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 § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sakai et al. (JP2020066699A) (machine translation) (of record).
Regarding claim 1, Sakai discloses a masterbatch manufacturing method comprising:
an operation in which at least a cellulose nanofiber liquid dispersion ([0014], [0030] with regards to “cellulose nanofibers”), colloidal silica ([0020], [0022] with regards to “aqueous silica dispersion”), and diene-based rubber latex are mixed to prepare a liquid mixture ([0012], [0027]-[0028], [0030]); and
an operation in which the liquid mixture is coagulated ([0028], [0030]).
Regarding claim 3, Sakai discloses all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, Sakai discloses that the colloidal silica has the silica particles in the colloidal silica be 1 part by mass or more and 30 parts by mass or less per 100 parts by mass of a dry rubber component in the diene-based rubber latex in the operation in which the liquid mixture is prepared ([0008]).
Regarding claim 6, Sakai discloses all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, Sakai discloses that the diene-based rubber latex is natural rubber latex ([0012]).
Regarding claim 16, Sakai discloses a method for manufacturing a rubber composition for the tire, the method comprising:
an operation in which a masterbatch is prepared by the masterbatch manufacturing method according to claim 1 (as set forth above); and
an operation in which the masterbatch is used to prepare a rubber composition ([0027]).
Regarding claim 17, Sakai discloses all limitations of claim 16 as set forth above. Additionally, Sakai discloses that the operation in which the rubber composition is prepared includes kneading at least the masterbatch and a compounding ingredient ([0026] or “vulcanization accelerator” in [0027]) to prepare a rubber mixture ([0027]) and kneading at least the rubber mixture and sulfur to obtain the rubber composition ([0027]).
Regarding claim 18, Sakai discloses a tire manufacturing method comprising:
an operation in which a masterbatch is prepared by the masterbatch manufacturing method according to claim 1 (as set forth above);
an operation in which the masterbatch is used to prepare a rubber composition ([0027]); and
an operation in which the rubber composition is used to prepare an unvulcanized tire ([0006], [0009], [0028]).
Regarding claim 19, Sakai discloses all limitations of claim 18 as set forth above. Additionally, Sakai discloses that the operation in which the unvulcanized tire is prepared includes preparing a tire member containing the rubber composition and preparing the unvulcanized tire containing the tire member ([0028]).
Regarding claim 20, Sakai discloses all limitations of claim 18 as set forth above. Additionally, Sakai discloses that the operation further comprises an operation in which the unvulcanized tire is vulcanized and molded ([0028]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 2, 4, 5 and 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakai et al. (JP2020066699A) (machine translation) (of record).
Regarding claim 2, Sakai discloses all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective priority date of the instant application to have the colloidal silica have a particle size of 2 nm to 40 nm, given that Sakai teaches that the silica particle size can be from 5-5000 nm ([0022], which overlaps with the claimed range of 2 to 40 nm). Case law holds that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05).
While not relied upon for the basis of the rejection as set forth above, examiner notes that, outside of a general statement regarding a motivation for having the particle size be less than 40 nm in [0028], applicant's original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed range as both colloidal silicas used in the experimental data had particle sizes within the claimed range ([0069], colloidal silica 1: 4 to 6 nm and colloidal silica 2: 10 to 15 nm) with no data of using colloidal silicas with particle sizes outside the claimed range to compare to and to establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range (see MPEP 716.02(d)(II)).
Regarding claim 4, Sakai discloses all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective priority date of the instant application to have a fiber diameter of cellulose nanofibers in the cellulose nanofiber liquid dispersion be 100 nm or less, given that Sakai teaches that the cellulose nanofibers can have a fiber diameter of 1-1000 nm and preferably 1-200 nm ([0018], which overlaps with the claimed range of 100 nm or less). Case law holds that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05).
