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 § 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) 1-8 and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hough (US 2016/229998, newly cited).
Hough is directed to a method of making a tire or a tire tread compound (any compound can be broadly viewed as a “tire or tire tread compound”- claim is akin to requiring a method of making a composition or compound), wherein said compound includes an elastomeric component A and a low viscosity elastomeric polymer E (Paragraphs 19-24). More particularly, Hough states that (a) the elastomeric polymer can be a blend or mixture of polymers, such as styrene butadiene rubber or SBR (corresponds with (ii) of the claimed invention) and polybutadiene rubber (corresponds with claimed “one or more non-functionalized polybutadiene rubbers) (Paragraphs 27 and 41) and (b) the low viscosity elastomeric polymer can be a functionalized ethylene-based copolymer (e.g. Keltan 1519R- corresponds with inventive copolymer (i) and thus would be expected to have an ethylene content and alpha-olefin monomer content in accordance to the claimed invention ). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include a mixture of SBR and polybutadiene rubber in the composition of Hough given the general disclosure (a) to form a blend or mixture and (b) of including SBR and polybutadiene rubber.
With respect to claim 2, Hough states that the low viscosity elastomeric polymer E has a loading between 0.1 to 100 parts in relation to the elastomeric polymer A and such is seen to substantially encompass the claimed range.
As to claims 3 and 4, Hough describes a copolymer having a maleic anhydride functional group (Paragraph 79).
With respect to claim 5, Hough teaches an exemplary composition in which an ethylene-based copolymer is functionalized with maleic anhydride. It is similarly well known and conventional function ethylene-based copolymers with additional anhydrides, including succinic anhydride. These anhydrides are conventionally used to functionalized ethylene-based copolymers and furthermore, are commonly disclosed in an alternative manner. Absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results, one having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use any number of conventional functionalizing agents, including that required by the claimed invention. This is further evidenced when looking at the description by Hough regarding function groups to modify an elastomeric polymer (Paragraph 30).
Regarding claim 6, given that Keltan 1519R constitutes an inventive copolymer (see Page 7 of the original disclosure), it reasons that such a copolymer would demonstrate a melt flow index in accordance to the claimed invention.
As to claim 7, the claims the conventional manner in which functionalized polymers are formed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to carry out a method as required by the claims absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results.
With respect to claim 12, given that the ethylene-based copolymer has a loading between 0.1 and 100 parts of the polymeric elastomer A (Paragraph 79), it reasons that Hough encompasses a multitude of ratios in accordance to the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 13, Hough describes a wide variety of curatives or cross-linking agents (Paragraph 87).
As to claim 14, Hough states that the mixture can be shaped in the form of sheets, slabs, or pellets (Paragraphs 97 and 106).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hough as applied in claim 14 above and further in view of Yamada (US 2022/0010115, newly cited).
As detailed above, Hough is directed to a rubber composition comprising a functionalized ethylene-based copolymer (claimed (i)). Hough further states that “typical” applications include the automobile segment (e.g. window seals), conveyor belts, and rollers (Paragraph 112). While Hough fails to expressly disclose a tire application, rubber compositions having the above applications are similarly disclosed as having applicability in tire applications, as shown for example by Yamada (Paragraph 187). As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form a tire component with the rubber composition of Hough.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 18 and 12-15 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
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 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 July 17, 2026
Prosecution Insights