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 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) 1-3, 6- 13 and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kramer et al (US 2014/0171556) in view of Balnis (US 2015/0344679) with evidence provided by Ishikawa et al (US 4,518,733).
Regarding claims 1-3 and 13, Kramer teaches a coating rubber composition for tire reinforcing members (background of the invention) comprising: a rubber component ([0012]), a carbon black ([0014]), a cobalt compound ([0021]), and an antioxidant ([0023]). Kramer teaches that the carbon black is a N 326 carbon black ([0014]), which as evidenced by Ishikawa, has a DBP absorption of 50-80 ml/100g (col. 3, lines 60-68).
Kramer teaches that the cobalt compound can be cobalt stearate and that it can be used in the amount from 0.2 to 2 phr ([0021]). Cobalt stearate is 10.6% cobalt, and therefore, the amount of cobalt is present in the amount from 0.02 to 0.212 phr which overlaps the claimed range.
While Kramer teaches that an antioxidant can be incorporated into the composition ([0023]), however fails to teach the recited type and amount of the antioxidant.
Balnis teaches a rubber composition ([0011]) which incorporates 0.1 to 15 phr of an amine-based antioxidant such as 77PD ([0014]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the 77PD as taught by Balnis as the antioxidant of Kramer. One would have been motivated to do so in order to use an antioxidant to protect the rubber from oxidation (Balnis, [0014]).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Kramer teaches that the rubber is free of a thermoplastic resin (Table 1).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Kramer teaches that the composition can further contain resorcinol-formaldehyde resins ([0021] which are thermosetting resins.
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Kramer teaches that the rubber contains 0 to 15 phr of carbon black (Claim 1).
Regarding claims 9-10 and 19-20, Kramer teaches that the rubber is free from the recited components (Table 1).
Regarding claims 11-12, Kramer teaches a tire comprising a reinforcing member coated with the coating rubber composition according to claim 1 (Abstract). The tire is for heavy duty use (commercial) ([0027]).
Claim(s) 1 and 3-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirata et al (US 4,665,119) in view of Balnis (US 2015/0344679).
Regarding claims 1 and 3, Hirata teaches a coating rubber composition (col. 1) for tire reinforcing members comprising a rubber component (col. 2, lines 50-60), a carbon black (col. 4, lines 10-15), an antioxidant (col. 4, lines 15-20). The rubber composition comprises natural rubber and synthetic isoprene rubber (col. 8, examples) and, therefore, the composition contains 100% isoprene skeleton rubber. The content of cobalt is 0.05 to 0.7 phr (col. 3, lines 55-65).
While Hirata teaches that there can be an antioxidant in the composition, it fails to teach the type and the amount of the antioxidant.
Balnis teaches a rubber composition ([0011]) which incorporates 0.1 to 15 phr of an amine-based antioxidant such as 77PD ([0014]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the 77PD as taught by Balnis as the antioxidant of Hirata. One would have been motivated to do so in order to use an antioxidant to protect the rubber from oxidation (Balnis, [0014]).
Regarding claim 4, Hirata teaches that the rubber component contains 20 mass % of synthetic polyisoprene (col. 8, lines 50-60).
Regarding claim 5, Hirata teaches that the rubber composition is free of silica (col. 8, lines 50-60).
Regarding claim 6, Hirata teaches that the rubber composition is free of thermoplastic resins (col. 8, examples).
Regarding claim 7, Hirata teaches that the carbon black is present in the amount of 50 phr (col. 8, Examples).
Regarding claim 8, Hirata teaches that the composition is free from the recited compound (col. 8, Examples).
Claim(s) 2 and 14-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirata et al (US 4,665,119) in view of Balnis (US 2015/0344679) and Amiya et al (US 2020/0115532).
The discussion regarding Hirata and Balnis in paragraph 4 above is incorporated here reference.
Regarding claim 2, Hirata teaches that the composition contains a carbon black (col. 4, lines 10-20), however, fails to teach the DBP value of the carbon black.
Amiya teaches a rubber composition which incorporates a carbon black with a DBP value which ranges from 50 to 100 cm3/100g ([0037]).
One would have been motivated to do so in order to receive the expected benefit of using a carbon black which provides both reinforcing and flexibility properties which prevents cracking (Amiya, [0038]).
Regarding claim 14, Hirata teaches that the rubber component contains 20 mass % of synthetic polyisoprene (col. 8, lines 50-60).
Regarding claim 15, Hirata teaches that the rubber composition is free of silica (col. 8, lines 50-60).
Regarding claim 16, Hirata teaches that the rubber composition is free of thermoplastic resins (col. 8, examples).
Regarding claim 17, Hirata teaches that the carbon black is present in the amount of 50 phr (col. 8, Examples).
Regarding claim 18, Hirata teaches that the composition is free from the recited compound (col. 8, Examples).
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