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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 10, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 8-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai (CN 103012979, newly cited) and further in view of Calzetta (WO 2020/202125, of record) and Wittmann (WO 2017/085278, of record).
Cai is directed to an innerliner rubber composition comprising 50-100 phr of halobutyl rubber (preferably 70-90 phr) and 10-70 phr of carbon black, such as N326, N330, N335, N339, N343, N351, and N375 (Abstract). It is well recognized that all of these carbon black have a surface area between 55m2/g and 95 m2/g (corresponds with claimed F2 carbon blacks). In such an instance, though, the innerliner rubber composition of is devoid of a reinforcing filler F1.
Calzetta is similarly directed to an innerliner rubber composition and teaches the inclusion of treated lignin having a surface area between 30 m2/g and 55 m2/g (corresponds with claimed F1 reinforcing filler) as a partial replacement of carbon black (Page 5, Lines 21+). More particularly, such a composition reduces fossil fuel consumption and improves impermeability without compromising mechanical properties (Page 4, Lines 1-17). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include treated lignin in the innerliner rubber composition of Cai for the benefits detailed above. It is emphasized that Cai teaches an innerliner rubber composition comprising 10-70 phr of carbon black having the claimed surface area- when following the teachings of Calzetta, one of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to partially replace said carbon black (that if Cai) with treated lignin at loadings between 15 phr and 45 phr (total filler content of carbon black and lignin would be 10-70 phr and thus substantially overlaps with the broad range between 45 phr and 80 phr of the claimed invention). It is also noted that when describing carbon black, Calzetta states that “preferably, said reinforcing filler comprises 15-45 phr of carbon black having a specific surface area of between 30 m2/g and 50 m2/g” (Page 6, Lines 4-6). It is well taken that a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including non-preferred embodiments. As such, there is a reasonable expectation of success when including treated lignin with the carbon black of Beers. Furthermore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close (MPEP 2144.05). For example, a modified rubber composition of Cai including 46 phr of treated lignin and 24 phr of carbon black (e.g. N330) would satisfy the claimed invention. Similarly, a modified rubber composition of Cai including 35 phr of treated lignin and 15 phr of carbon black (e.g. N330) would satisfy the claimed invention.
With further respect to the treated lignin, Calzetta teaches a distribution D50 between 1 micron and 4 microns and a distribution D90 between 5 microns and 8 microns (Page 5, Lines 21+). This disclosure suggests that a distribution D97 in Calzetta would be between 3 microns and 23 microns as required by the claimed invention.
Lastly, regarding claim 1, while Calzetta is silent with respect to 14C content and carbon content, the claimed ranges appear to be consistent with those that are conventionally associated with lignin-reinforced tire rubber compositions, as shown for example by Wittman (Abstract).
Regarding 2, as stated above, N330 carbon has a surface area of 78 m2/g and the disclosed lignin of Calzetta has a surface area between 30 m2/g and 55 m2/g.
With respect to claims 3-5, the innerliner rubber composition of Cai preferably includes 10-30 phr of a rubber that differs from halobutyl rubber. This language would be expected to include conventional rubber compounds, including natural rubber and SBR.
As to claim 6, the lignin of Calzetta is hydrothermally treated.
With respect to claim 8, based on the extreme similarity in methods used to form or capture the lignin, it appears that the claimed amount of surface-available acidic hydroxy groups would be present.
As to claims 9-11, the innerliner rubber composition of Cai includes zinc oxide, sulfur, and accelerators (e.g. thiazole) (Abstract). With specific respect to claim 11, the components are separated from one another prior to mixing (spatially separated).
Regarding claims 12 and 13, the claimed method is consistent with the known manner in which fillers are added to rubber materials (optimizes filler dispersion).
With respect to claims 14-16, the claimed method steps are consistent with those that are conventionally used in the manufacture of tire components. Additionally, the claimed thickness is consistent with innerliner components, it being noted that the claims are directed to absolute dimensions and it is well taken that dimensions are highly dependent on the tire size and ultimately the intended use of the tire.
Regarding claim 17, a total filler amount (F1 and F2) in Beers is between 10 and 70 phr.
As to claim 19, it reasons that the modified composition of Cai would demonstrate extremely similar properties to that required by the claimed invention since the components, loadings, and methods in the modified tire of Cai substantially mimic those of the claimed invention.
With respect to claim 21, the general disclosure to partially replace carbon black with lignin is seen to encompass the claimed range of lignin loadings. Example C in Table 1 of Calzetta includes a ratio of approximately 57% but such a composition would be recognized as being exemplary. Absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form the composition of Cai with a ratio in accordance to the claimed invention. For example, a composition including 40 phr of treated lignin and 10 phr of carbon black (e.g. N330) is consistent with the teachings of Cai and Calzetta and is seen to satisfy the claimed invention
5. Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai, Calzetta, and Wittmann as applied in claim 18 above and further in view of Mechanics of Pneumatic Tires (of record).
As detailed above, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to partially replace carbon black in the innerliner composition of Cai with treated lignin to obtain environmental benefits. In terms of the properties of the innerliner rubber composition, the claimed range of hardness values, at a minimum, are consistent with those that are conventionally associated with innerliners, as shown for example by Mechanics of Pneumatic Tires. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form the innerliner rubber of Cai with a common hardness value (recognized as not being too rigid or hard based on the main function of the innerliner being airflow prevention into the tire).
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-6 and 8-21 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
7. 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 February 18, 2026