While not relied upon for the basis of the rejection as set forth above, examiner notes that, outside of general statements in [0013] and [0024], applicant's original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed range as both cellulose nanofibers used in the experimental data had fiber diameters within the claimed range ([0069], CNF1: 10-50 nm and CNF2: 10 to 60 nm) with no data of using cellulose nanofibers with fiber diameters outside the claimed range to compare to and to establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range (see MPEP 716.02(d)(II)).
Regarding claim 5, Sakai discloses all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the earliest priority date of the instant application for the cellulose nanofibers in the cellulose nanofiber liquid dispersion to be 1 part by mass or more and 50 parts by mass or less per 100 parts by mass of a dry rubber component in the diene-based rubber latex in the operation in which the liquid mixture is prepared, given that Sakai teaches that the amount of silica per 100 parts of the diene rubber is 1 to 50 parts by mass and that the amount of cellulose nanofibers per 100 parts of the silica is 0.1 to 50 parts ([0008], which would work out to 0.01 to 25 parts of cellulose nanofiber per 100 parts of rubber, which overlaps with the claimed range of 1 to 50 parts by mass).
While not relied upon for the basis of the rejection as set forth above, examiner notes that, outside of a general statement in [0014], applicant's original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed range all cellulose nanofiber amounts used in the experimental data were within the claimed range (Table 1) with no data of using cellulose nanofiber amounts outside the claimed range to compare to and to establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range (see MPEP 716.02(d)(II)).
Regarding claim 9, Sakai discloses all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective priority date of the instant application to have the colloidal silica have a particle size of 30 nm or less, given that Sakai teaches that the silica particle size can be from 5-5000 nm ([0022], which overlaps with the claimed range of 30 nm or less). Case law holds that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05).
While not relied upon for the basis of the rejection as set forth above, examiner notes that, outside of a general statement regarding a motivation for having the particle size be less than 40 nm in [0028], applicant's original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed range as both colloidal silicas used in the experimental data had particle sizes within the claimed range ([0069], colloidal silica 1: 4 to 6 nm and colloidal silica 2: 10 to 15 nm) with no data of using colloidal silicas with particle sizes outside the claimed range to compare to and to establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range (see MPEP 716.02(d)(II)).
Regarding claim 10, Sakai discloses all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective priority date of the instant application to have the colloidal silica have a particle size of 20 nm or less, given that Sakai teaches that the silica particle size can be from 5-5000 nm ([0022], which overlaps with the claimed range of 20 nm or less). Case law holds that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05).
While not relied upon for the basis of the rejection as set forth above, examiner notes that, outside of a general statement regarding a motivation for having the particle size be less than 40 nm in [0028], applicant's original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed range as both colloidal silicas used in the experimental data had particle sizes within the claimed range ([0069], colloidal silica 1: 4 to 6 nm and colloidal silica 2: 10 to 15 nm) with no data of using colloidal silicas with particle sizes outside the claimed range to compare to and to establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range (see MPEP 716.02(d)(II)).
Regarding claim 11, Sakai discloses all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective priority date of the instant application for the silica particles in the colloidal silica are 3 parts by mass or more and 20 parts by mass or less per 100 parts by mass of a dry rubber component in the diene-based rubber latex in the operation in which the liquid mixture is prepared, given that Sakai teaches that the colloidal silica has the silica particles in the colloidal silica be 1 part by mass or more and 30 parts by mass or less per 100 parts by mass of a dry rubber component in the diene-based rubber latex in the operation in which the liquid mixture is prepared ([0008], which overlaps with the claimed range of 3 to 20 parts by mass).
While not relied upon for the basis of the rejection as set forth above, examiner notes that, outside of general statements in [0037] and [0047], applicant's original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed range of colloidal silica, given that the amounts used in the experimental data were all within the claimed range (Table 1) except for only two data points (Working Example 2 at 1 parts by mass and Working Example 4 at 30 parts by mass) that could be compared to and to establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range (see MPEP 716.02(d)(II)).
Regarding claim 12, Sakai discloses all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective priority date of the instant application for the silica particles in the colloidal silica to be 5 parts by mass or more and 15 parts by mass or less per 100 parts by mass of a dry rubber component in the diene-based rubber latex in the operation in which the liquid mixture is prepared, given that Sakai teaches that the colloidal silica has the silica particles in the colloidal silica be 1 part by mass or more and 30 parts by mass or less per 100 parts by mass of a dry rubber component in the diene-based rubber latex in the operation in which the liquid mixture is prepared ([0008], which overlaps with the claimed range of 5 to 15 parts by mass).
While not relied upon for the basis of the rejection as set forth above, examiner notes that, outside of general statements in [0037] and [0047], applicant's original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed range of colloidal silica, given that the amounts used in the experimental data were all within the claimed range (Table 1) except for only two data points (Working Example 2 at 1 parts by mass and Working Example 4 at 30 parts by mass) that could be compared to and to establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range (see MPEP 716.02(d)(II)).
Regarding claim 13, Sakai discloses all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective priority date of the instant application date for the cellulose nanofibers in the cellulose nanofiber liquid dispersion to be 3 parts by mass or more and 30 parts by mass or less per 100 parts by mass of a dry rubber component in the diene-based rubber latex in the operation in which the liquid mixture is prepared, given that Sakai teaches that the amount of silica per 100 parts of the diene rubber is 1 to 50 parts by mass and that the amount of cellulose nanofibers per 100 parts of the silica is 0.1 to 50 parts ([0008], which would work out to 0.01 to 25 parts of cellulose nanofiber per 100 parts of rubber, which overlaps with the claimed range of 3 to 30 parts by mass).
While not relied upon for the basis of the rejection as set forth above, examiner notes that, outside of a general statement in [0036], applicant's original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed range of cellulose nanofiber, given that the amounts used in the experimental data were all within the claimed range (Table 1) except for only one data point (Working Example 5 at 1 part by mass) that could be compared to and to establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range (see MPEP 716.02(d)(II)).
Regarding claim 14, Sakai discloses all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective priority date of the instant application date for the cellulose nanofibers in the cellulose nanofiber liquid dispersion to be 5 parts by mass or more and 30 parts by mass or less per 100 parts by mass of a dry rubber component in the diene-based rubber latex in the operation in which the liquid mixture is prepared, given that Sakai teaches that the amount of silica per 100 parts of the diene rubber is 1 to 50 parts by mass and that the amount of cellulose nanofibers per 100 parts of the silica is 0.1 to 50 parts ([0008], which would work out to 0.01 to 25 parts of cellulose nanofiber per 100 parts of rubber, which overlaps with the claimed range of 5 to 30 parts by mass).
While not relied upon for the basis of the rejection as set forth above, examiner notes that, outside of a general statement in [0036], applicant's original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed range of cellulose nanofiber, given that the amounts used in the experimental data were all within the claimed range (Table 1) except for only one data point (Working Example 5 at 1 part by mass) that could be compared to and to establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range (see MPEP 716.02(d)(II)).
Regarding claim 15, Sakai discloses all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective priority date of the instant application date for the cellulose nanofibers in the cellulose nanofiber liquid dispersion to be 5 parts by mass or more and 20 parts by mass or less per 100 parts by mass of a dry rubber component in the diene-based rubber latex in the operation in which the liquid mixture is prepared, given that Sakai teaches that the amount of silica per 100 parts of the diene rubber is 1 to 50 parts by mass and that the amount of cellulose nanofibers per 100 parts of the silica is 0.1 to 50 parts ([0008], which would work out to 0.01 to 25 parts of cellulose nanofiber per 100 parts of rubber, which overlaps with the claimed range of 5 to 20 parts by mass).
While not relied upon for the basis of the rejection as set forth above, examiner notes that, outside of a general statement in [0036], applicant's original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed range of cellulose nanofiber, given that the amounts used in the experimental data were all within the claimed range (Table 1) except for only two data points (Working Example 5 at 1 part by mass and Working Example 6 at 30 parts by mass) that could be compared to and to establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range (see MPEP 716.02(d)(II)).
Claim(s) 1-7 and 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakai et al. (JP2020066699A) (machine translation) (of record) in view of Hirabayashi (US20200109269A1) (of record). Examiner notes that the following set of rejections are based on the scenario where an operation in which the liquid mixture is coagulated is done through the addition of an ingredient as opposed to just drying the liquid mixture.
Regarding claim 1, Sakai discloses a masterbatch manufacturing method comprising:
an operation in which at least a cellulose nanofiber liquid dispersion ([0014], [0030] with regards to “cellulose nanofibers”), colloidal silica ([0020], [0022] with regards to “aqueous silica dispersion”), and diene-based rubber latex are mixed to prepare a liquid mixture ([0012], [0027]-[0028], [0030]).
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective priority date of the instant application for the masterbatch manufacturing method to comprise an operation in which the liquid mixture is coagulated, given that Hirabayashi, which is within the rubber masterbatching for tire art, teaches that it is known in the rubber industry for a masterbatching method to comprise an operation of coagulating the liquid mixture ([0002], with regards to “adding a solidifier such as an acid, after the mixing, to the mixture to solidify the mixture”). One would have been motivated to do such an operation as it is considered common knowledge in the art (see MPEP 2144.03).
Regarding claim 2, modified Sakai teaches all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective priority date of the instant application to have the colloidal silica have a particle size of 2 nm to 40 nm, given that Sakai teaches that the silica particle size can be from 5-5000 nm ([0022], which overlaps with the claimed range of 2 to 40 nm). Case law holds that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05).
While not relied upon for the basis of the rejection as set forth above, examiner notes that, outside of a general statement regarding a motivation for having the particle size be less than 40 nm in [0028], applicant's original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed range as both colloidal silicas used in the experimental data had particle sizes within the claimed range ([0069], colloidal silica 1: 4 to 6 nm and colloidal silica 2: 10 to 15 nm) with no data of using colloidal silicas with particle sizes outside the claimed range to compare to and to establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range (see MPEP 716.02(d)(II)).
Regarding claim 3, modified Sakai teaches all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, Sakai teaches that the colloidal silica has the silica particles in the colloidal silica be 1 part by mass or more and 30 parts by mass or less per 100 parts by mass of a dry rubber component in the diene-based rubber latex in the operation in which the liquid mixture is prepared ([0008]).
Regarding claim 4, modified Sakai teaches all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective priority date of the instant application to have a fiber diameter of cellulose nanofibers in the cellulose nanofiber liquid dispersion be 100 nm or less, given that Sakai teaches that the cellulose nanofibers can have a fiber diameter of 1-1000 nm and preferably 1-200 nm ([0018], which overlaps with the claimed range of 100 nm or less). Case law holds that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05).
While not relied upon for the basis of the rejection as set forth above, examiner notes that, outside of general statements in [0013] and [0024], applicant's original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed range as both cellulose nanofibers used in the experimental data had fiber diameters within the claimed range ([0069], CNF1: 10-50 nm and CNF2: 10 to 60 nm) with no data of using cellulose nanofibers with fiber diameters outside the claimed range to compare to and to establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range (see MPEP 716.02(d)(II)).
Regarding claim 5, modified Sakai teaches all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the earliest priority date of the instant application for the cellulose nanofibers in the cellulose nanofiber liquid dispersion to be 1 part by mass or more and 50 parts by mass or less per 100 parts by mass of a dry rubber component in the diene-based rubber latex in the operation in which the liquid mixture is prepared, given that Sakai teaches that the amount of silica per 100 parts of the diene rubber is 1 to 50 parts by mass and that the amount of cellulose nanofibers per 100 parts of the silica is 0.1 to 50 parts ([0008], which would work out to 0.01 to 25 parts of cellulose nanofiber per 100 parts of rubber, which overlaps with the claimed range of 1 to 50 parts by mass).
While not relied upon for the basis of the rejection as set forth above, examiner notes that, outside of a general statement in [0014], applicant's original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed range all cellulose nanofiber amounts used in the experimental data were within the claimed range (Table 1) with no data of using cellulose nanofiber amounts outside the claimed range to compare to and to establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range (see MPEP 716.02(d)(II)).
Regarding claim 6, modified Sakai teaches all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, Sakai teaches that the diene-based rubber latex is natural rubber latex ([0012]).
Regarding claim 7, modified Sakai teaches all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, Sakai teaches that the manufacturing method further comprises an operation in which a coagulum obtained in the operation in which the liquid mixture is coagulated is dewatered ([0021], [0030] in that the mixture is dried).
Regarding claim 9, modified Sakai teaches all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective priority date of the instant application to have the colloidal silica have a particle size of 30 nm or less, given that Sakai teaches that the silica particle size can be from 5-5000 nm ([0022], which overlaps with the claimed range of 30 nm or less). Case law holds that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05).
While not relied upon for the basis of the rejection as set forth above, examiner notes that, outside of a general statement regarding a motivation for having the particle size be less than 40 nm in [0028], applicant's original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed range as both colloidal silicas used in the experimental data had particle sizes within the claimed range ([0069], colloidal silica 1: 4 to 6 nm and colloidal silica 2: 10 to 15 nm) with no data of using colloidal silicas with particle sizes outside the claimed range to compare to and to establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range (see MPEP 716.02(d)(II)).
Regarding claim 10, modified Sakai teaches all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective priority date of the instant application to have the colloidal silica have a particle size of 20 nm or less, given that Sakai teaches that the silica particle size can be from 5-5000 nm ([0022], which overlaps with the claimed range of 20 nm or less). Case law holds that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05).
While not relied upon for the basis of the rejection as set forth above, examiner notes that, outside of a general statement regarding a motivation for having the particle size be less than 40 nm in [0028], applicant's original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed range as both colloidal silicas used in the experimental data had particle sizes within the claimed range ([0069], colloidal silica 1: 4 to 6 nm and colloidal silica 2: 10 to 15 nm) with no data of using colloidal silicas with particle sizes outside the claimed range to compare to and to establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range (see MPEP 716.02(d)(II)).
Regarding claim 11, modified Sakai teaches all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective priority date of the instant application for the silica particles in the colloidal silica are 3 parts by mass or more and 20 parts by mass or less per 100 parts by mass of a dry rubber component in the diene-based rubber latex in the operation in which the liquid mixture is prepared, given that Sakai teaches that the colloidal silica has the silica particles in the colloidal silica be 1 part by mass or more and 30 parts by mass or less per 100 parts by mass of a dry rubber component in the diene-based rubber latex in the operation in which the liquid mixture is prepared ([0008], which overlaps with the claimed range of 3 to 20 parts by mass).
While not relied upon for the basis of the rejection as set forth above, examiner notes that, outside of general statements in [0037] and [0047], applicant's original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed range of colloidal silica, given that the amounts used in the experimental data were all within the claimed range (Table 1) except for only two data points (Working Example 2 at 1 parts by mass and Working Example 4 at 30 parts by mass) that could be compared to and to establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range (see MPEP 716.02(d)(II)).
Regarding claim 12, modified Sakai teaches all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective priority date of the instant application for the silica particles in the colloidal silica to be 5 parts by mass or more and 15 parts by mass or less per 100 parts by mass of a dry rubber component in the diene-based rubber latex in the operation in which the liquid mixture is prepared, given that Sakai teaches that the colloidal silica has the silica particles in the colloidal silica be 1 part by mass or more and 30 parts by mass or less per 100 parts by mass of a dry rubber component in the diene-based rubber latex in the operation in which the liquid mixture is prepared ([0008], which overlaps with the claimed range of 5 to 15 parts by mass).
While not relied upon for the basis of the rejection as set forth above, examiner notes that, outside of general statements in [0037] and [0047], applicant's original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed range of colloidal silica, given that the amounts used in the experimental data were all within the claimed range (Table 1) except for only two data points (Working Example 2 at 1 parts by mass and Working Example 4 at 30 parts by mass) that could be compared to and to establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range (see MPEP 716.02(d)(II)).
Regarding claim 13, modified Sakai teaches all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective priority date of the instant application date for the cellulose nanofibers in the cellulose nanofiber liquid dispersion to be 3 parts by mass or more and 30 parts by mass or less per 100 parts by mass of a dry rubber component in the diene-based rubber latex in the operation in which the liquid mixture is prepared, given that Sakai teaches that the amount of silica per 100 parts of the diene rubber is 1 to 50 parts by mass and that the amount of cellulose nanofibers per 100 parts of the silica is 0.1 to 50 parts ([0008], which would work out to 0.01 to 25 parts of cellulose nanofiber per 100 parts of rubber, which overlaps with the claimed range of 3 to 30 parts by mass).
While not relied upon for the basis of the rejection as set forth above, examiner notes that, outside of a general statement in [0036], applicant's original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed range of cellulose nanofiber, given that the amounts used in the experimental data were all within the claimed range (Table 1) except for only one data point (Working Example 5 at 1 part by mass) that could be compared to and to establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range (see MPEP 716.02(d)(II)).
Regarding claim 14, modified Sakai teaches all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective priority date of the instant application date for the cellulose nanofibers in the cellulose nanofiber liquid dispersion to be 5 parts by mass or more and 30 parts by mass or less per 100 parts by mass of a dry rubber component in the diene-based rubber latex in the operation in which the liquid mixture is prepared, given that Sakai teaches that the amount of silica per 100 parts of the diene rubber is 1 to 50 parts by mass and that the amount of cellulose nanofibers per 100 parts of the silica is 0.1 to 50 parts ([0008], which would work out to 0.01 to 25 parts of cellulose nanofiber per 100 parts of rubber, which overlaps with the claimed range of 5 to 30 parts by mass).
While not relied upon for the basis of the rejection as set forth above, examiner notes that, outside of a general statement in [0036], applicant's original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed range of cellulose nanofiber, given that the amounts used in the experimental data were all within the claimed range (Table 1) except for only one data point (Working Example 5 at 1 part by mass) that could be compared to and to establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range (see MPEP 716.02(d)(II)).
Regarding claim 15, modified Sakai teaches all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective priority date of the instant application date for the cellulose nanofibers in the cellulose nanofiber liquid dispersion to be 5 parts by mass or more and 20 parts by mass or less per 100 parts by mass of a dry rubber component in the diene-based rubber latex in the operation in which the liquid mixture is prepared, given that Sakai teaches that the amount of silica per 100 parts of the diene rubber is 1 to 50 parts by mass and that the amount of cellulose nanofibers per 100 parts of the silica is 0.1 to 50 parts ([0008], which would work out to 0.01 to 25 parts of cellulose nanofiber per 100 parts of rubber, which overlaps with the claimed range of 5 to 20 parts by mass).
While not relied upon for the basis of the rejection as set forth above, examiner notes that, outside of a general statement in [0036], applicant's original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed range of cellulose nanofiber, given that the amounts used in the experimental data were all within the claimed range (Table 1) except for only two data points (Working Example 5 at 1 part by mass and Working Example 6 at 30 parts by mass) that could be compared to and to establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range (see MPEP 716.02(d)(II)).
Regarding claim 16, modified Sakai teaches a method for manufacturing a rubber composition for a tire, the method comprising:
an operation in which a masterbatch is prepared by the masterbatch manufacturing method according to claim 1 (as set forth above); and
an operation in which the masterbatch is used to prepare a rubber composition ([0027]).
Regarding claim 17, modified Sakai teaches all limitations of claim 16 as set forth above. Additionally, Sakai teaches that the operation in which the rubber composition is prepared includes kneading at least the masterbatch and a compounding ingredient ([0026] or “vulcanization accelerator” in [0027]) to prepare a rubber mixture ([0027]) and kneading at least the rubber mixture and sulfur to obtain the rubber composition ([0027]).
Regarding claim 18, modified Sakai teaches a tire manufacturing method comprising:
an operation in which a masterbatch is prepared by the masterbatch manufacturing method according to claim 1 (as set forth above);
an operation in which the masterbatch is used to prepare a rubber composition ([0027]); and
an operation in which the rubber composition is used to prepare an unvulcanized tire ([0006], [0009], [0028]).
Regarding claim 19, modified Sakai teaches all limitations of claim 18 as set forth above. Additionally, Sakai teaches that the operation in which the unvulcanized tire is prepared includes preparing a tire member containing the rubber composition and preparing the unvulcanized tire containing the tire member ([0028]).
Regarding claim 20, modified Sakai teaches all limitations of claim 18 as set forth above. Additionally, Sakai teaches that the operation further comprises an operation in which the unvulcanized tire is vulcanized and molded ([0028]).
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakai et al. (JP2020066699A) (machine translation) (of record) and Hirabayashi (US20200109269A1) (of record) as set forth above in the rejection of claim 1 and in further view of Miura et al. (US20230018935) (of record).
Regarding claim 8, modified Sakai teaches all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. While modified Sakai does teach that the method further comprises an operation in which a coagulum obtained in the operation in which the liquid mixture is coagulated is dewatered (Hirabayashi: [0002] in combination with Sakai: [0021], [0030]), modified Sakai does not explicitly disclose that the dewatering is done by using an extruder. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective priority date of the instant application to do so, given that Miura, which is within the tire masterbatching art, teaches both that a coagulum can be dewatered by an oven or by an extruder ([0052]), recognizing an extruder as an equivalent substitute for an oven for the purpose of dewatering (see MPEP 2144.06(II)) and that an extruder could be used for the benefit not relying solely on heating for dewatering operation and for plasticizing the worked-upon material while simultaneously drying it ([0052]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 30 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding p.7-9 of applicant’s remarks, applicant argues that as Sakai teaches a step of mixing an oxidized cellulose nanofiber aqueous dispersion and a silica aqueous dispersion, followed by drying said mixture and then combining said dried mixture with liquid rubber, such teachings do not read upon the amended claim limitations. Examiner disagrees, noting that the currently amended claim language reads as a method “comprising: an operation in which at least a cellulose nanofiber liquid dispersion, colloidal silica, and diene-based rubber latex are mixed to prepare a liquid mixture”, so that as long the prior art teaches that during “an operation”, the claimed components are added at some point in time and said operation results in preparing “a liquid mixture”, the prior art reads on the claimed invention. Examiner notes that the open-language of “comprising” does not exclude intermediate steps performed during the operation, including drying of any component.
Regarding p.9-10 of applicant’s remarks, applicant argues that the teachings of Hirabayashi would not be applicable to Sakai in that they are materially different process routes and that the incorporation of Hirabayashi, even with regards to its general teachings, would “eliminate or bypass Sakai’s disclosed drying and optional pulverization of the silica/cellulose nanofiber dispersion, thereby changing the form of Sakai’s intermediate material and the sequence by which Saki incorporates that intermediate into rubber.” Examiner disagrees, noting first that the teachings of Hirabayashi is not for its disclosed invention but rather to illustrate that the coagulation of the liquid mixture during the method is known to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Furthermore, examiner notes that the composition of Hirabayashi during mixing comprises “liquid rubber” ([0027]), which would then be semi/solidified after mixing via coagulation as known to those of ordinary skill in the art, in no way interacting/eliminating/bypassing with other method steps taught in Sakai.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kawazoe et al. (US20220363872) (of record) discloses an operation comprising master batching a rubber composition for tires comprising of a liquid mixture cellulose nanofiber dispersion ([0020]), colloidal silica ([0031]) and a diene-based rubber latex ([0017]-[0018]) and then coagulating said mixture ([0035]).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ALEXANDER D BOOTH whose telephone number is 571-272-6704. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00-4:30.
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.
/ALEXANDER D BOOTH/Examiner, Art Unit 1749
/SEDEF E PAQUETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights