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) 15-26 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hous (GB 2072576) and further in view of Weibold.
Hous is directed to a tire construction comprising a carcass formed with textile or steel cords and an innerliner, wherein a rubber layer (claimed rubber mixture) is positioned therebetween to promote adhesion. More particularly, said rubber layer includes 10-90 phr of halobutyl rubber, 10-90 phr of unsaturated rubber, such as natural polyisoprene or synthetic polyisoprene (claimed isoprene elastomer), carbon black (55 phr in the exemplary composition as it is a blend of compounds A and B), and a crosslinking system (e.g. sulfur) (Page 1, Lines 25-27 and Lines 49-53, Page 2, Lines 35-43, and Page 3, Lines 1-25). In such an instance, though, Hous fails to describe the carbon black as a “pyrolysis carbon black”.
In any event, it is extremely well known and conventional to use pyrolysis carbon black in modern day tire components since it is environmentally friendly and cost effective, as shown for example by Weibold. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use pyrolysis carbon black in the rubber layer of Hous for the benefits detailed above. It is further noted that Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the use of pyrolysis carbon black since, for example, the carbon black loadings, as well as the type of carbon black, are varied between respective compositions (unclear of any realized benefits are a function of the type of carbon black and/or the carbon black loading).
Regarding claims 16 and 17, as detailed above, the rubber composition of Hous includes 10-90 phr of natural rubber or synthetic natural rubber (synthetic polyisoprene).
As to claims 18-20, the pyrolysis method taught by Weibold involves the recycling of used tire constructions in an analogous manner to the claimed invention. The claimed contents appear to simply be a function of recycling standard tire rubber compositions and as such, it reasons that the pyrolysis carbon black of Weibold would satisfy the claimed invention. Absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use pyrolysis carbon black that satisfies the claimed invention in the tire rubber composition of Hous.
With respect to claim 21, the rubber composition of Hous includes sulfur.
As to claim 22, the exemplary composition of Hous includes 1.75 phr of sulfur (combination of compounds A and B).
Regarding claim 23, the exemplary composition of Hous includes MBTS and MBT (approximately at a loading of 0.9 phr given that said composition is a combination of A and B).
With respect to claim 24, the exemplary composition of Hous includes zinc oxide at a loading of 4 phr (combination of compounds A and B).
As to claims 25 and 26, the exemplary composition of Hous includes DPPD (antioxidant). Also, the claimed loadings are consistent with those that are conventionally used in tore rubber compositions (antioxidants, like every rubber additive, are conventionally disclosed in terms of a range of loadings).
Regarding claim 28, the tire of Hous includes an innerliner (first layer) and a rubber composition (second layer) that contacts the innerliner and the carcass.
Claim(s) 15-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ezawa (WO 03/082608) and further in view of Weibold.
Ezawa is directed to a tire construction comprising a carcass and an innerliner, wherein a rubber layer (claimed rubber mixture) is positioned therebetween to promote adhesion (rubber layer A or rubber layer B can be viewed as the claimed rubber mixture). Rubber layer B, for example, includes 100 phr of natural rubber, 50 phr of carbon black, and 5 phr of sulfur (claimed crosslinking system)
In such an instance, though, Ezawa fails to describe the carbon black as a “pyrolysis carbon black”.
In any event, it is extremely well known and conventional to use pyrolysis carbon black in modern day tire components since it is environmentally friendly and cost effective, as shown for example by Weibold. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use pyrolysis carbon black in the rubber layer of Ezawa for the benefits detailed above. It is further noted that Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the use of pyrolysis carbon black since, for example, the carbon black loadings, as well as the type of carbon black, are varied between respective compositions (unclear of any realized benefits are a function of the type of carbon black and/or the carbon black loading).
Regarding claims 16 and 17, as detailed above, the rubber composition of Hous includes 100 phr of natural rubber.
As to claims 18-20, the pyrolysis method taught by Weibold involves the recycling of used tire constructions in an analogous manner to the claimed invention. The claimed contents appear to simply be a function of recycling standard tire rubber compositions and as such, it reasons that the pyrolysis carbon black of Weibold would satisfy the claimed invention. Absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use pyrolysis carbon black that satisfies the claimed invention in the tire rubber composition of Ezawa.
With respect to claims 21 and 22, the rubber composition of Ezawa includes 5 phr of sulfur.
Regarding claim 23, the rubber composition of Ezawa includes 0.8 phr of a vulcanization promotor (corresponds with claimed accelerator).
With respect to claim 24, the exemplary composition of Ezawa includes zinc oxide at a loading of 6 phr.
As to claims 25 and 26, the exemplary composition of Ezawa includes 1.5 phr of an anti-deterioration agent or antioxidant.
With respect to claim 27, rubber layer B includes 1.5 phr of cobalt salt (corresponds with less than 0.15 grams of metal per 100 grams of the composition given that the rubber constitutes 100 parts and additional ingredients are present).
Regarding claim 28, the tire of Ezawa includes a first rubber layer A and a second rubber layer b between the carcass and the innerliner.
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 December 15, 2025