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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/9/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
All outstanding rejections, except for those maintained below, are withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendment filed on 1/9/2026.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 7, 9, 10, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ansell (US 5,088,125) in view of Esemplare (US 5,069,965) and Modha (US 6,875,391).
With respect to claims 1, 2, and 14, Ansell discloses gloves having a hand contacting surface (i.e., an interior surface) without the aid of donning powder comprising a blend of an ionic polyurethane (reads on claimed one or more first polymers) and a second polymer (reads on claimed one or more second polymers) where the particle size of the second polymer is greater than that of the ionic polyurethane (abstract). Ansell discloses that the ionic polyurethane has a particle size of less than 1 μm, preferably about 200 nm (col. 3, line 47) and the second polymer has a particle size of typically from 1.5-2.0 μm (col. 3, lines 44-51).
Ansell fails to (i) disclose the specific amount of the polymer coating from the water-based dispersion of emulsion polymers in the glove, (ii) the addition of a polyethylene glycol surfactant and the amount of polymer system and polyethylene glycol, or (iii) a lightly chlorinated interior surface at levels of up to 600 ppm.
With respect to (i), it is the examiner’s position that the relative amount of polymer coating on the interior of the glove is a result effective variable which is readily obtained by one of ordinary skill in the art. Specifically, the amount needed of the polymer system is dependent on the effectiveness of the polymer coating.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a suitable amount of polymer system, including the presently claimed amounts, in order to produce a proper coated final article.
With respect to (ii), first, it is noted that the amounts of polymer system and polyethylene glycol in the water-based dispersion of emulsion polymers are not present in the final interior coating of the glove because the water has been removed. Therefore, the amount limitations are considered to be part of a process to form the claimed glove. Case law holds that “even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Because the claimed amount of interior coating in the gloves of 0.0004-0.0016 g prima facie obvious as discussed in (ii) above, the final products appear to obvious from Ansell.
Second, Ansell discloses that the polymer blend is included in solids content of preferably 1-5 wt % (col. 3, lines 61-65).
Ansell discloses utilizing surfactants in an amount of up to 50 wt % of total polymer (col. 4, lines 34-35, however, it fails to disclose the addition of polyethylene glycol.
Esemplare discloses rubber gloves with a slip (interior) coating and teaches adding polyalkylene glycols provides for better wet-hand donnability (col. 7, lines 35-64) which are used in an amount of 5-50 wt % solids basis (col. 8, lines 1-5). This amount, when used in combination with the 1-5 wt % solids content taught by Ansell, provides an amount of polyethylene glycol in the aqueous dispersion of 0.05-2.5 wt % and an amount of polymer system of 0.9-2.5 wt %.
Given that both Ansell and Esemplare are drawn to an interior coating of a rubber glove and further given that Esemplare discloses that adding polyethylene glycol to the aqueous solvent provide for improved wet-hand donnability, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize polyethylene glycol in the coating composition taught by Ansell.
With respect to (iii), Ansell discloses that halogenating the surface can improve donning (col. 1, lines 50-54), however, it does not disclose the amount of halogen, i.e., chlorine.
Modha discloses a method of making a glove having improved donning characteristics (abstract) and teaches that halogenating (i.e., chlorinating) the donning surface of in an amount of 100-3500 ppm (other embodiments of 300-600 ppm and about 400 ppm) (col. 7, lines 5-31).
Given that Ansell teaches that halogenating improves donning and further given that Modha teaches that amounts that overlap with claimed range of less 600 ppm provides effective amounts, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize an amount of chlorination of 600 ppm or less in Ansell’s glove.
With respect to claim 7, Ansell discloses that the coating is applied by dipping (col. 5, lines 15-20).
With respect to claim 9, a step of applying the polymer coating by spraying is a process limitation in a product claim. It is the examiner’s position that the final product is not or very little different if applied by dipping or spraying. Case law holds that “even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
With respect to claim 10, Ansell discloses that the glove is fabricated from natural rubber (col. 8, lines 14-15).
With respect to claim 12, Ansell discloses that its glove has good donning properties (col. 2, lines 4-8; col. 7, lines 25-26) and teaches that a glove with a high coefficient of friction is difficult to don (col. 1, lines 39-41). Ansell discloses that wet delamination problems are avoided by utilizing ionic polyurethanes (col. 2, lines 24-27). Ansell also teaches that the inventive gloves have “B” grade donning which is compared to “A” (talc treated latex) to “F” (untreated latex) (col. 7, lines 21-26). While Ansell does not explicitly disclose the wet coefficient of friction, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to obtain a glove having claimed interior surface with a wet coefficient of friction of less than 0.15 given that Ansell discloses that its glove has good donning properties and the ionic polyurethane avoid wet delamination.
With respect to claim 13, Ansell discloses that its glove has good resistance to delamination (col. 1, lines 31-33). While Ansell does not explicitly disclose that no delamination occurs after at least 60 cycles of elongation and relaxation, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to obtain a glove having claimed delamination properties given hat Ansell discloses that its glove has good resistance to delamination.
Claims 3 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ansell (US 5,088,125) in view of Esemplare (US 5,069,965) and Modha (US 6,875,391) and further in view of Henning (US 4,857,565).
The discussion with respect to Ansell, Esemplare, and Modha in paragraph 5 above is incorporated here by reference.
Ansell discloses that the second polymer is one that is compatible with the first polyurethane polymer (col. 4, lines 3-8), however, it fails to disclose that the second polymer is a vinyl acetate polymer.
Henning discloses an aqueous polyurethane dispersion and teaches that polymer lattices that are compatible with polyurethane include polyvinylacetate and polyacrylates (col. 11, lines 46-57).
Given that Ansell is open to the use of a second polymer that is compatible with the polyurethane and further given that Henning discloses that polyvinylacetate is compatible with polyurethane, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a polyvinylacetate as the second polymer.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ansell (US 5,088,125) in view of Esemplare (US 5,069,965) and Modha (US 6,875,391) and further in view of Mukherjee (US 2003/0175500).
The discussion with respect to Ansell, Esemplare, and Modha in paragraph 5 above is incorporated here by reference.
With respect to claim 4, Ansell fails to disclose the addition of an inorganic granular particle.
Mukherjee discloses a polymer coating composition for use as an inner coating on rubber latex gloves (abstract) which comprises microbeads. These microbeads such as silica (inorganic granular particle) are useful to reduce friction between the coated rubber article have a particle size of 10-30 microns (paragraph 0017).
Given that both Ansell and Mukherjee are both drawn to an interior coating of rubber latex gloves and further given that adding an inorganic granular particle reduces friction, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the inorganic granular particle of Mukherjee in the polymer system taught by Ansell to further improve friction properties.
With respect to claim 5, Ansell fails to disclose the addition of hydroxyethylcellulose.
Mukherjee discloses a polymer coating composition for use as an inner coating on rubber latex gloves (abstract) comprising polyurethane (paragraph 0018) and teaches that a suitable rheology modifier includes hydroxyethylcellulose (paragraph 0020).
Given that both Ansell and Mukherjee are both drawn to an interior coating of rubber latex gloves and further given that Mukherjee discloses a typical additive for a polymer system like taught by Ansell, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a rheology modifier like taught by Mukherjee in the composition of Ansell. Case law holds that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports prima facie obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co vs. Interchemical Corp., 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1045).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ansell (US 5,088,125) in view of Esemplare (US 5,069,965), Modha (US 6,875,391), and Henning (US 4,857,565) and further in view of Mukherjee (US 2003/0175500).
The discussion with respect to Ansell, Esemplare, Modha, and Henning in paragraph 6 above is incorporated here by reference.
Ansell fails to disclose the addition of an inorganic granular particle.
Mukherjee discloses a polymer coating composition for use as an inner coating on rubber latex gloves (abstract) which comprises microbeads. These microbeads such as silica (inorganic granular particle) are useful to reduce friction between the coated rubber article have a particle size of 10-30 microns (paragraph 0017).
Given that both Ansell and Mukherjee are both drawn to an interior coating of rubber latex gloves and further given that adding an inorganic granular particle reduces friction, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the inorganic granular particle of Mukherjee in the polymer system taught by Ansell and Henning to further improve friction properties.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/9/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, applicant argues that Ansell teaches away from chlorinating the interior surface of the glove.
To the contrary, Ansell does not teach away from halogenating. Rather, Ansell teaches that halogenating the surface is a known method to improve donning (col. 1, lines 50-53). It is Esemplare who teaches that the halogenation process may result in very poor aging properties including discoloration and brittle- behavior. Esemplare also teaches that these disadvantages can be avoided with great care (col. 1, lines 18-27). Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971). "A known or obvious composition does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use." In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 554, 31 USPQ2d 1130, 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICKEY NERANGIS whose telephone number is (571)272-2701. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 am - 5:00 pm EST, Monday - Friday.
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, Joseph Del Sole can be reached at (571)272-1130. 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.
/VICKEY NERANGIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763
vn