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) 1, 2, and 4-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyazaki (US 8,530,575) and further in view of Fields (WO 99/582860).
Miyazaki is directed to a tire rubber composition comprising a diene elastomer (e.g. natural rubber), a reinforcing filler (e.g. carbon black), a vulcanization system (e.g. insoluble sulfur), an antioxidant (corresponds with claimed antiozonant), and a linking agent (hexamethylenetetramine or HMT) (Example 15 in Table 3). In such an instance, though, Miyazaki fails to specifically suggest the use of an antioxidant satisfying the claimed chemical formula.
Fields is similarly directed to elastomeric compositions (Page 12, Line 27). More particularly, Fields teaches the specific use of a quinonimine as an antioxidant that provides long term antioxidant activity without negatively impacting scorch (Page 12, Lines 28+). Reaction scheme 1 on Page 5, Lines 10+ identifies the structure of said quinonimine and such is seen to correspond with the claimed chemical formula. It is emphasized that R1 in Fields can be a phenyl group (Page 15, Lines 6+) and such a phenyl group can be further substituted (Page 5, Lines 25-27), it being well recognized that amine groups represent one of the most well-known and conventional substituent groups. In terms of the claims, the above noted quinonimine of Fields constitutes a claimed antioxidant having m=1, p=0, X=oxygen, n=0, A=nitrogen, Z=nitrogen, and R1 and R2 are hydrogen. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the antioxidant of Fields in the tire rubber composition of Miyazaki for the benefits detailed above.
Regarding claim 8, the general disclosure of substituents is seen to encompass the multitude of conventional substituents encompassed by the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use any number of conventional substituents, as taught by Fields, absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results. It is noted that Fields does suggest the use of C1-C50 alkyl groups when modifying a phenyl group (R2-R5 groups can be the aforementioned alkyl groups) and such would similarly be expected to constitute the substituent groups associated with a chemical having R1=phenyl and being substituted (Page 5, Lines 25-30).
With respect to claim 9, the antioxidant structure identified above is seen to satisfy the claims.
As to claim 10, Example 15 in Table 3 of Miyazaki includes 2 phr of an antioxidant (claimed antiozonant).
With respect to claim 11, Example 15 in Table 3 of Miyazaki includes 0.3 phr of HMT.
Regarding claim 12, several examples in Tables 1-3 of Miyazaki include natural rubber (NR) and butadiene rubber (BR).
As to claim 13, the rubber compositions in Tables 1-3 of Miyazaki include carbon black and/or silica.
With respect to claim 14, several of the rubber compositions in Miyazaki include 1phr of wax.
Regarding claim 15, several of the rubber compositions in Miyazaki include aromatic oil.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Veyland (US 2015/183983) and further in view of Fields.
Veyland is directed to a tire rubber composition comprising a diene elastomer (Paragraphs 76-78), a reinforcing filler (Paragraphs 97-99), a vulcanization or crosslinking system (Paragraphs 275-277), an antiozonant or antioxidant (Paragraph 281), and a linking agent (epoxy resin Paragraph 123). In such an instance, though, Miyazaki fails to specifically suggest the use of an antioxidant satisfying the claimed chemical formula.
Fields is similarly directed to elastomeric compositions (Page 12, Line 27). More particularly, Fields teaches the specific use of a quinonimine as an antioxidant that provides long term antioxidant activity without negatively impacting scorch (Page 12, Lines 28+). Reaction scheme 1 on Page 5, Lines 10+ identifies the structure of said quinonimine and such is seen to correspond with the claimed chemical formula. It is emphasized that R1 in Fields can be a phenyl group (Page 15, Lines 6+) and such a phenyl group can be further substituted (Page 5, Lines 25-27), it being well recognized that amine groups represent one of the most well-known and conventional substituent groups. In terms of the claims, the above noted quinonimine of Fields constitutes a claimed antioxidant having m=1, p=0, X=oxygen, n=0, A=nitrogen, Z=nitrogen, and R1 and R2 are hydrogen. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the antioxidant of Fields in the tire rubber composition of Veyland for the benefits detailed above.
As to claim 3, DEN 431 (Paragraph 123), for example, is seen to correspond with an epoxy resin that satisfies the second chemical formula (epoxy novolac resin).
Regarding claim 8, the general disclosure of substituents is seen to encompass the multitude of conventional substituents encompassed by the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use any number of conventional substituents, as taught by Fields, absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results. It is noted that Fields does suggest the use of C1-C50 alkyl groups when modifying a phenyl group (R2-R5 groups can be the aforementioned alkyl groups) and such would similarly be expected to constitute the substituent groups associated with a chemical having R1=phenyl and being substituted (Page 5, Lines 25-30).
With respect to claim 9, the antioxidant structure identified above is seen to satisfy the claims.
As to claim 10, the claimed loadings are consistent with conventional additive loadings (see Table 1 in Veyland).
With respect to claim 11, Veyland teaches an epoxy resin loading between 1 and 20 phr (Paragraph 124).
Regarding claim 12, Veyland discloses the claimed elastomers (Paragraph 89).
As to claim 13, Veyland suggests the use of carbon black and/or silica (Paragraph 98).
With respect to claims 14 and 15, Veyland suggests the use of waxes and plasticizing oils (Paragraph 281).
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 10, 2026
Prosecution Insights