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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 July 16, 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.
Claim(s) 29-32, 34-38, and 40-47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zanzig (EP 1125766, of record) and further in view of Shoda (JP 2015-189971, of record) and Lopitaux (FR 2943065, of record).
Zanzig is directed to a tire tread composition comprising 45-85 phr of cis 1,4 polybutadiene having a Tg between -95°C and -105°C, 15-55 phr of a non-functionalized SBR, 60-110 phr of silica, an extremely small amount of carbon black given that a ratio can be as high as 20/1 between said silica and said carbon black, 1-5 phr of hydrocarbon resins, and 0.5-5 phr of sulfur (corresponds with claimed cure package) (Paragraphs 12-50). In such an instance, though, Zanzig fails to describe said polybutadiene as a “linear” configuration.
Shoda is similarly directed to a tire application including polybutadiene rubber. More particularly, Shoda teaches the specific use of linear polybutadienes having a preferred LCB index of at least 6.4 and T80 values between 3 and 15 since they provide excellent properties, such as wear properties, heat resistance, and impact resilience. In such an instance, the polybutadiene rubber is devoid of a filler reactive functional group or a coupling agent and thus constitutes a non-functionalized polybutadiene rubber. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use a linear polybutadiene rubber in the tread composition of Zanzig for the benefits detailed above.
Additionally, regarding claim 29, Zanzig teaches the use of conventional compounding ingredients, such as hydrocarbon resins, in the tire industry (Paragraphs 48 and 50). Zanzig also teaches an exemplary composition including an aromatic oil or liquid plasticizer (Table 1). While Zanzig fails to expressly teach a liquid plasticizer loading as required by the claims, such a material loading is consistent with conventional tire rubber compositions, a shown for example by Lopitaux. In particular, Lopitaux teaches the combined use of said ingredients (liquid plasticizer and hydrocarbon resin) at a loading between 5 phr and 50 phr in a tire tread composition. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include the claimed components at the claimed loadings in the rubber composition of Zanzig as they are well recognized as providing improved processability in tire tread compositions.
Lastly, with respect to claim 29, the language “solution polymerized” is directed to the method of forming styrene butadiene rubber and as such, fails to further define the structure of the claimed styrene butadiene rubber (lack of evidence that the disclosed method imparts distinctive structural characteristics to the SBR and thus the tread composition). In essence, a final tread rubber composition of Zanzig includes polybutadiene rubber and styrene butadiene rubber in an analogous manner to the claimed invention (the fact a non-functionalized SBR is formed in Zanzig via emulsion polymerization fails to render the claims non-obvious). MPEP 2113 specifically states that “if the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process”.
With respect to claim 32, Shoda teaches a preferred LCB index of 6.40 or more and such suggests values less than 6.40 (non-preferred values are within the scope of Shida) that can be viewed as being “about” 5.
As to claim 33, the elastomer portion in Zanzig can be formed solely with SBR and polybutadiene rubber.
Regarding claim 34, the claimed T80 values and LCB index values are outside that taught by Shoda.
As to claim 35, Lopitaux teaches hydrocarbon resins having Tg of at least 20°C and such fully encompasses the claimed range.
With respect to claim 36, Shoda states that it is not preferable to form a gel and such is seen to correspond with a gel content on the order of 0.
Regarding claim 37, the claimed g ratio and g’ ratio appear to be consistent with linear polybutadienes having a cis 1,4 content, LCB index, and T80 value in accordance to the claimed invention and Shoda.
As to claim 38, the linear polybutadiene of Shoda (a) has a Mooney viscosity at 100°C between 20 and 80, (b) has a weight average molecular weight between 490,000 and 800,000, (c) has a number average molecular weight between 170,000 and 300,000, and (d) a ratio between the weight average molecular weight and the number average molecular weight is at least approximately 1.6 and such fully encompasses the broad range of the claimed invention.
With respect to claim 40, Zanzig teaches non-functionalized SBR having Tg between -15°C and -45°C. As to the vinyl bond content, the claimed vinyl contents are consistent with those that are associated with conventional SBR used in tire tread compositions, as shown for example by Lopitaux ‘065. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use an SBR having any conventional vinyl content in the composition of Zanzig absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 41, Zanzig teaches the inclusion of extender oil as required by the claimed invention (see footnotes 2 and 3, for example, in Table 1).
As to claims 42-45, the claimed properties would be expected to be present in the modified rubber composition of Zanzig as it is substantially the same as that required by the claimed invention.
With respect to claim 47, the modified tread rubber composition of Zanzig would be expected to provide improvements in wear resistance that mimic those required by the claimed invention since said compositions is substantially the same as that required by the claimed invention. Also, Shoda specifically states that the inclusion of linear polybutadienes provides improved wear resistance.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 29-32, 34-38, and 40-47 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
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 August 28, 2026
