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) 14-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muraoka (EP 0318171) and further in view of JP 5512789.
Muraoka is directed to a tire construction, wherein a carcass rubber composition and/or a belt rubber composition is/are formed with natural rubber (isoprene rubber), carbon black (50 phr in exemplary compositions), and sulfur (claimed crosslinking system). Additionally, a wide variety of compositions are devoid of a cobalt salt (and thus 0 g of metal originating from a pro-oxidant metal salt per 100 g of composition) (Samples 1-3, 7-9, 13-18, and 42-45 in Table 2). In terms of the claims, a carcass rubber composition is well recognized as being between the carcass reinforcing elements and a tire cavity (and thus corresponds with the claimed rubber mixture). It is emphasized that the claims as currently drafted fail to exclude viewing a carcass rubber composition as the claimed rubber mixture. In such an instance, though, Muraoka fails to describe the carbon black as “pyrolysis carbon black”.
JP ‘789 is similarly directed to a tire construction and teaches the use of pyrolysis carbon black in a wide variety of components, including the carcass. JP ‘789 states that such a carbon black provides environmental benefits while providing suitable mechanical properties. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use pyrolysis carbon black in the carcass rubber composition of Muraoka for the benefits detailed above.
Regarding claims 15 and 16, the exemplary compositions of Muraoka include 100 phr of natural rubber.
With respect to claim 17, JP ‘789 teaches an ash content between 9% and 15% and such is fully encompassed by the claimed range.
Regarding claims 18 and 19, the pyrolysis method of JP ‘789 involves the recycling of used tire constructions in an analogous manner to the claimed invention. The claimed sulfur content appears to simply be a function of recycling standard tire rubber compositions and as such, it reason that the pyrolysis carbon black of JP ‘789 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 having the claimed sulfur content in the tire rubber composition of Muraoka.
As to claims 20 and 21, the exemplary compositions of Muraoka include sulfur at loadings between 3 phr and 7 phr and such is fully encompassed by the claimed range.
Regarding claim 22, the exemplary compositions of Muraoka include at least one accelerator at a loading between 0.5 phr and 2.5 phr and such is fully encompassed by the claimed range.
With respect to claims 23-25, it is extremely well known and conventional to include any number of common additives in tire rubber compositions and all of the claimed additives (and loadings) are well recognized as falling under the genus of “common additives”. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include conventional additives in the rubber composition of Muraoka absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 26, a first layer of rubber mixture comprising the claimed composition is the carcass coating or skim rubber layer and a second layer of rubber is a conventional innerliner. Additionally, if in fact the claims are requiring multiple layers are formed with pyrolysis carbon black, it is noted that JP ‘789 suggests the use of such a carbon black in a tire 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 September 2, 2026
