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) 18-21 and 23-43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thielen (US 2008/0115874) and further in view of Ajiro (US 6,376,587) and Wong (US 9,617,401).
Thielen is directed to a tire rubber composition having applicability in a wide variety of tire components, include a tire under tread and a tire bead filler or bead apex (Paragraph 73). More particularly, said rubber composition can include up to 80 phr of natural rubber (Paragraphs 44 and 45), between 10 and 150 phr of carbon black (Paragraph 64), 7-15 phr of a resin mixture comprising a methylene acceptor and a methylene donor (Paragraph 46), 0.5-8 phr of sulfur donors (claimed crosslinking system- Paragraph 70), and curing aids (claimed curing agent- Paragraph 70).
With further respect to said methylene acceptor, Thielen suggests the use of cashew nut oil modified phenol novolak resin (Paragraph 47). While Thielen fails to expressly identify said acceptor as a “cardanol-based phenolic resin”, it is well recognized that cardanol-based phenolic resins are consistent with the disclosed cashew nut oil modified resin of Thielen, as shown for example by Ajiro (Column 6, Lines 18-21) (PR-12686 is disclosed by Applicant as satisfying the claimed invention). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include a cardanol-based phenolic resin in the rubber composition of Thielen as it constitutes a conventional cashew nut oil modified phenol novolak resin.
In terms of the loadings for said methylene acceptor (cardanol-based phenolic resin) and said methylene donor (combination of methylene acceptor and methylene donor correspond with the claimed resin mixture), Thielen teaches a weight ratio between 0.5:1 and 25:1 (Paragraph 52) and such fully encompasses the claimed weight ratio (applicable to claims 19, 24, 35, and 37 as well).
Lastly, regarding claims 18 and 23, the rubber composition of Thielen includes 10-150 phr of carbon black (standard carbon black). While Thielen is silent with respect to the specific inclusion of a pyrolytic carbon black, it is extremely well known and conventional in the tire industry to at least partially replace standard carbon black with pyrolytic carbon black (e.g. obtained from recycled tires) to provide cost benefits while providing substantially equivalent properties, as shown for example by Wong (Column 1, Lines 15-30, Column 2, Lines 1-18, Column 4, Lines 9+, and Column 27, Lines 20+). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include a substantial pyrolytic carbon black loading in accordance to the claimed invention in the rubber of composition of Thielen for the benefits detailed above. Also, in regards to Tables 1 and 2, a multitude of parameters have been varied and as such, it is unclear what materials and/or loadings are responsible for any realized benefits.
As to claims 20, 21, and 36, Figure 1 of Thielen depicts a bead core or circumferential element 18 and the inclusion of a bead apex 16,22 (formed with the claimed rubber composition) between a carcass main portion 10 (axially inside carcass portion) and a carcass turnup portion 12 (axially outside carcass portion) as well as between a carcass turnup portion 12 and a tire seating layer 28.
Regarding claims 25 and 26, wear indicators in accordance to the claimed arrangement are conventionally included in modern day tire constructions to indicate when a tire has exceeded a safe condition.
With respect to claims 27 and 38, Thielen teaches a rubber composition having up to 80 phr of natural rubber.
As to claim 28, Thielen teaches a rubber composition comprising SBR (Paragraph 45).
With respect to claims 29 and 30, Thielen states that the methylene acceptor can include a mixture of modified phenol novolak resins and additional phenolic resins (Paragraph 47).
Regarding claims 31, 40, and 41, the rubber composition of Thielen includes 0.5-8 phr of sulfur.
As to claims 32 and 42, Wong teaches ash contents in accordance to the claimed invention (Table 4).
Regarding claims 33 and 43, an exemplary carbon black of Wong has an ash content of 19.5% and a sulfur content of 2.493 (Table 4). With specific respect to claim 43, the exemplary sulfur content is extremely similar to the lower end of the claimed range- one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use carbon blacks having the claimed sulfur content absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results.
With respect to claim 34, Thielen teaches a wide variety of claimed additives (Paragraph 70).
As to claim 39, hydroxybenzene is nothing more than a phenyl constituent and such is consistent with the disclosure of Thielen (Paragraph 47- composition of Thielen can include a mixture of resins to define the methylene acceptor).
Claim(s) 18-20 and 22-43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Costa Pereira (US 6,179,029) and further in view of Thielen, Ajiro, and Wong.
Costa Pereira is directed to a tire construction comprising a carcass 26 sandwiched between an axially inside bead member 27 and an axially outside bead member, a seating layer 35, and a high modulus rubber layer or intermediate layer 29 arranged between said bead members and between the carcass and the seating layer (Column 5, Lines 1-25). It is noted that Costa Pereira similarly describes a bead filler or bead apex as having a high modulus of elasticity (Column 4, Lines 30+). In such an instance, though, Costa Pereira is silent with respect to the composition used to form the bead filler or apex and the intermediate layer.
Thielen is similarly directed to a tire construction including a bead filler. More particularly, Thielen suggests the use of a specific composition for the bead filler or apex that demonstrates high hardness, high modulus, and high tensile strength (Paragraph 81). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the composition of Thielen in the bead filler/apex and intermediate layer of Costa Pereira for the benefits detailed above. It is emphasized that Costa Pereira describes both the bead filler/apex and the intermediate layer as being formed with rubber compositions that demonstrate a high modulus of elasticity and respective components are both positioned with the bead region.
With further respect to the composition, Thielen teaches a rubber composition can include up to 80 phr of natural rubber (Paragraphs 44 and 45), between 10 and 150 phr of carbon black (Paragraph 64), 7-15 phr of a resin mixture comprising a methylene acceptor and a methylene donor (Paragraph 46), 0.5-8 phr of sulfur donors (claimed crosslinking system- Paragraph 70), and curing aids (claimed curing agent- Paragraph 70). As the methylene acceptor, Thielen suggests the use of cashew nut oil modified phenol novolak resin (Paragraph 47). While Thielen fails to expressly identify said acceptor as a “cardanol-based phenolic resin”, it is well recognized that cardanol-based phenolic resins are consistent with the disclosed cashew nut oil modified resin of Thielen, as shown for example by Ajiro (Column 6, Lines 18-21) (PR-12686 is disclosed by Applicant as satisfying the claimed invention). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include a cardanol-based phenolic resin in the rubber composition of Thielen as it constitutes a conventional cashew nut oil modified phenol novolak resin.
In terms of the loadings for said methylene acceptor (cardanol-based phenolic resin) and said methylene donor (combination of methylene acceptor and methylene donor correspond with the claimed resin mixture), Thielen teaches a weight ratio between 0.5:1 and 25:1 (Paragraph 52) and such fully encompasses the claimed weight ratio (applicable to claims 19, 24, 35, and 37 as well).
Lastly, regarding claims 18 and 23, the rubber composition of Costa Pereira, as modified by Thielen, includes 10-150 phr of carbon black (standard carbon black). While Thielen is silent with respect to the specific inclusion of a pyrolytic carbon black, it is extremely well known and conventional in the tire industry to at least partially replace standard carbon black with pyrolytic carbon black (e.g. obtained from recycled tires) to provide cost benefits while providing substantially equivalent properties, as shown for example by Wong (Column 1, Lines 15-30, Column 2, Lines 1-18, Column 4, Lines 9+, and Column 27, Lines 20+). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include a substantial pyrolytic carbon black loading in accordance to the claimed invention in the rubber of composition of Costa Pereira, as modified by Thielen, for the benefits detailed above. Also, in regards to Tables 1 and 2, a multitude of parameters have been varied and as such, it is unclear what materials and/or loadings are responsible for any realized benefits.
As to claims 20 and 36, Figure 4 of Costa Pereira depicts the claimed arrangement.
Regarding claims 25 and 26, wear indicators in accordance to the claimed arrangement are conventionally included in modern day tire constructions to indicate when a tire has exceeded a safe condition.
With respect to claims 27 and 38, Thielen teaches a rubber composition having up to 80 phr of natural rubber.
As to claim 28, Thielen teaches a rubber composition comprising SBR (Paragraph 45).
With respect to claims 29 and 30, Thielen states that the methylene acceptor can include a mixture of modified phenol novolak resins and additional phenolic resins (Paragraph 47).
Regarding claims 31, 40, and 41, the rubber composition of Thielen includes 0.5-8 phr of sulfur.
As to claims 32 and 42, Wong teaches ash contents in accordance to the claimed invention (Table 4).
Regarding claims 33 and 43, an exemplary carbon black of Wong has an ash content of 19.5% and a sulfur content of 2.493 (Table 4). With specific respect to claim 43, the exemplary sulfur content is extremely similar to the lower end of the claimed range- one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use carbon blacks having the claimed sulfur content absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results.
With respect to claim 34, Thielen teaches a wide variety of claimed additives (Paragraph 70).
As to claim 39, hydroxybenzene is nothing more than a phenyl constituent and such is consistent with the disclosure of Thielen (Paragraph 47- composition of Thielen can include a mixture of resins to define the methylene acceptor).
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 July 6, 2026
Prosecution Insights