
4. Claim(s) 1-3, 5-8, and 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanae (JP 9-132677, newly cited) and further in view of Tsuboi and Mori.
Kanae (Paragraphs 2, 7-11, and 33-43) is directed to a tire rubber composition comprising rubber (e.g. natural rubber), a phenylenediamine system (claimed antioxidant), a quinoline system, a wax, a plasticizer (e.g. phthalic acid- claimed organic acid), and a foaming agent or foaming auxiliary agent (claimed void introducing agent). In such an instance, though, Kanae fails to describe specific types of phenylene diamine antioxidants.
Tsuboi is similarly directed to a tire rubber composition. More particularly, Tsuboi teaches the specific use of N,N’-bis-(1,4-dimethylpentyl)-p phenylenediamine since it provides ozone protection in the substantial absence of waxes without staining. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use such an antioxidant in the tire rubber composition of Kanae for the benefits detailed above.
Lastly, regarding claim 1, the claimed mass ratio between the void introducing agent (foaming agent) and the antioxidant is consistent with that which is commonly used in similar tire rubber compositions, as evidenced by Mori (range in Mori can be as small as 0.2 and as large as 40). Additionally, Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed ratios (lack of comparative examples with ratio less than 0.1 and greater than 10).
Regarding claims 3 and 6, R1 and R2 are saturated hydrocarbon groups (1,4-dimethylpentyl groups).
With respect to claim 11, as detailed above, the rubber composition of Kanae can including multiple systems, including a quinoline system in combination with an phenylenediamine system. Also, Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed combination of materials (none of the comparative examples and inventive examples include a quinoline system).
As to claim 12, Kanae teaches the inclusion of phthalic acid and such is disclosed by Applicant as corresponding with an inventive acid.
Regarding claim 13, as detailed above, the rubber composition of Kanae can include a wax. Furthermore, Tsuboi teaches the specific use of an antioxidant in rubber compositions substantially free of wax and thus, the presence of small wax loadings (greater than 0 phr) is consistent with the modified tire rubber composition of Kanae.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant's arguments filed November 20, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that neither Mori nor Tsuboi teaches or suggests the mass ratio of a void-introducing agent to the amine-based antioxidant represented by the claimed general formula (1). It is emphasized that Mori does in fact teach a ratio as small as 2 and as large as 40 between a void-introducing agent and an amine-based antioxidant. A fair reading of Mori suggests that such a ratio would be applicable to any amine-based antioxidant, including that taught by Tsuboi.
Applicant argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have predicted that combining the specific antioxidant of formula (1) with a void-introducing agent at the claimed ratio would improve on-ice performance. It is initially noted that it is not required for a reference or combination of references to specifically identify a purported benefit disclosed by Applicant. In this case, Tsuboi provides motivation (reduced discoloration while maintaining ozone resistance) to specifically use an amine-based antioxidant in accordance to the claimed invention.
Conclusion
6. 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.
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN R FISCHER whose telephone number is (571)272-1215. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 5:30-2:00.
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 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.
Justin Fischer
/JUSTIN R FISCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749 December 5, 2025