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 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) 1-7, 9-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (US 5,902,856, of record) and further in view of McKay (US 5,869,591, of record) and/or Drumright (WO 01/10914, of record).
Suzuki is directed to a tire tread composition comprising a modified diene rubber (i), such as a conjugated diene-aromatic vinyl copolymer (Column 2, Lines 35-58, Column 4, Lines 46+, and Column 23, Lines 30+). In such an instance, the disclosure of randomness is seen to correspond with a statistical copolymer (modified diene rubber (i) corresponds with the claimed statistical polymer). Suzuki further states that exemplary aromatic vinyl structures include styrene, methylstyrene, butylstyrene, and vinylnaphthene. In such an instance, though, Suzuki fails to expressly teach the use of vinylbenzocyclobutane (as the disclosed aromatic vinyl structure).
In any event, vinylbenzocyclobutane is a well-known aromatic vinyl structure that is commonly disclosed in an alternative manner with, for example, styrene and methylstyrene, as shown for example by McKay (Column 48, Lines 33-38) and/or Drumright (Page 9, Lines 3-4 and Page 54, Lines 19-21). It is evident that the alternate disclosure of styrene and vinylbenzocyclobutane is not application specific, although Drumright is directed to tire products (Page 36, Lines 1-5). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use vinylbenzocyclobutane as the aromatic vinyl structure in the rubber composition Suzuki (claimed structure is recognized as being alternatively disclosed with a plurality of the exemplary structures taught by Suzuki).
Lastly, regarding claim 1 (and claims 2 and 3), Suzuki states that “there is no particular restriction as to the vulcanizing agent”. More particularly, describes the use of dioximes, polyamine compounds, and methylol group-containing alkylphenols (Column 10, Lines 39+). These materials can be viewed as non-traditional rubber curatives and as such, the claim is satisfied.
With respect to claim 3, none of the disclosed materials are required in the rubber composition of Suzuki.
As to claims 4 and 20, the tread rubber composition of Suzuki includes modified diene rubber (i) and diene rubber (ii), wherein modified diene rubber (i) has a loading between 5% and 80% by weight (Column 7, Lines 64+).
Regarding claim 5, Suzuki teaches a plurality of diene materials that satisfy the claimed invention (Column 2, Lines 36+).
With respect to claims 6 and 12, Suzuki teaches a polymer formed by including two or more comonomers (Column 2, Lines 55-60). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious any number of combinations of comonomers and any number of combinations of loadings, including that required by the claimed invention. Also, Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed combination of materials.
As to claim 8, Suzuki describes the use of carbon black, silica, silane coupling agent, and extender oil at loadings in accordance to the claimed invention (Column 9, Lines 53+, Column 11, Lines 57-65, and Column 12, Lines 5-8).
With respect to claim 9, high molecular diene rubber (ii) can be viewed as the claimed rubber component (Column 5, Lines 65+).
Regarding claim 10, the claims are directed to a rubber formulation, as opposed to a method of forming a rubber formulation, and thus, the claims fails to further define the structure of the claimed rubber formulation.
With respect to claim 11, modified diene rubber (i) has a wight average molecular weight between 1.5 x 105 and 5 x 105 (Column 2, Lines 5+).
Regarding claims 13 and 16, the claimed arrangement would have been expected to result following the method of Suzuki (consistent with the method taught by Applicant) (Column 4, Lines 46).
As to claim 14, Suzuki states that the content of the conjugated diene units is between 40 and 95% by weight (Column 2, Lines 59+).
With respect to claim 15, the content of the aromatic vinyl units is between 5% and 60% by weight (Column 2, Lines 60+).
Regarding claim 18, Suzuki states that a polymerization reaction is “generally” conducted between 20°C and 150°C (Column 4, Lines 46+). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use additional temperatures given the “general” characterization above, it being further noted that a lower limit of the claims is “about” 170C.
As to claim 20, any number of “sustainable” ingredients are conventionally included within tire rubber compositions in order to promote environmental considerations. For example, sustainable carbon black and silica are known to be used in tire compositions for the benefits detailed above.
4. Claim(s) 8 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki, McKay, and Drumright as applied in claims 1 and 18 above and further in view of Mishima (JP 2015-203079, of record).
As detailed above, Suzuki is directed to a tread composition. Suzuki further states that necessary amounts of compounding agents can be included (Column 12, Lines 1+). While Suzuki fails to expressly teach a copper additive, such an additive, for example copper fluoride, is known to be included in tire tread compositions in order to promote grip performance and separation resistance, as shown for example by Mishima. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include a copper additive in the tread of Suzuki for the benefits detailed above.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant's arguments filed January 6, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to modify the teachings of Suzuki to use vinylbenzocyclobutane as allegedly taught by McKay and/or Drumright.
It is emphasized that Suzuki specifically lists a plurality of exemplary aromatic vinyl compounds. This is evidenced by the following language (Column 2, Lines 47+):
As the aromatic vinyl, there can be mentioned, for example, styrene, alpha-methylstyrene, 2-methylstyrene, etc.
As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use additional aromatic vinyl compounds, such as that required by the claimed invention. The language “for example” specifically directs one having ordinary skill in the art to use additional aromatic vinyl compounds. The specific selection of the claimed compound would have been obvious since said compound is commonly disclosed as being an alternative aromatic vinyl compound to a plurality of expressly disclosed compounds in Suzuki. It is further noted that Drumright is even directed to tire compositions including the claimed aromatic vinyl compound, further suggesting that the use of the claimed aromatic vinyl compound would have been well within the purview of one having ordinary skill in the art. Lastly, Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed aromatic vinyl compound.
Conclusion
6. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
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 January 24, 2026