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 Status
The claim filed on 12/04/2024 is under consideration by the Examiner. Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the instant application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 12/04/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and has been considered by the examiner. An initialed copy accompanies this Office Action.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 10-15, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 100827321 B1 (hereinafter Kang).
With respect to claims 1, 6, 10, and 12, Kang disclose a tire tread rubber composition comprises 100 parts by weight of a rubber material (elastomers) comprises 60-95 parts by weight if a natural rubber and 5-40 parts by weight of a styrene-butadiene rubber (See Abstract). The ratio of natural rubber to styrene-butadiene rubber, in parts by weight, is 60-95:5-40. The weight ratio suggested by Kang, overlaps with the claimed weight ratio of at least 70:30 as recited in claim 1 and at least 75:25 recited in claim 6. Kang disclose that the composition also comprises 5-15 parts by weight of a polybutadiene resin based on 100 parts by weight of the raw rubber to improve abrasion characteristics without decreasing braking force characteristics on a wet road surface (See 2nd and 4th paragraphs of unlabeled page 3). Kang further disclose that the composition comprises various additives such as reinforcing filler, an activator, an antioxidant, a process oil, a vulcanizing agent and a vulcanization accelerator used in conventional rubber composition (See 8th paragraph of unlabeled page 3).
In Comparative Example 1, Kang discloses another rubber composition comprises of 100 parts by weight of raw rubber with a sum of 50 parts by weight of carbon black and 20 parts by weight of silica that equates to 70 parts by weight of reinforcing fillers of carbon black and silica (See connecting unlabeled pages 3-4). The amount of reinforcing fillers, i.e., 70 parts by weight, as suggested by Kang, is at least 45 parts per hundred parts of rubber (phr) as recited in claim 1 and no more than 70 phr as recited in claim 10. Kang also discloses that the comparative rubber composition comprises of 2 parts by weight of wax (See 1st paragraph at unlabeled page 4). Wax is a processing aid as recited in claims 1 and 12. Kang further discloses that the comparative rubber composition comprises 1.5 parts by weight of a vulcanizing agent (curing agent) and 1.4 parts by weight of an accelerator CZ (See 2nd paragraph at unlabeled page 4). The disclosure of vulcanizing agent (curing agent) and accelerator CZ (N-cyclohexyl-2-benzothiazole sulfonamide, CZ) fulfills the claimed cure package as recited in claim 1.
Kang failed to anticipate the instant claims because Kang failed to disclose a rubber composition comprises 100 phr of rubbers comprises a ratio by weight of natural rubber to styrene-butadiene rubber of at least 70:30 and at least 45 phr of reinforcing fillers of carbon black and silica.
Give that Kang discloses one rubber composition comprises 100 phr of rubbers having an overlapping weight ratio of natural rubber to styrene-butadiene rubber as claimed (See Abstract) and another rubber composition comprises 70 phr of reinforcing fillers of carbon black and silica (See Comparative Example 1), it would have been obvious for a skilled artisan to combine two rubber compositions each of which is taught by Kang to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third rubber composition to be used for the very same purpose and the results would have been predictable. See In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846,850,205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 2, Kang discloses that the accelerator CZ is N-cyclohexyl-2-benzothiazole sulfonamide (See 2nd paragraph at unlabeled page 4) and fulfills the claimed cure package comprises benzothiazole sulfonamide.
Regarding claim 11, Kang discloses that the rubber composition comprises of 3 parts by weight of zinc oxide (See last paragraph at unlabeled page 4). The zinc oxide fulfills the claimed other reinforcing fillers present at no more than 10 phr.
Regarding claim 13, Kang discloses that the rubber composition comprises of 2,2,4-trimethyl-1,2-dihydroquinoline (TMQ) (See first paragraph at unlabeled page 4). TMQ is commonly known as an antioxidant as required in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 14, Kang discloses that the rubber composition comprises of 3 parts by weight of zinc oxide, 2 parts by weight of 2,2,4-trimethyl-1,2-dihydroquinoline, 2 parts by weight of wax, 2 parts by weight of stearic acid, 1.5 parts by weight of vulcanizing agent, 1.4 parts by weight of accelerator and 0.2 parts by weight of a promoter (See connecting unlabeled pages 3-4). The sum parts by weight of the above components are no more than 30 phr and are components other than the rubbers (elastomers), the carbon black and the silica as required in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 15, Kang discloses that the rubber composition is useful as tire tread (See 11th paragraph at unlabeled page 3).
Regarding claim 17, the components and proportions of claim 1 is incorporated herein as set forth above. Kang further discloses a method of forming a cured rubber composition comprises a step of forming a mixture with a Banbury mixer and kneading to obtain a rubber compound (See 6th paragraph at unlabeled page 4). Then vulcanizing (curing) the rubber compound at 160°C (See 7th paragraph at unlabeled page 4); thereby, forming a cured rubber composition.
Regarding claim 18, Kang discloses that the cured rubber composition is vulcanized (cured) at 160°C (See 7th paragraph at unlabeled page 4). This curing temperature is at least 120°C as required in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 19, Kang discloses that the rubber composition is useful as tire tread (See 11th paragraph at unlabeled page 3).
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang (KR 100827321 B1) as applied to the above claims, and further in view of KR 20220162467 A (hereinafter Lim).
Kang is relied upon as set forth above.
With respect to claim 3, Kang disclose a rubber composition comprises 1.4 parts by weight of N-cyclohexyl-2-benzothiazole sulfonamide accelerator and 0.2 parts by weight of diphenyl guanidine (DPG) promoter (See 2nd paragraph at unlabeled page 4). Applicant described the N-cyclohexyl-2-benzothiazole sulfonamide and the diphenyl guanidine as ultra-accelerator (See [0100] of the present specification).
Kang failed to disclose a content of the accelerator is at least 2 phr of the rubber composition.
In an analogous art, Lim discloses a rubber composition for tire tread (See title) comprises 0.5 to 4.9 parts by weight of vulcanization accelerator based on 100 parts by weight of raw rubber in order to maximized productivity enhancement and improved of rubber properties through acceleration of vulcanization rate (See 2nd paragraph of unlabeled page 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a skilled artisan at the time the invention was filed to incorporate at least 2 parts by weight (phr) of vulcanization accelerator into the rubber composition of Kang in order to maximized productivity enhancement and improved of rubber properties through acceleration of vulcanization rate as suggested by Lim.
Regarding claim 4, Lim discloses that the vulcanization accelerator including sulfenamide-based, thiuram-based, dithiocarbamic-based, and xanthate-based (See 5th paragraph of unlabeled page 5). Examples includes tetramethylthiuram disulfide and tetramethylthiuram monosulfide to name a few (See 7th paragraph of unlabeled page 5).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang (KR 100827321 B1) as applied to the above claims, and further in view of KR 20050071818 A (hereinafter Chung).
Kang is relied upon as set forth above.
Regarding claim 5, Kang discloses a rubber composition comprises an accelerator, but does not disclose the accelerator is 1,6-bis(N,N’-dibenzylthiocarbamoyldithio)hexane.
Chung discloses a tire tread rubber composition comprises 1,6-bis(N,N’-dibenzylthiocarbamoyldithio)-hexane having improved properties and bending properties (See Abstract).
It would have been obvious for a skilled artisan at the time the invention was filed to incorporate 1,6-bis(N,N’-dibenzylthiocarbamoyldithio)-hexane accelerator of Chung into the tire tread rubber composition of Kang in order to improved properties and bending properties.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang (KR 100827321 B1) as applied to the above claims, and further in view of US RE47,886 E (hereinafter Mathey).
Initially, it should be noted that the Mathey reference is cited in the IDS filed on 12/04/2024.
Kang is relied upon as set forth above.
Regarding claim 7, Kang discloses a rubber composition comprises a silica, but does not disclose the silica has a CTAB surface area of at least 140 m2/g.
Mathey discloses a tire comprising a rubber composition comprises silica having a CTAB specific surface area of less than 450 m2/g, in particular between 60-300 m2/g (See Col.4, line 63 to Col. 5, line 3).
It would have been obvious for a skilled artisan at the time the invention was filed to incorporate a silica having a CTAB specific surface area of less than 450 m2/g of Mathey into the tire tread rubber composition of Kang in order to improved mechanical strength of the rubber composition.
Regarding claim 8, Mathey discloses that the silica also has a BET specific surface area of less than 450 m2/g, in particular between 60-300 m2/g (See Col.4, line 63 to Col. 5, line 3).
Regarding claim 9, Mathey discloses that the rubber composition comprises reinforcing filler including carbon black and/or inorganic reinforcing silica where the inorganic reinforcing silica is 10-50% total of the reinforcing filler (See Col. 5, lines 36-47). In other words, the ratio of carbon black to silica is 50-90:10-50 and equates to a ratio in a range of 1:1 to 9:1. The ratio overlaps the claimed ratio of at least 4:1.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang (KR 100827321 B1) as applied to the above claims, and further in view of US 2007/0152362 A1 (hereinafter Greenwell).
Kang is relied upon as set forth above.
Regarding claim 16, Kang discloses a rubber composition useful as tire tread, but does not disclose a tread depth of 23 to 28 mm.
Greenwell discloses a rubber article useful for large tire or a tread for a tire and the tire having a tread depth of 28 mm (See Abstract and [0091]).
It would have been obvious for a skilled artisan at the time the invention was filed to formulate a tire of Kang with a tread depth of 28 mm as suggested by Greenwell in order to obtain a thick rubber tire.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang (KR 100827321 B1) in view of Mathey (US RE47,886 E) and further in view of Chung (KR 20050071818 A).
With respect to claim 20, Kang disclose a tire tread rubber composition comprises 100 parts by weight of a rubber material (elastomers) comprises 60-95 parts by weight if a natural rubber and 5-40 parts by weight of a styrene-butadiene rubber (See Abstract). The ratio of natural rubber to styrene-butadiene rubber, in parts by weight, is 60-95:5-40. The weight ratio suggested by Kang, overlaps with the claimed weight ratio of at least 70:30.
Kang disclose that the composition also comprises 5-15 parts by weight of a polybutadiene resin based on 100 parts by weight of the raw rubber to improve abrasion characteristics without decreasing braking force characteristics on a wet road surface (See 2nd and 4th paragraphs of unlabeled page 3). The 5-15 parts by weight of a polybutadiene resin fulfills the claimed resin of a processing acid and overlaps the claimed amount of 3.0 to 20 phr. Kang further disclose that the composition comprises various additives such as reinforcing filler, an activator, an antioxidant, a process oil, a vulcanizing agent and a vulcanization accelerator used in conventional rubber composition (See 8th paragraph of unlabeled page 3).
In Comparative Example 1, Kang discloses another rubber composition comprises of 100 parts by weight of raw rubber with a sum of 50 parts by weight of carbon black and 20 parts by weight of silica that equates to 70 parts by weight of reinforcing fillers of carbon black and silica (See connecting unlabeled pages 3-4). The amount of reinforcing fillers, i.e., 70 parts by weight, as suggested by Kang, is 70 parts per hundred parts of rubber (phr).
Kang further discloses that the comparative rubber composition comprises of 2.0 parts by weight (phr) of 2,2,4-trimethyl-1,2-dihydroquinoline (See 1st paragraph at unlabeled page 4). The 2,2,4-trimethyl-1,2-dihydroquinoline is a commonly known antioxidant.
Kang further discloses that the comparative rubber composition comprises of 3 parts by weight of zinc oxide, 1.5 parts by weight of sulfur as a vulcanizing agent (a sulfur curing agent), 2 parts by weight of stearic acid (fatty acid), 1.4 parts by weight of an accelerator CZ (a benzothiazole sulfenamide), and 0.2 parts by weight of a promoter (N,N’-diphenyl guanidine) (See 1st and 2nd paragraphs at unlabeled page 4). The combination of additives total 8.1 parts by weight (phr) and correlate to the claimed sulfur-containing cure package.
Kang failed to disclose the rubber composition comprises of 100 phr of rubbers comprises a ratio by weight of natural rubber to styrene-butadiene rubber of at least 70:30 and 70 phr of reinforcing fillers of carbon black and silica. Kang also failed to disclose the rubber composition comprises a ratio of the carbon black to the silica being at least 4:1, the silica having a CTAB surface area of at least 140 m2/g. Kang also failed to disclose the rubber composition comprises 1,6-bis(N,N’-dibenzylthiocarbamoyldithio)hexane.
Give that Kang discloses one rubber composition comprises 100 phr of rubbers having an overlapping weight ratio of natural rubber to styrene-butadiene rubber of at least 70:30 (See Abstract) and another rubber composition comprises 70 phr of reinforcing fillers of carbon black and silica (See Comparative Example 1), it would have been obvious for a skilled artisan to combine two rubber compositions each of which is taught by Kang to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third rubber composition to be used for the very same purpose and the results would have been predictable. See In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846,850,205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980).
Kang failed to disclose the rubber composition comprises a ratio of the carbon black to the silica being at least 4:1, the silica having a CTAB surface area of at least 140 m2/g. Kang also failed to disclose the rubber composition comprises 1,6-bis(N,N’-dibenzylthiocarbamoyldithio)hexane.
Mathey discloses a tire comprising a rubber composition comprises silica having a CTAB specific surface area of less than 450 m2/g, in particular between 60-300 m2/g (See Col.4, line 63 to Col. 5, line 3). Mathey discloses that the rubber composition comprises reinforcing filler including carbon black and/or inorganic reinforcing silica where the inorganic reinforcing silica is 10-50% total of the reinforcing filler (See Col. 5, lines 36-47). In other words, the ratio of carbon black to silica is 50-90:10-50 and equates to a ratio in a range of 1:1 to 9:1. The ratio overlaps the claimed ratio of at least 4:1.
It would have been obvious for a skilled artisan at the time the invention was filed to incorporate a silica having a CTAB specific surface area of less than 450 m2/g of Mathey into the tire tread rubber composition of Kang in order to improved mechanical strength of the rubber composition.
Kang and Mathey failed to disclose the rubber composition comprises a 1,6-bis(N,N’-dibenzylthiocarbamoyldithio)hexane.
Chung discloses a tire tread rubber composition comprises 0.5 to 1.0 phr of 1,6-bis(N,N’-dibenzylthiocarbamoyldithio)-hexane having improved properties and bending properties (See Abstract).
It would have been obvious for a skilled artisan at the time the invention was filed to incorporate 0.5 to 1.0 phr of 1,6-bis(N,N’-dibenzylthiocarbamoyldithio)-hexane of Chung into the tire tread rubber composition of Kang and Mathey in order to improved properties and bending properties of the rubber composition.
In view of the foregoing, the above claims have failed to patentably distinguish over the applied art.
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 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KHANH TUAN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-8082. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM to 5:00 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, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached at (571) 272-2817. 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.
/KHANH T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights