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 § 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.
Claim 15 is 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.
Considering Claim 15: Claim 15 recites a method of processing elastomer in particular form, but the recited steps do not include particulate elastomer. It is not clear what other unrecited steps are required by the claim to achieve the statement of intended use. As such, the scope of the claim is indefinite. For the purpose of further examination, the claim will be considered to be met if the recited method step is met by the art.
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.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rappmann et al. (DE 102007029644).
Considering Claim 15: Rappmann et al. teaches mixing a liquid polybutadiene and a polyoctenamer (pg. 3-4).
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.
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 1-11, 13, 14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peter et al. (US Pat. 5,844,043) in view of Rappmann et al. (DE 102007029644). Note: A machine translation is being used for DE 102007029644.
Considering Claims 1, 4, 8, and 16: Peter et al. teaches a crosslinkable composition comprising recycled rubber granules/a powder comprising at least one elastomer (1:65-2:5); a liquid rubber component comprising a polyoctenamer (2:31-67); and crosslinking agent (4:34-40). Peter et al. teaches the mixture as having a plastic flow (Abstract).
Peter et al. does not teach the liquid rubber as comprising a liquid polybutadiene. However, Rappmann et al. teaches a blend of liquid polybutadiene, polyoctenamer, and crosslinking as the rubber component of an adhesive (pg. 3-4). Rappmann et al. teaches the polybutadiene as being 2 to 55 weight percent and the polyoctenamer as being 0.2 to 15 percent (pg. 4). Peter et al. teaches the polybutadiene as having hydroxyl groups to increase adhesion to substrates (pg. 4). The mixture has a plastisol like flow (pg. 3). Peter et al. and Rappmann et al. are analogous art as they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely crosslinkable rubber mixtures. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have added the liquid butadiene of Rappmann et al. to the liquid rubber component of Peter et al., and the motivation to do so would have been, as Rappmann et al. suggests, the mixture has high strength and impact resistance (pg. 3).
Considering Claim 2: Peter et al. teaches rubber granules as being recycled (1:65-2:5).
Considering Claim 3: Peter et al. teaches an example using a recycled natural rubber granule (Table 2).
Considering Claims 5 and 19: Peter et al. teaches the molecular weight of the polyoctenamer as being from 20,000 to 150,000 (3:49-56).
Considering Claim 6: Peter et al. teaches the amount of binder as being 10 parts per 100 parts by weight of the rubber granules (Table 1). Thus the amount of polybutadiene and polyoctenamer in the modified composition would be above 5 parts by weight.
Considering Claims 7 and 20: Rappmann et al. teaches the liquid polybutadiene as having a molecular weight of 5,000 in the examples (Example 5).
Considering Claim 9: Peter et al. teaches the crosslinking system as being sulfur and a vulcanization accelerator (4:34-40).
Considering Claims 10 and 11: Peter et al. teaches forming an article from the mixture through crosslinking (4:44-52).
Considering Claim 13: Peter et al. teaches a process comprising providing the mixture and crosslinking the mixture (Example 1).
Considering Claim 14: Peter et al. teaches vulcanizing the mixture at 180 ºC for 20 minutes (Example 1).
Considering Claim 17: Peter et al. teaches that a mixture of natural and synthetic rubber can be used in the recycled rubber granules (2:6-14). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have optimized the amount of natural and synthetic rubber in the mixture through routine experimentation, and the motivation to do so would have been, the content of the rubber would depend on the recycled material readily available to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Considering Claim 18: Peter et al. teaches the polyoctenamer as having a trans content of 50 to 90% (3:49-55).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peter et al. (US Pat. 5,844,043) in view of Rappmann et al. (DE 102007029644) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Price et al. (US 2023/0271063).
Considering Claim 12: Peter et al. and Rappmann et al. collectively teach the article of claim 11 as shown above.
Peter et al. does not teach the article as being a ball. However, Price et al. teaches forming a tennis ball from a rubber composition comprising recycled rubber material (Abstract). Peter et al. and Price et al. are analogous art as they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely recycled rubber compositions. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have prepared a tennis ball from the material of Peter et al., as in Price et al., and the motivation to do so would have been, as Price et al. suggests, to allow for the use of recycled materials in the production of the more valuable product.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIAM J HEINCER whose telephone number is (571)270-3297. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00.
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, Mark Eashoo can be reached at 571-272-1197. 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.
/LIAM J HEINCER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767
Prosecution Insights