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 .
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.
Priority
3. This application is a 371 of PCT/JP2022/044477 12/01/2022.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application JAPAN 2021-195968 12/02/2021 filed on 05/30/24.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS), filed on 02/05/26, 04/08/25, 06/27/24 have been considered. Please refer to Applicant's copy of the 1449 submitted herewith.
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 1-3, 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Arakawa (JP 2021-113282).
Regarding claim 1, Arakawa discloses an anti-vibration rubber composition wherein a ratio of storage elastic modulus E′ at −30° C to storage elastic modulus E′ at 90° C after crosslinking (−30° C/90° C) is 6.39 or 5.84 (para [0001], [0044]; example 1, 3; table 2) fall into claimed range of 6.4 or less, as measured with reference to JIS K6394, meeting the requirement of claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Arakawa discloses tan δ at 25 0C is 0.176 (table 2, examples 1, 3), fall into claimed ratio of a maximum value of loss coefficient tan δ to a minimum value of loss coefficient tan δ at −30° C or more and 90° C or less after crosslinking (−30° C or more and 90° C or less) is 7.2 or less, as measured with reference to JIS K6394.
Regarding claim 3, Arakawa discloses hardness after crosslinking is 55 or 58 (table 2, examples 1, 3), fall into claimed 90 or less.
Regarding claims 17-18, Arakawa discloses vulcanization molding of the instantly claimed composition (para [0043], [0047], claim 5).
In claims 17, the recitation “An anti-vibration mount” and in claim 18, the recitation “An anti-vibration grommet” have been given little patentable weight because the recitation occurs in the preamble. A preamble is generally not accorded patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951).
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.
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.
Claims 4-7, 9-11, 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arakawa as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nomura (US 2009/01443538).
Arakawa includes the features of claim 1 above.
Regarding claims 4-6, Arakawa discloses EPDM 88 parts (EPDM1 + EPDP2) and natural rubber 30 parts results in 74.5 wt% EPDM (fall into claim 4 range of 12-98 wt%, claim 5 range of 18-88 wt%, or claim 6 range of 24-80 wt%) and 25.5 wt% natural rubber (examples, table 2, See example 2). Arakawa does not disclose butadiene rubber.
However, Nomura discloses an anti-vibration rubber comprising EPDM 80 parts and butadiene rubber 20 parts, e.g. 20 wt% (fall into claimed 2-88 wt%), and functional equivalent natural rubber (para [0001], [0045], [0049], table 3, examples 12-13).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have used the 20 wt% butadiene rubber of the claims in the composition of Arakawa because Namura teaches that the claimed butadiene rubber and the natural rubber of Arakawa are functionally equivalent and it is prima facie obvious to substitute art-recognized functional equivalents known for the same purpose, see MPEP § 2144.06; In re Ruff, 256 F.2d 590, 118 USPQ 340 (CCPA 1958).
Regarding claim 7, Arakawa discloses carbon black and plasticizer or softener such as processed oil (para [0011], [0039]).
Regarding claim 9, Arakawa discloses carbon black 65 phr (para [0055]), fall into claimed 10-250 parts per 100 parts rubber.
Regarding claim 10, Arakawa discloses softener/plasticizer such as processed oil 25 phr (table 2, example 2), fall into claimed 10-200 parts per 100 parts rubber.
Regarding claim 11, Arakawa discloses (example 5, table 2), rubber total 118 parts, carbon black 65 phr and softener/plasticizer such as processed oil 25 parts, results in 57 wt% rubber, fall into claimed range of 20-80 wt%, 31 wt% carbon black, fall into claimed range of 10-60 wt%, and 12 wt% processed oil, fall into claimed 10-50 wt%.
Regarding claim 14, Arakawa discloses peroxide crosslinker (para [0033]).
Regarding claim 15-16, Arakawa discloses sulfur based accelerator such as thiazole-based or sulfenamide-based (para [0034]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arakawa in view of Nomura as applied to claims 4, 7 above, and further in view of Yang (US 2010/0152346).
Arakawa includes the features of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 8, Arakawa discloses softener/plasticizer such as paraffins (para [0039]) but does not disclose polyalphaolefin.
However, Yang discloses an anti-vibration rubber comprising plasticizer such as paraffin and functionally equivalent polyalphaolefin (para [0011], [0035], [0128], [0212], damping ability).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have used the polyalphaolefin of the claims in the composition of Arakawa because Yang teaches that the claimed polyalphaolefin and the paraffin of Arakawa are functionally equivalent and it is prima facie obvious to substitute art-recognized functional equivalents known for the same purpose, see MPEP § 2144.06; In re Ruff, 256 F.2d 590, 118 USPQ 340 (CCPA 1958).
Claim 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arakawa in view of Nomura as applied to claims 4, 7 above, and further in view of Shibahara (US 4880318).
Arakawa includes the features of claim 1 above.
Regarding claims 12-13, Arakawa does not disclose coumarone resin 3-50 parts based on 100 parts rubber A.
However, Shibahara discloses an anti-vibration rubber comprising tackifier such as coumarone resin in an amount of 0-10 parts by weight per 100 parts by weight of the rubber material (column 3, lines 30-34, column 6, lines 1-7, 56-61).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art at the time of invention, to modify Arakawa with tackifier such as coumarone resin in an amount of 0-10 parts by weight per 100 parts by weight of the rubber material, as taught by Shibahara. The rationale to do so would have been motivation provided by of Shibahara that to do so would increase surface stickiness of the rubber.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KUMAR R BHUSHAN whose telephone number is (313)446-4807. The examiner can normally be reached 9.00 AM to 5.50 PM (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, RANDY P GULAKOWSKI can be reached at (571)272-1302. 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.
/KUMAR R BHUSHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Prosecution Insights