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 § 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 5-11 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.
Regarding claim 5-11, the oxygen content is given in mol%, however, the examples in the specification are given in at% and there appears to be no teachings in the specification to define the relationship between mol% and at%. The examiner assumes these units are equivalent and interchangeable. Clarification and/or confirmation of this is requested.
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.
Claim(s) 1-14 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vautard (WO 2019/132866) in view of Mehlem (WO 2011/123406).
Regarding claims 1-4, Vautard teaches a rubber composition ([0002]) comprising:
an elastomer such as polybutadiene ([0037}) or styrene butadiene copolymers ([0041])
a reduced graphene oxide (Abstract)
and a crosslinking system ([0045])
Vautard teaches that the elastomers can be functionalized ([0036]), however fails to teach the tin-functionalization.
Mehlem teaches a rubber composition (Abstract) which has tin functionalized diene rubbers (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the elastomers of Vautard have the tin functionalization as taught by Mehlem. One would have been motivated to do so in order to receive the expected benefit of improving tread wear and reduced rolling resistance (Mehlem, [0014]).
Regarding claims 5-14, Vautard teaches that the reduced graphene oxide has a surface area of at least 700 m2/g and an oxygen content of no more that 6 % (Abstract).
Regarding claim 16, Vautard teaches that the styrene-butadiene rubber is obtained by solvent polymerization ([0036]).
Regarding claim 17, Vautard teaches a tire made from the rubber composition of claim 1 ([0005]).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vautard (WO 2019/132866) in view of Mehlem (WO 2011/123406) and Halasa et al (US 2010/0206443).
The discussion regarding Vautard and Mehlem in paragraph 5 above is incorporated here by reference.
Regarding claim 15, Vautard fails to teach the number average molecular weight.
Halasa teaches a styrene-butadiene rubber ([0015]) with a number average molecular weight of 100,000 to 475,000 ([0036]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention have the SBR of Vautard have the molecular weight as taught by Halasa. One would have been motivated to use an appropriate SBR rubber for use in tire applications with good wear resistance and low rolling resistance (Halasa, [0010]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DORIS L LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-3872. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am - 5 pm.
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.
DORIS L. LEE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1764
/DORIS L LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights