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 § 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.
Claims 1 and 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Solomon (US Pat. 4,448,813).
Regarding claim 1, Solomon teaches an organic fiber cord treated with an adhesive composition that does not contain resorcin [2:60-61 and 6:36-51] with the adhesive composition comprising a rubber latex having unsaturated diene (vinyl pyridine latex formed from butadiene, styrene, and vinyl pyridine monomers is taught )[4:35-43], a compound containing an acrylamide structure having either or both of a cationic group and a carboxyl group (a copolymer of N-methylol (meth)acrylamide and a lower (meth)acrylic acid ester having from 4 to 5 carbon atoms is taught) [claim 3] and an aqueous compound having a thermal dissociative blocked isocyanate group (reversibly blocked polyisocyanate is taught) [claim 1].
Regarding claim 3, Solomon teaches the aqueous compound (C) having a thermal dissociative blocked isocyanate group (C-1) is water-dispersible [6:11-18] thermal dissociative blocked isocyanate compound comprising an addition product of polyisocyanate having an aromatic ring and a blocking agent having at least one active hydrogen group [5:16-19].
Regarding claim 4, Solomon teaches methylene-bis-(4-phenylisocyanate) as the water dispersible isocyanate compound which is also a block body of methylene diphenyl diisocyanate [claim 12].
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.
Claims 1-7, 10-11, 14 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakajima et al. (JP 2009/046783) as evidenced by Louis et al. (“TECHNOLOGIES FOR POLYMERIC CORD / RUBBER ADHESION IN TIRE APPLICATIONS”, Elastomer Technology and Engineering Faculty of Engineering Technology Enschede, The Netherlands Presented at the Fall 186th Technical Meeting of Rubber Division, ACS Nashville, Tennessee October 14-16, 2014).
Regarding claim 1, Nakajima et al. teaches an adhesive composition a rubber latex having unsaturated diene (vinylpyridine conjugated diene compound copolymer latex, styrene butadiene copolymer latex and acrylonitrile butadiene copolymer latex are taught) [Abstract and 0046 and Examples], a compound having an acrylamide structure with either or both of a cationic group and a carboxyl group (acrylamide-acrylic acid copolymer is taught) [0031] and an aqueous compound having a thermal dissociative blocked isocyanate [0035]. Further, Louis et al. teaches motivation why one of ordinary skill in the art would create a resorcin-free composition. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the motivation of Louis along with the teachings of Louis and Nakajima to provide a resorcin-free composition and arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2, the compound containing the acrylamide structure having either or both of the cationic group and the carboxyl group is a copolymer of (meth)acrylamide and a vinyl monomer containing a carboxyl group (acrylamide-acrylic acid copolymer is taught) [0031]. It is noted (d) is not required by the present claim language.
Regarding claims 3-4, Nakajima et al. teaches the aqueous compound having a thermal dissociative blocked isocyanate group is a water dispersible thermal dissociative blocked isocyanate compound comprising an addition product of polyisocyanate having an aromatic ring and a blocking agent having at least one active hydrogen group (methylene diphenyl diisocyanate is taught and further the blocking agent used in Elastron BN69 has at least one active hydrogen group) [0034-0035].
Regarding claim 5, the aqueous compound having a thermal dissociative blocked isocyanate groups is an aqueous urethane compound having a thermal dissociative blocked isocyanate group [0034 and 0038].
Regarding claim 6, the aqueous urethane compound having a (thermal dissociative blocked) isocyanate group is a reaction product obtained by mixing (α), (ß), (y) and (δ) and reacting them, where (α) is an organic polyisocyanate compound having 3 or more and 5 or less functional groups and having a number average molecular weight of 2,000 or less, (ß) is compound having 2 or more and 4 or less active hydrogen groups and having a number average molecular weight of 5,000 or less, (γ) is a thermal dissociative blocking agent, and (δ) is a compound having at least one active hydrogen group and at least one anionic, cationic, or nonionic hydrophilic group, and (α), (ß), (γ) and (δ) are mixed so that a mixing ratio of (α) is 40% by mass or more and 85% by mass or less, a mixing ratio of (ß) is 5% by mass or more and 35% by mass or less, a mixing ratio of (γ) is 5% by mass or more and 35% by mass or less, and a mixing ratio of (δ) is 5% by mass or more and 35% by mass or less with respect to the total amount of (α), (β), (γ) and (δ), and when a molecular weight of an isocyanate group (-NCO) is 42, a composition ratio of a (thermal dissociative blocked) isocyanate group in the reaction product is 0.5% by mass or more and 11% by mass or less [explicitly taught and stated in 0038-0043].
Regarding claim 7, Nakajima teaches an aqueous urethane compound having a (thermal dissociative blocked) isocyanate group is represented by the following the claimed general formula (1), where A is a residue of an organic polyisocyanate compound from which an active hydrogen group has been eliminated, X is a residue of a polyol compound having 2 or more and 4 or less hydroxyl groups and having a number average molecular weight of 5,000 or less from which an active hydrogen group has been eliminated, Y is a residue of a thermal dissociative blocking agent from which an active hydrogen group has been eliminated, Z is a residue of a compound having at least one active hydrogen group and at least one salt-producing group or hydrophilic polyether chain, from which an active hydrogen group has been eliminated, n is an integer of 2 or more and 4 or less, and p + m is an integer of 2 or more and 4 or less, where m ≥ 0.25 [this is explicitly stated and taught in 0039-0043].
Regarding claim 10, the polyvalent metal salt is a divalent or higher metal salt [0045].
Regarding claim 11, the polyvalent metal salt is a polyvalent metal salt inorganic filler or mordant [0045].
Regarding claim 12, Nakajima et al. teaches embodiments where the adhesive composition comprises no resorcin and therefore reads on claim 12 limitations [0034].
Regarding claims 13-14, an organic fiber (including a cord) obtained by twisting a plurality of filaments [0011-0012] is taught wherein a surface of the organic fiber is coated with an adhesive layer of the adhesive composition according to claim 1 [0012].
Regarding claim 17, The organic fiber is made of polyester resin (polyethylene terephthalate is taught) [0022].
Regarding claim 18, Nakajima et al. teaches an organic fiber rubber composite which is a composite of an organic fiber and rubber (rubberized is taught) wherein a surface of the organic fiber is coated with adhesive composition of claim 1 [claim 1].
Regarding claims 19-20, Nakajima et al. teaches a tire (or rubber article) using the organic fiber rubber composite of claim 18.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakajima et al. (JP 2009/046783) in view of Doisneau et al. (US Pat. 10,767,086).
Regarding claims 8-9, Nakajima et al. are silent regarding the claimed specifics of the polyphenol. However, Doisneau et al. teach using flavonoid (which is plant derived compound having a plurality of phenolic hydroxy groups in molecule because of environmental advantages, adhesion performance, and reactivity [4:60-67]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the flavonoid polyphenol of Doisneau et al. because of environmental advantages, adhesion performance, and reactivity and arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakajima et al. (JP 2009/046783) in view of Toki et al. (JP 2012/041646).
Regarding claim 15, Nakajima et al. teach the cord is obtained by twisting a plurality of filaments with fiber thickness in the claimed range (500-1400 dtex is taught). Nakajima et al. is silent regarding the claimed first and second twist. However, Toki teaches second twisting and first twisting of cord with the number of first twists in the claimed range and the number of second twists in the claimed range (40 T/10cm taught for both the first and second twists) in order to form a hybrid yarn with adequate mechanical properties including strength [0016 and Example 1]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed first and second twists of Toki in Nakajima et al. in order to form a hybrid yarn with adequate mechanical properties including strength and arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakajima et al. (JP 2009/046783) in view of Duke et al. (US Pat. 8,672,788).
Regarding claim 16, Nakajima et al. is silent regarding the amount of the adhesive. However, Duke et al. teach applying adhesive in the claimed range (1-10% is taught) for improved and desired adhesion in tires [7:17-19]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the adhesive amount taught by Duke et al. in Nakajima et al. for improved and desired adhesion in tires and arrive at the claimed invention.
Art Not Used But Relevant
PG Pub. 2018/0016425 teaches an adhesive composition for a cord in a tire with dissociative blocked isocyanate and rubber latex and acrylamide.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Solomon does not teach a resorcin-free composition. Solomon teaches an organic fiber cord treated with an adhesive composition that does not contain resorcin [2:60-61 and 6:36-51].
Applicant argues Nakajima does not teach the unsaturated diene and argues rubber latex H is optional. The taught rubber latex H is not a laundry list. But rather, Nakajima teaches rubber latex H is included at 18% or less [0048] and also teaches inclusion of rubber latex H in the examples.
Applicant argues the examples of Nakajima include resorcinol and that a resorcin-free composition is not taught. This is not the case. Just as Solomon teaches embodiments that are resorcin-free, Nakajima also teaches embodiments that are resorcin-free. Nakajima teaches resorcin-free composition in 0034.
Applicant argues motivation to combine Doisneau and Nakajima was not provided. The Office action stated and states above “It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the flavonoid polyphenol of Doisneau et al. because of environmental advantages, adhesion performance, and reactivity and arrive at the claimed invention.” The combination does not require removal of resorcin ad Nakajima teaches embodiments without resorcin and Nakajima teaches unsaturated diene.
Applicant argues Duke teaches RFL as an option among other alternative. Duke is not limited to particular embodiments. Duke teaches embodiments without RFL.
Applicant argues Toki and Tsubota teach RFL. Nakajima teaches alternative to RFL and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the teachings of Nakajima. Further, Louis et al. provides motivation to not use resorcin because of its environmental and health detriments.
Applicant is invited to amend the claims over the cited art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAWN MCKINNON whose telephone number is (571)272-6116. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday generally 8:00am-5:00pm 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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
/Shawn Mckinnon/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights