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 42 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “a dry weight” in line 3 should be written as –the dry weight— for consistency in claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 42 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “with the proviso that” in lines 4 and 7 should be written as –wherein— for clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The claim limitation “wherein the aqueous dispersion … is free of aromatic aldehydes” does not have support in the originally filed specification or claims. Any negative limitation or exclusionary proviso must have basis in the original disclosure. If alternative elements are positively recited in the specification, they may be explicitly excluded in the claims. The mere absence of a positive recitation is not basis for an exclusion. MPEP 2173.05(i). Case law holds that the disclosure must only “reasonably convey to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date,” and while silence will not generally suffice to support a negative claim limitation, there may be circumstances in which it can be established that a skilled artisan would understand a negative limitation to necessarily be present in a disclosure. In this case, there is not enough support in the specification to exclude aromatic aldehydes.
Claims 20-24, 29-31, and 43-47 are dependent upon claim 18.
Claim 45 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The claim limitation “the (z1) at least one filler, in a proportion by mass based on a dry weight of the aqueous dispersion of 0.02% to 20%, the (z1) at least one filler including at least one of silica, silicate, and/or carbon black” does not have support in the originally filed specification or claims. In particular, there is no support for the filler in the aqueous dispersion including carbon black. Applicant’s specification discloses carbon black as a filler only in the crosslinkable rubber mixture ([0135]-[0143]) and not in the aqueous dispersion. For the filler in the aqueous dispersion, especially associated with the claimed range, the specification only discloses “water-dispersible inorganic fillers. Particular preference is given to amorphous silicon dioxide (especially precipitated silica) and silicates” ([0028]). Carbon black is not a water-dispersible inorganic filler. Accordingly, there is no support in the originally filed specification or claims to include carbon black as a potential filler for the aqueous dispersion.
Claims 42-43 and 46 are 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.
Regarding claim 42, the phrase “the at least one rubber latex of (x1)” in lines 7-8 lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 43, the phrase “the dry weight” in line 3 lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 46, the phrase “each resin-forming component” in line 1 and “the aqueous dipping composition” lack sufficient antecedent basis because resin-forming components were not previously disclosed, nor is it clear which components are being referenced now, and it is unclear if the aqueous dipping composition is the same thing as or different from the aqueous dispersion. Further clarification is requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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(s) 18, 22-24, 30-31, 43, and 45-46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Acar et al. (EP 3702522) (of record).
Regarding claim 18, Acar discloses a process for producing a vulcanizable composite material, comprising the steps of: a) producing or providing a textile strength member ([0001]), b) treating the textile strength member with an aqueous dispersion for adhesive activation of the textile strength member and to obtain an adhesion-activated textile strength member ([0001], [0006], [0008]-[0009], [0046]), and c) introducing the adhesion-activated textile strength member into a crosslinkable rubberization mixture to obtain the vulcanizable composite material ([0051]-[0052]).
Acar further discloses the aqueous dispersion comprises: (x1) at least one rubber latex ([0008], [0010]), and (x2) at least one blocked (i.e., protected) isocyanate ([0008], [0014]-[0016]).
Acar further discloses the aqueous dispersion further comprises one or more of the following components: (z1) at least one filler ([0030]-[0035]), (z2) at least one polyisoprene rubber latex which is different than the at least one rubber latex of (x1) ([0008], [0010]), and/or (z3) at least one wax ([0008], [0017]-[0018]).
Acar further discloses the aqueous dispersion is essentially free of free resorcinol and resorcinol precondensates ([0008]), is free of free formaldehyde and formaldehyde-releasing substances ([0008]), and is free of aromatic aldehydes (i.e., nowhere in the disclosure are there aromatic aldehydes).
Acar further discloses the textile strength member in step a) has filaments, wherein the filaments contain one or more materials that may be selected from polymers such as biobased polymers (e.g., celluloses like viscose and rayon) ([0042]-[0043]).
Regarding claim 22, Acar further discloses (x1) the at least one rubber latex is in a proportion by mass based on a dry weight of the aqueous dispersion of 4% to 50% ([0013]), which falls within the claimed range of 4% to 60%. Case law holds that where prior art teaches a specific example falling within the claimed range, the claimed range is anticipated. See MPEP 2131.03.
Acar further discloses (x2) the at least one protected isocyanate is in a proportion by mass based on the dry weight of the aqueous dispersion of 0.1% to 10% ([0016]).
Regarding claim 23, Acar further discloses the aqueous dispersion comprises: (y1) at least one compound containing an epoxy group, in a proportion by mass based on a dry weight of the aqueous dispersion of 0% to 6% (i.e., up to 6%) ([0020]).
Acar further discloses the aqueous dispersion comprises: (y2) at least one polymer having carboxylic acid-functional groups, in a proportion by mass based on the dry weight of the aqueous dispersion of 0% to 15% (i.e., up to 15%) ([0025]).
Regarding claim 24, Acar further discloses (z1) the at least one filler, when present, is in a proportion by mass based on a dry weight of the aqueous dispersion of 0.02% to 20% ([0035]), wherein the aqueous dispersion does not include any polymer having carboxylic acid-functional groups ([0021], [0025]: wherein the aqueous dispersion “may” comprise it but it may also be 0%, i.e., not included).
Regarding claim 30, Acar further discloses the crosslinkable rubberization mixture contains at least one constituent selected from the group consisting of biobased fillers (e.g., chalk, starch, etc.) and biobased polymers (e.g., natural polyisoprene, natural rubber, etc.) ([0054]-[0057]), and wherein the rubberization mixture is essentially free of resorcinol ([0054]-[0058]: wherein resorcinol is never listed as a component of the mixture).
Regarding claim 31, Acar further discloses d) producing an unvulcanized vehicle tire blank, comprising the vulcanizable composite material ([0051]).
Regarding claim 43, Acar further discloses the aqueous dispersion comprises (y2) at least one polymer having carboxylic acid-functional groups, in a proportion by mass based on the dry weight of the aqueous dispersion of 0% to 15% (i.e., up to 15%) ([0021], [0025]).
Regarding claim 45, Acar further discloses the aqueous dispersion comprises the (z1) at least one filler, in a proportion by mass based on a dry weight of the aqueous dispersion of 0.02% to 20% ([0035]), wherein the (z1) at least one filler including at least one of silica, silicate, and/or carbon black ([0034]).
Regarding claim 46, Acar further discloses each resin-forming component present in the aqueous dipping composition is selected from the group consisting of blocked isocyanate(s), epoxy group-containing compound(s), polymer(s) with carboxylic acid functional group(s), and combinations thereof ([0001], [0008]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 20-21, 29, and 47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Acar et al. (EP 3702522) (of record) as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Reese (WO 2020254215, see US 20220314697 as English equivalent) (of record).
Regarding claims 20 and 47, Acar further discloses the textile strength member in step a) has filaments, wherein the filaments contain one or more materials selected from the group consisting of polyesters, polyamides, polyurethanes, glass, carbon, celluloses, polycarbonates, polyketones and combinations thereof, wherein suitable polyesters include, for example, polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polyethylene naphthalate (PEN), polybutylene terephthalate (PBT), polyethylene furanoate (PEF), and examples for polyamides include nylon-4,6 (PA 4.6), nylon-4,10 (PA 4.10), nylon-6 (PA 6), nylon-6,6 (PA 6.6 polyhexamethyleneadipamide), nylon-6,12 (PA 6.12), nylon-10,10 (PA 10.10) and nylon-12,12 (PA 12.12), wherein suitable polyamides further include aromatic polyamides such as aramides, in particular m-aramid, p-aramid and mixtures of m-aramid and p-aramid, and wherein suitable celluloses include, for example, regenerated celluloses (in particular viscose or rayon) and cellulose esters ([0042]-[0043]).
Reese also discloses a process for producing a vulcanizable composite material, comprising the steps of: a) producing or providing a textile strength member ([0001]-[0003]), b) treating the textile strength member with an aqueous dispersion for adhesive activation of the textile strength member and to obtain an adhesion-activated textile strength member ([0003], [0046]), and c) introducing the adhesion-activated textile strength member into a crosslinkable rubberization mixture to obtain the vulcanizable composite material ([0001]-[0003]), wherein the aqueous dispersion is essentially free of free resorcinol and resorcinol precondensates ([0046]), and is free of free formaldehyde and formaldehyde-releasing substances ([0046]), and is free of aromatic aldehydes (i.e., nowhere in the disclosure are there aromatic aldehydes disclosed), wherein the textile strength member in step a) has filaments, wherein the filaments contain one or more materials selected from the group consisting of a1) recycled polymers and a2) biobased polymers ([0010]-[0012], [0014], [0017]-[0020], [0023], [0025]-[0027], [0030]-[0031], [0034]-[0035], [0038]-[0039], [0042]), wherein recycled PET is used ([0010]-[0012]). Reese further discloses it has surprisingly been found that with recycled PET as a strength member a further improvement in shrinkage behavior (greater shrinkage) is achieved compared to PET originally produced from crude oil, i.e. non-recycled PET, and improved properties are achieved in the belt bandage of the vehicle tire according to the invention: the vehicle tire has improved high-speed capability; possible cord compressions at the belt edge occur only to a markedly reduced extent, if at all, thus resulting in fewer cord breakages; and the use of recycled PET has ecological and economic advantages as it avoids the production of new (non-recycled) petroleum-based materials, thus avoiding overexploitation of the finite resource of crude oil ([0011]-[0012]). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the polymer cord disclosed by Acar so as to be recycled PET, including consisting of only recycled PET, for the advantaged discussed above as taught by Reese.
Accordingly, the polymers disclosed by Acar may be recycled polymers, including the polymers from the group consisting of polyesters, polyamides, and aramids as discussed above.
Regarding claim 21, Acar further discloses the polyesters are selected from the group consisting of: polyethylene terephthalate (PET) and polyethylene naphthalate (PEN); the polyamides are selected from the group consisting of: PA6.6, PA4.6, PA4.10, PA6, PA6.12, PA10.10, PA12.12; and the aramids are selected from the group consisting of: m-aramid and p-aramid ([0042]-[0043]).
Additionally, Reese further discloses the polyesters are polyethylene terephthalate (PET) ([0010]-[0012]), and the polyamides are selected from the group consisting of: PA6.6, PA4.6, PA6, PA6.12, PA12.12 ([0042]).
Regarding claim 29, Acar further discloses the textile strength member in step a) has filaments, wherein the filaments contain at least one material selected from the group consisting of polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polyethylene naphthalate (PEN), PA6.6, PA4.6, PA4.10, and aramid ([0042]-[0043]). As discussed above in claim 20, the polymers may be recycled polymers.
Additionally, Reese further discloses the textile strength member in step a) has filaments, wherein the filaments contain at least one material selected from the group consisting of recycled polyethylene terephthalate (rPET), biobased PA6.6, biobased PA4.6 ([0010]-[0012], [0014], [0042]).
Claim(s) 24 and 44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Acar et al. (EP 3702522) (of record) as applied to claim 18 above.
Regarding claim 24, Acar further discloses (z3) the at least one wax, when present, is in a proportion by mass based on the dry weight of the aqueous dispersion of 0.5% to 15% ([0018]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.3% to 30%. 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. Applicant's original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the at least one wax, when present, is in a proportion by mass based on the dry weight of the aqueous dispersion.
Regarding claim 44, Acar further discloses the at least one protected isocyanate is in a proportion by mass based on the dry weight of the aqueous dispersion of 0.1% to 10% ([0016]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.1% to 4.5%. 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. Applicant's original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the at least one protected isocyanate is in a proportion by mass based on the dry weight of the aqueous dispersion.
Claim(s) 18, 20-24, 29-31, and 43-47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kramer et al. (DE 102014211365, see machine translation), Reese (WO 2020254215, see US 20220314697 as English equivalent) (of record), Lang et al. (EP 3617285, see machine translation), and Acar et al. (EP 3702522) (of record).
Regarding claims 18 and 47, Kramer discloses a process for producing a vulcanizable composite material ([0001]), comprising the steps of: a) producing or providing a textile strength member ([0005]), b) treating the textile strength member with an aqueous dispersion for adhesive activation of the textile strength member and to obtain an adhesion-activated textile strength member ([0009]), and c) introducing the adhesion-activated textile strength member into a crosslinkable rubberization mixture to obtain the vulcanizable composite material ([0007]), wherein the aqueous dispersion is essentially free of free resorcinol and resorcinol precondensates ([0002]-[0003]), and is free of free formaldehyde and formaldehyde-releasing substances ([0002]-[0003]), and is free of aromatic aldehydes (i.e., nowhere in the disclosure are there aromatic aldehydes), and wherein the textile strength member in step a) has filaments, wherein the filaments contain nylon or polyester ([0014], [0042]-[0044], [0048]-[0050]).
While Kramer does not expressly recite the nylon or polyester is recycled polymer or biobased polymer, Reese also discloses a process for producing a vulcanizable composite material, comprising the steps of: a) producing or providing a textile strength member ([0001]-[0003]), b) treating the textile strength member with an aqueous dispersion for adhesive activation of the textile strength member and to obtain an adhesion-activated textile strength member ([0003], [0046]), and c) introducing the adhesion-activated textile strength member into a crosslinkable rubberization mixture to obtain the vulcanizable composite material ([0001]-[0003]), wherein the aqueous dispersion is essentially free of free resorcinol and resorcinol precondensates ([0046]), and is free of free formaldehyde and formaldehyde-releasing substances ([0046]), and is free of aromatic aldehydes (i.e., nowhere in the disclosure are there aromatic aldehydes disclosed), wherein the textile strength member in step a) has filaments, wherein the filaments contain one or more materials selected from the group consisting of a1) recycled polymers and a2) biobased polymers ([0010]-[0012], [0014], [0017]-[0020], [0023], [0025]-[0027], [0030]-[0031], [0034]-[0035], [0038]-[0039], [0042]), wherein recycled PET is used ([0010]-[0012]). Reese further discloses it has surprisingly been found that with recycled PET as a strength member a further improvement in shrinkage behavior (greater shrinkage) is achieved compared to PET originally produced from crude oil, i.e. non-recycled PET, and improved properties are achieved in the belt bandage of the vehicle tire according to the invention: the vehicle tire has improved high-speed capability; possible cord compressions at the belt edge occur only to a markedly reduced extent, if at all, thus resulting in fewer cord breakages; and the use of recycled PET has ecological and economic advantages as it avoids the production of new (non-recycled) petroleum-based materials, thus avoiding overexploitation of the finite resource of crude oil ([0011]-[0012]). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the polyester or nylon cord disclosed by Kramer so as to be recycled PET, including consisting of only recycled PET, for the advantaged discussed above as taught by Reese.
Kramer further discloses a pre-dip aqueous dispersion that comprises: (x1) at least one rubber latex ([0013], [0043]-[0044], [0049]-[0050]), and (x2) at least one protected isocyanate ([0014]). Lang also discloses a process for producing a vulcanizable composite material ([0001]), comprising the steps of: a) producing or providing a textile strength member ([0001]), b) treating the textile strength member with an aqueous dispersion for adhesive activation of the textile strength member and to obtain an adhesion-activated textile strength member ([0016]), and c) introducing the adhesion-activated textile strength member into a crosslinkable rubberization mixture to obtain the vulcanizable composite material ([0048]), wherein the aqueous dispersion is essentially free of free resorcinol and resorcinol precondensates ([0004]-[0005]), and is free of free formaldehyde and formaldehyde-releasing substances ([0004]-[0005]), and is free of aromatic aldehydes (i.e., nowhere in the disclosure are there aromatic aldehydes), and wherein the textile strength member in step a) has filaments, wherein the filaments contain biobased polymers ([0009], [0033]). Lang further discloses the aqueous dispersion comprises: (x1) at least one rubber latex ([0010]), and (x2) at least one protected isocyanate ([0001]), wherein all of the components are combined into a single stage aqueous dispersion using only one dip bath ([0010]-[0011]). This is an improvement on the already sufficiently good adhesion that is usually only achieved with a pre-dip for the textile in a mixture of isocyanate and epoxy ([0011]). Moreover, case law holds that it would be obvious to make separate components or steps integral if there is a reasoning to do so. See MPEP 2144.04. Here, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to combine the two-stage dipping of the textile in two aqueous dispersions into a single-stage dip of a single aqueous dispersion comprising all components for the advantages discussed above as taught by Lang. Accordingly, modified Kramer discloses the aqueous dispersion comprises: (x1) at least one rubber latex, and (x2) at least one protected isocyanate.
Kramer further discloses the aqueous dispersion may further comprise other substances ([0013]). However, Kramer does not expressly recite it comprises one or more of the following components: (z1) at least one filler, (z2) at least one polyisoprene rubber latex which is different than the at least one rubber latex of (x1), and/or (z3) at least one wax.
Acar also discloses a process for producing a vulcanizable composite material, comprising the steps of: a) producing or providing a textile strength member ([0001]), b) treating the textile strength member with an aqueous dispersion for adhesive activation of the textile strength member and to obtain an adhesion-activated textile strength member ([0001], [0006], [0008]-[0009], [0046]), and c) introducing the adhesion-activated textile strength member into a crosslinkable rubberization mixture to obtain the vulcanizable composite material ([0051]-[0052]), wherein the aqueous dispersion comprises: (x1) at least one rubber latex ([0008], [0010]), and (x2) at least one blocked (i.e., protected) isocyanate ([0008], [0014]-[0016]); wherein the aqueous dispersion further comprises one or more of the following components: (z1) at least one filler ([0030]-[0035]), (z2) at least one polyisoprene rubber latex which is different than the at least one rubber latex of (x1) ([0008], [0010]), and/or (z3) at least one wax ([0008], [0017]-[0018]); wherein the aqueous dispersion is essentially free of free resorcinol and resorcinol precondensates ([0008]), is free of free formaldehyde and formaldehyde-releasing substances ([0008]), and is free of aromatic aldehydes (i.e., nowhere in the disclosure are there aromatic aldehydes); wherein the textile strength member in step a) has filaments, wherein the filaments contain one or more materials selected from the group consisting of polyesters, polyamides, polyurethanes, glass, carbon, celluloses, polycarbonates, polyketones and combinations thereof, wherein suitable polyesters include, for example, polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polyethylene naphthalate (PEN), polybutylene terephthalate (PBT), polyethylene furanoate (PEF), and examples for polyamides include nylon-4,6 (PA 4.6), nylon-4,10 (PA 4.10), nylon-6 (PA 6), nylon-6,6 (PA 6.6 polyhexamethyleneadipamide), nylon-6,12 (PA 6.12), nylon-10,10 (PA 10.10) and nylon-12,12 (PA 12.12), wherein suitable polyamides further include aromatic polyamides such as aramides, in particular m-aramid, p-aramid and mixtures of m-aramid and p-aramid, and wherein suitable celluloses include, for example, regenerated celluloses (in particular viscose or rayon) and cellulose esters ([0042]-[0043]). In other words, Acar discloses the textile strength member in step a) has filaments, wherein the filaments contain one or more materials selected from polymers such as biobased polymers. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to further modify Kramer in order to provide the aqueous dispersion further comprise (z1) at least one filler, (z2) at least one polyisoprene rubber latex which is different than the at least one rubber latex of (x1), and/or (z3) at least one wax as taught by the substantially similar Acar.
Regarding claim 20, Kramer further discloses the polymers may be polyester or nylon (i.e., polyamide) ([0014], [0042]-[0044], [0048]-[0050]). Kramer in view of Reese discloses that the polymers may be recycled. Reese further discloses the recycled and biobased polymers are selected from the group consisting of polyesters and polyamides ([0010]-[0012], [0014], [0017]-[0020], [0023], [0025]-[0027], [0030]-[0031], [0034]-[0035], [0038]-[0039], [0042]). Thereby, modified Kramer discloses the recycled and biobased polymers are selected from the group consisting of polyesters and polyamides.
Regarding claim 21, Reese further discloses the polyesters are polyethylene terephthalate (PET) ([0010]-[0012]), and the polyamides are selected from the group consisting of: PA6.6, PA4.6, PA6, PA6.12, PA12.12 ([0042]).
Regarding claim 22, Kramer discloses various percentages of the components for the aqueous dispersions ([0013]), but does not expressly recite them based on the dry weight, or in a single-stage dip.
Lang further discloses in the single-stage dip that: (x1) the at least one rubber latex is in a proportion by mass based on a dry weight of the aqueous dispersion of 6% to 13% ([0023]-[0024]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 4% to 60%; and (x2) the at least one protected isocyanate is in a proportion by mass based on the dry weight of the aqueous dispersion of 0.1% to 5% ([0019]-[0020]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.1% to 10%. 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. Applicant's original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the at least one rubber latex is in a proportion by mass based on a dry weight of the aqueous dispersion and the at least one protected isocyanate is in a proportion by mass based on the dry weight of the aqueous dispersion.
Regarding claim 23, Kramer discloses the aqueous dispersion (y1) at least one compound containing an epoxy group ([0014]). Lang also discloses the aqueous dispersion comprises: (y1) at least one compound containing an epoxy group, in a proportion by mass based on a dry weight of the aqueous dispersion of at least 0.01% to 1.0% ([0010], [0017]-[0018]), which overlaps with the claimed range of up to 6%. 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. Applicant's original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for at least one compound containing an epoxy group, in a proportion by mass based on a dry weight of the aqueous dispersion.
Regarding claim 24, Acar further discloses (z1) the at least one filler, when present, is in a proportion by mass based on a dry weight of the aqueous dispersion of 0.02% to 20% ([0035]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.02% to 20%, wherein the aqueous dispersion does not include any polymer having carboxylic acid-functional groups ([0021], [0025]: wherein the aqueous dispersion “may” comprise it but it may also be 0%, i.e., not included). 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. Applicant's original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the at least one filler, when present, is in a proportion by mass based on a dry weight of the aqueous dispersion.
Acar further discloses (z3) the at least one wax, when present, is in a proportion by mass based on the dry weight of the aqueous dispersion of 0.5% to 15% ([0018]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.3% to 30%. 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. Applicant's original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the at least one wax, when present, is in a proportion by mass based on the dry weight of the aqueous dispersion.
Regarding claim 29, Reese further discloses the textile strength member in step a) has filaments, wherein the filaments contain at least one material selected from the group consisting of recycled polyethylene terephthalate (rPET), biobased PA6.6, biobased PA4.6 ([0010]-[0012], [0014], [0042]).
Regarding claim 30, Kramer further discloses the crosslinkable rubberization mixture may contain natural polyisoprene (i.e., biobased polymer) ([0005]). Kramer also discloses the crosslinkable rubberization mixture may contain starch (i.e., biobased filler) ([0030]). Kramer also discloses the disadvantages associated with resorcinol and formaldehyde, such as harmful effects to the environment and health, are avoided in the reinforcing layer of the invention (i.e., the rubberization mixture is essentially free of resorcinol) ([0003], [0048], [0054]; see also [0036] wherein instead of resorcinol methylene acceptors as additives in the rubber mixture there may be methylene donors, which would especially be favorable given Kramer’s disclosure as to the disadvantages of resorcinol).
Regarding claim 31, Kramer further discloses d) producing an unvulcanized vehicle tire blank, comprising the vulcanizable composite material ([0006]-[0007]).
Regarding claim 43, Acar further discloses the aqueous dispersion comprises (y2) at least one polymer having carboxylic acid-functional groups, in a proportion by mass based on the dry weight of the aqueous dispersion of 0% to 15% (i.e., up to 15%) ([0021], [0025]). 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. Applicant's original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for at least one polymer having carboxylic acid-functional groups, in a proportion by mass based on the dry weight of the aqueous dispersion.
Regarding claim 44, Kramer discloses various percentages of the components for the aqueous dispersions ([0013]), but does not expressly recite them based on the dry weight, or in a single-stage dip.
Lang further discloses in the single-stage dip that: the at least one protected isocyanate is in a proportion by mass based on the dry weight of the aqueous dispersion of 0.1% to 5% ([0019]-[0020]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.1% to 4.5%. 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. Applicant's original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the at least one protected isocyanate is in a proportion by mass based on the dry weight of the aqueous dispersion.
Regarding claim 45, Acar further discloses the aqueous dispersion comprises the (z1) at least one filler, in a proportion by mass based on a dry weight of the aqueous dispersion of 0.02% to 20% ([0035]), wherein the (z1) at least one filler including at least one of silica, silicate, and/or carbon black ([0034]). 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. Applicant's original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for at least one filler, in a proportion by mass based on a dry weight of the aqueous dispersion.
Regarding claim 46, Kramer further discloses the aqueous dipping composition includes epoxy group-containing compound(s) ([0014]). Lang also discloses the aqueous dipping composition includes epoxy group-containing compound(s) ([0010]).
Allowable Subject Matter
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Claims 26 and 38-41 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: claims 26 and 38 were previously indicated as allowable subject matter in the 04/10/2026 Nonfinal Rejection. The claimed subject matter remains allowable for the reasons of record.
Claim 39 is allowable by dependence on claim 26.
Claims 40-41 are allowable by dependence on claim 38.
Claim 42 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 18, 20-24, 29-31, and 43-47 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed 07/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 9-11 of the Remarks, Applicant argues “[t]he support for the aromatic-aldehyde exclusion does not depend on the mere absence of the words ‘aromatic aldehyde’ from the specification. Rather, the limitation is supported by the original disclosure viewed as a whole-its stated technical direction, its affirmative description of the adhesive chemistry, and its complete working formulations. The present disclosure begins from a clear technical premise: moving away from conventional resorcinol/formaldehyde adhesive chemistry to provide a more health and environmentally benign adhesion-activation system, while maintaining the bond strength, processability, and service life appropriate for tire applications … An aromatic-aldehyde-free dispersion is consistent with that basic concept and does not introduce a new or unrelated technical direction. The disclosure then affirmatively identifies exemplary chemistry selected to carry out that concept … It presents a specific alternative architecture for adhesive activation, and aromatic aldehydes are not identified as part of that architecture.” Applicant further relies on working examples that exclude aromatic aldehydes. Applicant also argues “[t]he examples therefore do more than merely fail to mention an arbitrary ingredient. They demonstrate that the disclosed adhesive system is formulated and operates as a complete system without an aromatic aldehyde. This is consistent with the broader disclosure, which identifies the components used to replace conventional adhesive chemistry without presenting an aromatic aldehyde as part of that replacement.” The examiner does not find these arguments to be persuasive.
Although a negative limitation need not be recited verbatim in the original disclosure, the original disclosure must nonetheless provide adequate support such that a person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter at the time of filing. MPEP 2163.02. Here, the originally filed disclosure does not identify the absence of aromatic aldehyde as a feature of the disclosed compositions, as it does resorcinol and formaldehyde, nor does it disclose that aromatic aldehydes are undesirable, excluded, or otherwise incompatible with the disclosed invention.
Furthermore, Applicant’s assertion that the invention is directed to moving away from conventional RFL adhesive systems does not, without further disclosure establishing a connection between that objective and the exclusion of aromatic aldehydes, reasonably convey possession of the presently claimed negative limitation. In particular, Applicant has not identified that moving away from conventional RFL adhesive systems necessarily requires excluding aromatic aldehydes. Moreover, Applicant has not discussed Takahashi’s disclosure of an aqueous dispersion that moves away from conventional RFL adhesive systems by being free from resorcinol and formaldehyde while also including aromatic aldehydes, thereby implying that it is not an inherent correlation as Applicant claims. Additionally, the statement “moving away from conventional resorcinol/formaldehyde adhesive chemistry to provide a more health and environmentally benign adhesion-activation system, while maintaining the bond strength, processability, and service life appropriate for tire applications … An aromatic-aldehyde-free dispersion is consistent with that basic concept and does not introduce a new or unrelated technical direction” is counselor’s opinion. Applicant has not provided any factual support or evidence for this statement, and thus it is attorney argument. Attorney arguments cannot take the place of evidence where the asserted relationship involves technical properties of materials. See MPEP 716.01(c)(II), 2145(I).
Moreover, the mere absence of an aromatic aldehyde from particular disclosed formulas or working examples, by itself, does not establish written description support for the claimed exclusion. The fact that particular embodiments do not identify aromatic aldehyde does not necessarily convey that the inventor possessed the broader limitation requiring the composition be free of aromatic aldehydes, particularly where the disclosure does not otherwise identify the absence of aromatic aldehydes as a required characteristic of the compositions and where resorcinol and formaldehyde are expressly excluded in the disclosure.
Conclusion
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEDEF PAQUETTE whose telephone number is (571) 272-5031. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 8:00 AM EST - 4:00 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, KATELYN SMITH can be reached on (571) 270-5545. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300. The fax phone number for the examiner is (571) 273-5031.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SEDEF E PAQUETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights