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 .
Preliminary amendment filed 4/24/2024 is made of record. Claims 16-17 are amended; and claims 1-20 are currently pending in the application.
Election/Restriction
REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions:
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
(1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or
(2) A product and a process of use of said product; or
(3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or
(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or
(5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c).
Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372.
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted.
Group I, claim(s) 1-15, drawn to block copolymer.
Group II, claim(s) 16-20, drawn to asphalt composition.
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons: Groups I and II lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of a block copolymer (P) that is a hydrogenated product of a block copolymer comprising a polymer block (A) mainly composed of a vinyl aromatic monomer unit and a polymer block (B) mainly composed of a conjugated diene monomer unit, the block copolymer (P) satisfying the following conditions (1) and (2): (1) a 5% by mass toluene solution viscosity at 25°C is 5 mPa-s or more and 45 mPa-s or less, (2) the block copolymer (P) comprises a functional group, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Hata et al EP 3 875 491 A2). Specifically, Hata et al teach in example 1 (Table 1, page 26), a block copolymer comprising first stage polymer comprising styrene (i.e., block A of present claims), and second stage polymer comprising butadiene (i.e., block B of present claims) and is modified with a modifying agent (i.e., functional group in present claims). Block copolymer of example 1 has a 5% by mass toluene solution viscosity of 10.3 (Table 7, page 32). It is preferable to add one functional group to a partially hydrogenated block copolymer (paragraph 0190).
During a telephone conversation with Robert Smyth on 8/10/2026 a provisional election was made WITHOUT traverse to prosecute the invention of group I, claims 1-15. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 5 recites “conjugated diene monomer is 9% by mass”. For consistency within the claims, applicant is advised to rephrase it as “conjugated diene monomer unit is 9% by mass”. Appropriate correction and/or clarification are required.
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 4-5, 8, 11 and 14-15 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.
Claims 4 (lines 2-3), 14 (lines 4-5) and 15 (lines 3-4) recite “mass proportion (TS) of the vinyl aromatic monomer unit is 20% by mass or more and 60% by mass or less”, “mass proportion (TS) of the vinyl aromatic monomer unit is 30% by mass or more and 60% by mass or less” and “mass proportion (TS) of the vinyl aromatic monomer unit is 30% by mass or more and 60% by mass or less”, respectively. Given that there are three different polymers recited in claim 1 (i.e., block copolymer (P), polymer block (A) and polymer block (B)), basis of the mass proportion of vinyl aromatic monomer is not clear. Hence, metes and bounds of present claim cannot be ascertained by one of ordinary skill in art prior to the filing of present application. For examination purposes, Examiner interprets the mass% to be based on block copolymer (P).
Claim 5 recites “vinyl bond content derived from the conjugated diene monomer is 9% by mass or more and 50% by mass or less”. Given that there are three different polymers recited in claim 1 (i.e., block copolymer (P), polymer block (A) and polymer block (B)), basis of the mass percent of vinyl bond content is not clear. Hence, metes and bounds of present claim cannot be ascertained by one of ordinary skill in art prior to the filing of present application. For examination purposes, Examiner interprets the mass% to be based on block copolymer (P).
Claim 8 recites “a weight average molecular weight is 50,000 or more and 5000,000 or less”. Given that there are three different polymers recited in claim 1 (i.e., block copolymer (P), polymer block (A) and polymer block (B)), basis of the weight average molecular weight is not clear. Hence, metes and bounds of present claim cannot be ascertained by one of ordinary skill in art prior to the filing of present application. For examination purposes, Examiner interprets the weight average molecular weight to be that of block copolymer (P).
Claim 11 recites “wherein when 4 parts by mass of the block copolymer (P) and 96 parts by mass of asphalt in which in composition analysis … separability … is 50C or less”. It is not clear from the recitation separability of which component is 50C or less”. Hence, metes and bounds of present claim cannot be ascertained by one of ordinary skill in art prior to the filing of present application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 13 recites “hydrogenation rate of a double bond in the conjugated diene monomer unit is 95 mol% or less” and fails to further limit the scope of independent claim 1 on which it is dependent. Specifically, claim 1 requires hydrogenated product while 95 mol% or less in claim 13 includes 0% rendering it non-hydrogenated. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hata et al (EP 3 875 491 A2).
Regarding claim 1, Hata et al teach in example 1 (Table 1, page 26), a block copolymer (i.e., reads on block copolymer P in present claim 1) comprising first stage polymer comprising styrene (i.e., reads on polymer block A mainly composed of styrene in present claim 1), and second stage polymer comprising 6080 g of butadiene and 320 g of styrene (i.e., reads on polymer block B mainly composed of vinyl aromatic monomer in present claim 1). Block copolymer of example 1 has a 5% by mass toluene solution viscosity of 10.3 mPa.s (Table 7, page 32) which reads on toluene solution viscosity in present claim 1. It is preferable to add one functional group to a partially hydrogenated block copolymer (paragraph 0190) which reads on hydrogenated product of a block copolymer in present claim 1, and block copolymer comprises functional group in present claim 1.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, see example 14 (Table 8, page 33), wherein the block copolymer has nitrogen content of 210 ppm (i.e., reads on nitrogen content in present claim 2) and silicon content of 210 ppm (i.e., reads on the silicon content in present claim 3).
Regarding claim 4, see example 1 (Table 7, page 32) wherein TS mass% is 24.9 (i.e., reads on mass proportion of vinyl aromatic monomer in present claim 4). TS is mass proportion of vinyl aromatic monomer unit (paragraph 0011).
Regarding claim 5, see example 1 (Table 1, page 32) wherein vinyl bond content mass% is 11.3 (i.e., reads on vinyl bond content in present claim 5).
Regarding claim 6, Hata et al teach that mass proportion (BS) of polymer block (a) calculated by formula (I) (i.e., (% by mass of polymer block (a) = (mass of polymer block (a) component) / mass of block copolymer (P)) * 100) is 15% by mass or more and 35% by mass or less (paragraph 0011).
Regarding claim 7, see example 1, wherein RS % by mass is 6.7 (Table 7, page 32) which reads on the mass proportion (RS) of vinyl aromatic monomer in the polymer block (C) in present claim 7. The block copolymer in second stage comprises styrene and conjugated diene monomer (Table 1, page 26) which reads on polymer block (C) in present claim 7. RS = (TS-BS)/(100-BS) * 100. BS is the mass proportion of polymer block (a), and TS is mass proportion of vinyl aromatic monomer unit based on the total amount of the block copolymer A (paragraph 0047).
Regarding claim 8, block copolymer has a molecular weight of 130,000 or less (paragraph 0011).
Regarding claims 9 and 10, see example 13, wherein the block polymer is modified with modifying agent L (Table 2, page 27). In the modifying agents in Tables, L is 2,2-dimethoxy-1-(3-trimethoxysilylpropyl)-1-aza-2-silacyclopentane (paragraph 0303) which reads on block copolymer comprises an alkoxysilyl group and amino group in present claim 9; and reads on polymer chain is attached to a structure represented by formula 2 wherein R4 = C1 alkyl group, q = 2 and r = 3, R5 is an alkylene group having 3 carbon atoms, R6 is an alkylene group having 3 carbon atoms in present claim 10.
Regarding claim 11, given that block copolymer, of present invention, is anticipated by the teachings in Hata et al, it is the Office’s position that when 4 parts by mass of block copolymer (P) is mixed with asphalt, it inherently exhibits the separability of 50C or less. Case law holds that a material and its properties are inseparable. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 12, Hata et al teach that block copolymer is partially hydrogenated (paragraph 0190) which reads on less than 95 mol% in present claim 1.
Claims 1, 4, 6 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Flood et al (US 2019/0292361 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Flood et al teach hydrogenated styrene block copolymer (abstract) which reads on hydrogenated block copolymer in present claim 1. See example 1, wherein the hydrogenated block copolymer is formed by first polymerizing styrene until completion (i.e., reads on polymer block A mainly composed of vinyl aromatic monomer unit in present claim 1) and then polymerizing butadiene (i.e., reads on the polymer block B mainly composed of a conjugated diene monomer unit in present claim 1). Following polymerization of the majority of the butadiene coupling reaction was allowed to proceed with MTMS (i.e., methyl trimethoxy silane, see paragraph 0024) which reads on block copolymer (P) comprises a functional group in present claim 1 (paragraph 0067). The hydrogenated block copolymer has a toluene solution viscosity (at 25 wt% and 250C) of greater than 10 cP or less than 80 cP (paragraph 0057) which is equivalent to 10 mPa.s or less than 80 MPa.s. It is the Office’s position that at lower concentration of 5% by mass toluene solution viscosity of block copolymer, of Flood et al, would inherently fall within the presently claimed range of 5 mPa.s or more and 45 mPa.s. Case law holds that a material and its properties are inseparable. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 4, see example 1 (Table 1, paragraph 0077) wherein the polystyrene content is 36.5 wt% (i.e., reads on the mass proportion of vinyl aromatic monomer unit in present claim 4).
Regarding claim 6, see example 1 (Table 1, paragraph 0077) wherein the polystyrene content is 36.5 wt%. The polystyrene content refers to % weight of polymerized styrene in the block copolymer divided by the total molecular weight of the block copolymer (paragraph 0011).
Regarding claim 12-13, Flood et al teach that hydrogenation may be carried out under such conditions that at least 80% of the conjugated diene double bonds are reduced (paragraph 0037) which reads on hydrogenation rate of a double bond in the conjugated diene monomer unit in present claims 12 and 13.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-13 and 15 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 Shiromoto (JP 2017-025141 A).
It is noted that JP 2017-025141 A is in Japanese. A copy of the machine translation into English is provided with this Office action. All line/paragraph citations in the body of rejection below are to the English translation unless explicitly stated.
Regarding claim 1, Shiromoto discloses a block copolymer (i.e., reads on block copolymer in present claim 1) having polymer blocks A1 and A2 which mainly contain a vinyl aromatic monomer unit (i.e., reads on polymer block A mainly composed of a vinyl aromatic monomer unit in present claim 1) and a copolymer block B which contains a conjugated diene monomer unit and a vinyl aromatic monomer unit (overview). See example Y-8, wherein amount of butadiene added in the second step was 62 parts by mass and the amount of styrene monomers added in the second step was 19 parts by mass (i.e., reads on polymer block B mainly composed of conjugated diene monomer unit in present claim 1). After the 3rd step, 1,3-dimethyl-2-imidazolidinone was added as a modifying agent (paragraph 0173) which reads on block copolymer comprises a functional group as in present claim 1. The content of hydrogenation ratio of double bonds in the conjugated diene monomer unit is 56 mol% (paragraph 0174) which reads on hydrogenated block copolymer in present claim 1.
Shiromoto fails to disclose the toluene solution viscosity of the block copolymer.
However, given that hydrogenated block copolymer, of Shiromoto, comprises polymer block A mainly comprising aromatic vinyl monomer, polymer block B mainly comprising conjugated diene monomer unit, and the block copolymer is modified with a modifying agent, and has weight average molecular weight of 220,000 (see example Y-8, paragraph 0174) falling within the claimed range (see present claim 8), it is the Office’s position that block copolymer, of Shiromoto, inherently has a 5% by mass toluene solution viscosity at 250C of 5 mPa.s or more and 45 mPa.s or less. Case law holds that a material and its properties are inseparable. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
In light of the above, it is clear that Shiromoto anticipates the presently claimed toluene solution viscosity.
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one skilled in art prior to the filing of present application to prepare a block copolymer based on the teachings in general disclosure, of Shiromoto, in the same field of endeavor, to arrive at the presently claimed block copolymer having a 5% by mass toluene solution viscosity at 250C of 5 mPa.s or more and 45 mPa.s or less, absent evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claim 2, see example Y-8, wherein n-butyl lithium is used in amounts of 0.050 parts by mass and 1,3-dimethyl-2-imidazolidinone is added as a modifying agent in an amount of 0.70 mol relative to 1 mol of the n-butyl lithium (paragraph 0173). It is noted that amount of 1,3-dimethyl-2-imidazolidinone in example Y-8 is calculated to be about 0.062 parts by mass and hence a nitrogen content of 150 ppm (i.e., reads on the nitrogen content in present claim 2).
Regarding claim 4, see example Y-8, wherein the content of vinyl aromatic monomer unit of the block copolymer is 38% by mass (paragraph 0174) which reads on the mass proportion of vinyl aromatic monomer unit in present claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, see example Y-12, wherein the vinyl content is 49 mol% (paragraphs 0181-0182) which is equivalent to about 13% by mass and reads on vinyl bond content in present claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, see example Y-8, wherein the content (BS) of the block mainly containing the vinyl aromatic monomer is 19% by mass (paragraph 0174) which reads on mass proportion of block A in present claim 6. BS = total content of polymer blocks A1 and A2 composed mainly of vinyl aromatic monomer in the block copolymer Y relative to the total mass of the clock copolymer Y (paragraph 0037).
Regarding claim 7, RS (% by mass) = (TS-BS)/(100-BS) * 100 wherein RS = content of vinyl aromatic monomer unit in the polymer block B, TS = content of vinyl aromatic monomer unit in block copolymer Y, BS = content of vinyl aromatic monomer in blocks A1 and A2 (paragraph 0039) which reads on mass proportion of polymer block A in present claim 7. See example Y-8, wherein in second step butadiene and styrene are added (i.e., reads on polymer block B is polymer block C comprising a vinyl aromatic monomer unit and a conjugated diene monomer unit in present claim 7), TS = 38% by mass, BS = 19% by mass (paragraphs 0173-0174), and RS is calculated to be about 23% by mass (i.e., reads on the RS in present claim 7).
Regarding claim 8, see example Y-8, wherein the weight average molecular weight of block copolymer is 220,000 (paragraph 0174).
Regarding claim 9, examples of terminator having a functional group include a nitrogen-containing group such as tetraglycidyl-m-xylenediamine, tetraglycicyl-1,3-bisamino methylcyclohexane, tetraglycidyldiaminodiphenylmehane (paragraph 0075) which reads on block copolymer comprises an amino group in present claim 9.
Regarding claim 11, given that block copolymer, of present invention, is anticipated and obvious based on the teachings in Shiromoto, it is the Office’s position that when 4 parts by mass of block copolymer (P) is mixed with asphalt, it inherently exhibits the separability of 50C or less. Case law holds that a material and its properties are inseparable. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claims 12 and 13, see example Y-8, wherein the hydrogenation ratio of double bonds in the conjugated diene monomer unit is 65 mol% (paragraph 0174).
Regarding claim 15, in addition to 22f, 22g and 22j, upper limit for the degree of hydrogenation of the double bonds is 95 mol% or less and lower limit is 10 mol% or more (paragraph 0034).
Claims 3 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shiromoto (JP 2017-025141 A).
The discussion with respect to Shiromoto in paragraph 22 above is incorporated here by reference. See
Shiromoto is silent with respect to silicon content.
However, Shiromoto in the general disclosure teach that block copolymer preferably has at least one functional group selected from the group consisting of amino group, amide group, silanol group and alkoxysilane group from the view point of the compatibility of the modified asphalt composition, the heat aging resistance during storage and mechanical strength of modified asphalt composition (paragraph 0055). Therefore, it is the Office’s position that functional group such as silanol and alkoxysilane and hence silicon content is a result-effective variable (MPEP 2144.5) since the amount used clearly affects the compatibility, heat aging resistance during storage and mechanical strength of modified asphalt composition. Hence, the choice of a particular silicon content (such as the silicon content in present claims) is a matter of routine experimentation and would have been well within the skill level of, and thus obvious to, one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shiromoto (JP 2017-025141 A) in view of Yamamura et al (JP 2013-082841 A).
The discussion with respect to Shiromoto et al in paragraph 22 above is incorporated here by reference.
Shiromoto is silent with respect to structures represented by formula 1 or 2.
However, Shiromoto in the general disclosure teach that inorganic fillers such as silica may be included in the modified asphalt composition (paragraphs 0095-0096). Additionally, Yamamura et al teach a modified conjugated diene-based copolymer having satisfactory dispersibility of silica based inorganic filler. Modified conjugated diene-based polymer has a functional group including one or more secondary amino groups and two or more silyl groups to which alkoxy group is bonded (overview). The modified conjugated diene-based polymer is represented by formula:
PNG
media_image1.png
172
452
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein P represents a conjugated diene-based polymer, R1 is a hydrocarbyl group having 1 to 12 carbon atoms, R8 and R9 represent an aliphatic hydrocarbyl group having 1 to 6 carbon atoms, R10 is a hydrocarbyl group having 1 to 20 carbon atoms, R3 is a hydrocarbyl group having 1 to 20 carbon atoms, and R4 represents a hydrocarbyl having 1 to 20 carbon atoms which contain Si, O or N and may be substituted with an organic group having no active hydrogen (paragraphs 0019-0021 and 0064-0065) which reads on the structure of formula 1 in present claim 10. The conjugated diene polymer may be a random or block copolymer (paragraph 0035). Therefore, in light of the teachings in Yamamura et al and given that a filler is added to the composition comprising the modified diene-based polymer it would have been obvious to one skilled in art prior to the filing of present application to include the functional group, of Yamamura et al, in the block copolymer, of Shiromoto, for above mentioned advantages.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARUNA P REDDY whose telephone number is (571)272-6566. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM M-F.
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.
/KARUNA P REDDY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights