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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on May 13, 2026 has been entered.
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.
4. Claim(s) 1-4, 6-10, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaszas (US 2016/0068031, of record) and further in view of Lord Technical Data or LTD ( https://manualsnet.com/lord/chemlok-ep2906-27a, newly cited) and (Alexander (US 2019/0291511, of record).
Kaszas (Paragraphs 23 and 27) is directed to a tire sealant composition comprising, as the major components, 100 phr of butyl rubber and between 100 phr and 900 phr of a diluent, such as polybutene (claimed polyolefin) (Paragraphs 16 and 18) and further including paraffinic oil (claimed plasticizer) and quinone dioxime (claimed crosslinker).
In terms of the polybutene, the disclosure of 100 phr-900 phr of polybutene is seen to encompass the claims and Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed weight percentages. Additionally, said butyl rubber is included between 10% by weight (100 phr/1,000 phr) and 50% by weight (100 phr /200 phr). While such a relationship does not include additional components, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have expected the additional components to have a weight percentage that would significantly alter the butyl rubber and polybutene weight percentages (given that these constituents are the primary components of the sealant composition). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include butyl rubber and polybutene at loadings in accordance to the claimed invention absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results.
Kaszas, though, simply states that paraffinic oils may be included (Paragraph 23)- the reference fails to disclose the inclusion of said dioxime in a dispersion.
It is well known, though, to form a dispersion with processing oil and the dioxime in order to improve safety during processing (eliminates inclusion of dioxime as a powder) and improve heat resistance, as shown for example by Lord Technical Data. It is particularly noted that Lord Technical Data (LTD) specifically describes the use of such dispersions (between 48.5% and 51.5% solids content) in sealants comprising butyl elastomers (directly analogous to the sealant composition of Kaszas). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use a dispersion in the manufacturing process of Kaszas for the benefits detailed above.
Furthermore, regarding claim 1 (and claim 9), Kaszas states that said dioxime is included between 2% and 4% by weight (with respect to the butyl rubber) (Paragraph 27). This general order of dioxime loading would have suggested a dispersion loading in accordance to the claimed invention.
Additionally, regarding claim 1 (and claim 8), the sealant composition of Kaszas includes carbon black (Paragraph 28). While the reference is silent with respect to the carbon black loadings, the claimed quantitative relationships would be satisfied when using conventional carbon black loadings. Alexander provides one example of the carbon black loadings commonly used in tire sealant layers (Paragraphs 52 and 53). Absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include carbon black at loadings in accordance to the claimed invention.
Lastly, with respect to claim 1, the sealant composition of Kaszas includes, for example, magnesium oxide or zinc oxide (Paragraph 26). Alexander evidences the conventional loadings for zinc oxide (Paragraph 63) and such loadings would be expected to satisfy the claimed quantitative relationship. Also, Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results.
As to claim 2, the general disclosure of LTD suggests that using a process oil to form a dispersion provides safety benefits, as well as, for example, improved heat resistance. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use any number of conventional processing oils and such includes all of those required by the claimed invention. It is emphasized that the aforementioned benefits would be achieved independent of the specific type of processing oil, with the inventive concept appearing to focus on the use of a dispersion as opposed to a powder application.
Regarding claim 3, Kaszas states that “one of the known sulfur or quinoid systems” can be used (Paragraph 27). The claimed dioxime is well recognized as being a conventional quinoid system and as such, one having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form the sealant composition of Kaszas in accordance to the claimed invention. Also, Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed type of crosslinker.
With respect to claim 4, Alexander recognizes the wide variety of oil loadings that are commonly used with tire sealant compositions (Paragraph 68). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use any number of oil loadings in a dispersion, including that required by the claimed invention, given that the benefits of improved safety, for example, would be realized with any dispersion.
As to claim 10, the sealant composition of Kaszas includes, for example, magnesium oxide or zinc oxide (Paragraph 26). Alexander evidences the conventional loadings for zinc oxide (Paragraph 63) and such loadings would be expected to satisfy the claimed quantitative relationship. Also, Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results.
5. Claim(s) 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaszas, LTD, and Alexander as applied in claim 1 above and further in view of Pan (US 10,752,769, of record).
As detailed above, Kaszas teaches a tire sealant composition comprising a tackifying resin, such as hydrocarbon resins (Paragraph 24). While the reference is silent with respect to a tackifier loading, the claims would be satisfied when using conventional tackifying resin loadings. Pan, for example, is similarly directed to sealant compositions including hydrocarbon resins at loadings between 1 phr and 90 phr (Column 4, Lines 50-Column 5, Line 17 and Column 15, Lines 18-26). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use conventional tackifying resin loadings in the sealant composition of Kaszas and such would be expected to satisfy the claimed relationship. Additionally, Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed relationship.
With further respect to claims 12-15, Kaszas is directed to a sealant composition comprising butyl rubber (100 phr), polybutene (100 phr-900 phr), carbon black, quinoid dioxime, hydrocarbon resin (tackifying resin), paraffin oil, and zinc oxide. In terms of the claimed quantitative relationships, Alexander and Pan recognize the conventional loadings for respective components and such is seen to result in a wide variety of compositions that satisfy the claimed invention. Also, Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed composition. It is emphasized that a multitude of parameters are varied between Examples V1, E1, and E2 and as such, it is unclear exactly what contributes to any realized benefits. Also, the examples in Table 1 represent a species of the claimed sealant composition and as such, fail to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the broad sealant composition of the claims.
6. Claim(s) 16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaszas and further in view of Alexander and Liu (CN 113621328, of record) and TLD.
Kaszas, as modified by Alexander, is directed to a tire sealant composition (and associated process) comprising butyl rubber, polybutene, process oil (paraffin oil), and a quinoid curing system (Paragraphs 16-18, 23, and 27). In such an instance, though, Kaszas fails to disclose a first step in which said process oil (claimed plasticizer) and said quinoid curing system (claimed crosslinker) are mixed prior to introduction with said butyl rubber.
Liu is similarly directed to a tire sealant composition including butyl rubber, a quinoid curing system (crosslinking system), and process oil (plasticizer) (Abstract). More particularly, Liu teaches an initial mixing step in which the process oil (plasticizer) and the quinoid curing system are combined (such a method is consistent with the known manner of forming tire sealant compositions). TLD similarly teaches a method in which quinoid dioxime is included in dispersion form in order to improve safety (reduce inhalation of ground dioxime powder). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include an initial mixing step in the process of Kaszas, as taught by Liu, absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 18, the claimed quinoid dioxime is well recognized as being a conventional quinoid curing system and as such, one having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form the sealant composition of Kaszas in accordance to the claimed invention. Also, Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed type of crosslinker.
Response to Arguments
7. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4 and 6-18 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.
Conclusion
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN R FISCHER whose telephone number is (571)272-1215. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 5:30-2:00.
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, 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.
Justin Fischer
/JUSTIN R FISCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749 May 19, 2026
Prosecution Insights