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
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Alexander (US Pub. No. 2019/0291511).
Regarding claim 1, Alexander teaches a sealant layer/barrier layer combination (taken to be the claimed repair sheet to be attached to a tire part) (paragraph [0075]), the sealant layer (taken to be the claimed retaining layer) which can be attached to a tire part (paragraphs [0081]-[0083]), the sealant layer comprising at least one tackifier, optionally one or more extenders, and a cure package (any one or more of these being taken to be the claimed additive) (paragraph [0025]) the sealant layer having an elongation at break of 400 to 1200%, such a range being completely encompassed by the claimed range, and an optional breaking strength range of 0.01 to 5 MPa (paragraph [0080]), such a range close but not overlapping the claimed range, but the claimed range and the prior art range are close enough that one would have expected them to have the same properties (see Applicant’s published application at paragraph [0027]). “A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties.” MPEP at 2144.05 citing Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use breaking strengths within the claimed range because Alexander teaches a close but not overlapping range of breaking strength, where one of ordinary skill in the art would expect values within the claimed range to have the same properties.
Regarding claim 2, Alexander teaches the use of rubber and a cure package (taken to bread on the claimed crosslinked rubber) (paragraph [0025) and the use of a resin (paragraphs [0048]-[0049]).
Regarding claim 3, Alexander teaches that the thickness of the sealant layer is 2 to 8 mm (paragraph [0023]), such a range being completely encompassed by the claimed range.
Regarding claim 4, Alexander teaches a barrier layer (paragraph [0075]).
Regarding claim 6, Alexander teaches the use of liquid polybutadiene (paragraphs [0040] and [0044]) and/or oils (paragraph [0068]) (taken to be the claimed plasticizing agent), antioxidants (paragraph [0068]), and vulcanization accelerators (paragraphs [0060]-[0062]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 30, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claimed invention is a repair sheet, which is different from the invention of Alexander, which is a tire in which a sealant layer is disposed. However, as is set forth above, the sealant/barrier layer combo taught by Alexander can reasonably be considered “a repair sheet to be attached to a tire part”, as such a sheet allows for the repair of a tire.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP N SCHWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1612. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:30.
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, Katelyn Smith can be reached at 571-270-5545. 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.
/P.N.S/ Examiner, Art Unit 1749 July 22, 2026
/JUSTIN R FISCHER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights