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.
3. Claim(s) 29-32, 34-40, and 42-47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lopitaux (FR 2943065, of record) and further in view of Shoda (JP 2015-189971, of record).
Lopitaux is directed to a tread composition comprising 20-90 phr of SBR, 5-60 phr of polybutadiene rubber having a cis 1,4 content of greater than 95%, 50-120 phr of silica, 0-10 phr of carbon black, a solid hydrocarbon resin having a Tg greater than 20°C, a liquid plasticizer, and a crosslinking system based on sulfur (claimed cure package). Lopitaux further states that the preferred total plasticizer loading (combination of solid hydrocarbon resin and liquid plasticizer) is between 5 phr and 50 phr. In such an instance, though, Lopitaux 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 Lopitaux for the benefits detailed above.
Lastly, regarding claim 29, the claimed glass transition temperatures are consistent with those are conventionally associated with polybutadienes in general. It is further emphasized that the polybutadiene taught by Shoda is extremely similar to that of the claimed invention in regards to the linear arrangement, the cis 1,4 content, the LCB index, and the T80 value and as such, it reasons that the Tg in Shoda would mimic that required by the claimed invention.
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.
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 39, Lopitaux teaches the use of non-functionalized SBR.
Regarding claim 40, Lopitaux teaches SBR components having a vinyl content between 15% and 70% and Tg values between -10°C and -55°C.
As to claims 42-45, the claimed properties would be expected to be present in the modified rubber composition of Lopitaux as it is substantially the same as that required by the claimed invention.
With respect to claim 47, the modified tread rubber composition of Lopitaux 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.
4. Claim(s) 29-39 and 41-47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zanzig (EP 1125766, of record) and further in view of Shoda and Lopitaux ‘065.
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 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.
Lastly, 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.
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 39, Zanzig teaches the use of non-functionalized SBR (Paragraph 12).
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.
5. Claim(s) 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zanzig, Shoda, and Lopitaux as applied in claim 29 above and further in view of Lopitaux (US 2010/0099796, of record).
As detailed above, Zanzig teaches a tread rubber composition comprising 15-55 phr of SBR having a bound styrene content between 30% and 55% and a Tg as small as -55°C and as large as -15°C (Paragraph 12). In such an instance, though, Zanzig is silent with respect to the vinyl content.
In any event, 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 (Paragraph 65). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use an SBR having any conventional vinyl content absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results.
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant's arguments filed March 16, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the polybutadiene of Shoda is modified by treating with a peroxide and the characterization of a non-functionalized polybutadiene by the claims excludes such a crosslinking with a peroxide. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant states that the term functionalized should be understood to encompass the use of both functional groups and coupling agents (Paragraph 47). A crosslinking agent such as peroxide is separate and distinct from the use of functional groups or coupling agents. Applicant describes a wide range of coupling agents and functional groups in Paragraphs 47 and 48 and said coupling agents and functional groups do not include peroxide crosslinking agents. In fact, crosslinking agents such as peroxides are described by Applicant as being part of the cure package (Paragraphs 135 and 136) and thus separate from coupling agents and functional groups. As such, the modified polybutadiene of Shoda (polybutadiene that has been crosslinked with a trace amount of peroxide) is not excluded by the term “non-functionalized polybutadiene”).
In terms of the liquid plasticizer loading (oil) in Zanzig, it is agreed that an exemplary rubber composition comprises an oil loading outside that required by the claimed invention. However, it is well taken that a reference is not limited to a single, exemplary embodiment. A fair reading of Zanzig does not limit to the oil loading to that present in the exemplary rubber composition in Table 1. In fact, it is widely recognized that rubber additives, including oil loadings, are conventionally disclosed in terms of a wide range. This is evidenced by Shoda (preferred amount of process oil is 5-30 phr as disclosed on Page 7 of the machine translation) and Lopitaux (most preferred plasticizer loading, which includes a liquid plasticizer or oil, is between 15 phr and 35 phr as disclosed on Pages 6 and 7 of the machine translation). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include oil (liquid plasticizer) between 10 phr and 29 phr as it constitutes the conventional oil loading to positively affect processing.
Applicant also states that Zanzig teaches one of skill in the art to add polyisoprene or natural rubber to the rubber composition to the extent the amount of oil used in Zanzig’s examples is reduced. First, independent claim 1 fails to exclude the presence of natural rubber. Second, regarding claim 33, Zanzig is describing an exemplary embodiment (separate from an embodiment that is devoid of natural rubber) in which a relatively minimum amount of processing oil and processing additives is included. Thus, in the embodiments that include process oil in the absence of natural rubber (such is Samples D-F in Table 1), one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use oil loadings that are consistent with the broad range of the claimed invention between 10 phr and 29 phr (not limited to a loading of 43.8 phr as evidenced by the disclosures of Shoda and Lopitaux). Again, it is well taken that a reference is not limited to a single, exemplary embodiment (in this case, an oil loading of 43.8 phr).
Regarding claim 32, Applicant argues that Shoda clearly requires that the LCB index to be at least 6.40. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Shoda specifically teaches an LCB index having a “preferred” lower value of at least 6.40. 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. In this case, an LCB index below 6.40 would in fact correspond with a non-preferred embodiment and be within the scope of Shoda. Additionally, the claims as currently drafted require a maximum LCB index of “about” 5. This language suggests a maximum LCB index that exceeds 5. Thus, the combination of Shoda encompassing an LCB index less than 6.40 and the claimed range including an LCB index greater than 5 would have suggested a rubber composition that satisfies the claimed index (the term “about” is not defined in a manner that excludes certain LCB index values).
With respect to claim 37, as best can be determined by the Examiner, 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 as taught by Shoda. Applicant has not pointed to additional factors that contribute to the claimed ratios. Thus, contrary to Applicant’s argument, the Examiner has in fact used facts and reasoning to establish a prima facie case of obviousness (claimed ratios are obtained by using specific linear polybutadienes and such linear polybutadienes are taught by Shoda, suggesting that the claimed ratios would naturally flow).
Conclusion
7. 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.
8. 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 May 20, 2026
Prosecution Insights