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 Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7 recites the phrase “according to claim 1 are attached fibers” which is believed to be a typographical error. Claim 7 should instead recite “according to claim 1 is the fibers.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claims 1-2, 5-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asada et al. (WO 2019230700 A1; US 20210222036 A1 used as English language equivalent for all citations) in view of Moore (US 20060147220 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Asada teaches an aqueous adhesive for adhesion between fibers and an elastomer (See rubber), the aqueous adhesive comprising: an oil-in-water emulsion containing a liquid conjugated diene based rubber and a surfactant (see fatty acid soap) (Asada, Abstract, Par. 0001, 0022, 0075, 0088-0089, 0114-0117, 0121). The fatty acid soap satisfies the limitation of a surfactant as it is given as an example of one by the instant specification Par. 0048. Asada teaches the aqueous adhesive may comprise a crosslinking agent (Asada, Par. 0156).
Asada is silent regarding the crosslinking agent being an aqueous solution of dispersion.
Moore teaches an aqueous adhesive composition comprising an aqueous dispersion of a crosslinking agent (Moore, Abstract, Par. 0008-0011).
Asada and Moore are analogous art as they both teach aqueous adhesive compositions comprising a crosslinking agent. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the crosslinking agent of Moore as the crosslinking agent of Asada as it is an art known material suitable for the same purpose (i.e. being a crosslinking agent in an aqueous adhesive composition), see MPEP 2144.07. Furthermore, this would allow for crosslinking aid for the adhesive composition (Moore, Abstract).
Regarding claim 2, modified Asada teaches a melt viscosity measured at 38°C of the liquid conjugated diene-based rubber is 0.1-4000 Pa (Asada, Par. 0088-0089), which lies within the claimed range of 4000 Pa or less and therefore satisfies the claimed range, see MPEP 2131.03.
Regarding claim 5, modified Asada teaches the crosslinking agent is an epoxy resin (Moore, Abstract).
Regarding claim 6, modified Asada teaches the composition comprises an organic solvent that is present in an amount that does not interfere with the stability of polymerization (Asada, Par. 0035-0039). Modified Asada thus teaches the amount of organic solvent should be low to not interfere with the stability of polymerization and that the amount of organic solvent is a result-effective variable. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art through routine optimization to arrive at the claimed content of organic solvent, see MPEP 2144.05, II.
Regarding claim 7, modified Asada teaches reinforcing fibers in which the aqueous adhesive is attached to the fibers (Asada, Abstract).
Regarding claim 8, modified Asada teaches the fibers are polyamide-based fibers (Asada, Par. 0097-0099).
Regarding claim 9, modified Asada teaches an amount of the aqueous adhesive attached to the fibers is 0.01-10 mass% based on the mass of the fibers (Asada, Par. 0123), which lies within the claimed range of 0.01-10 parts by mass and therefore satisfies the claimed range, see MPEP 2131.03.
Regarding claims 10-11, modified Asada teaches an elastomer product that is a tire, a belt, or a hose using the reinforcing fibers (Asada, Par. 0137).
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asada et al. in view of Moore as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Koda et al. (WO 2020175404 A1; US 20220049062 A1 used as English language equivalent for all citations).
Regarding claims 3-4, modified Asada teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above for claim 1. Modified Asada is silent regarding an oil having a vapor pressure at 20°C of 10 Pa or less as required by claim 3, and is silent regarding the oil being contained in the emulsion as required by claim 4.
Koda teaches an adhesive composition comprising a conjugated diene-based rubber, wherein the adhesive composition further comprises an oil with the rubber, wherein the oil has a vapor pressure at 20°C of 10 Pa or less (Koda, Abstract, Par. 0010-0011, and 0090).
Asada and Koda are analogous art as they both teach adhesive compositions comprising a conjugated diene-based rubber. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included a rubber with the conjugated diene rubber of modified Asada. This would allow for improved convergence performance of fibers adhered with the adhesive composition, as well as excellent wear resistance of the fibers (Koda, Par. 0014). Furthermore, as the conjugated diene-based rubber of modified Asada is in an oil-in-water emulsion and the oil is with the conjugated diene-based rubber, the oil of modified Asada would be in the oil-in-water emulsion, satisfying the limitations of claim 4.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS J KESSLER JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3075. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5:30 M-Th.
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, Aaron Austin can be reached at 571-272-8935. 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.
/THOMAS J KESSLER/Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights