DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 7/6/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the comma appearing before the period at the end of the claim should be deleted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C.
102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US4035564 to Bibeau in view of US20140011936 to Hashimoto et al.
Regrading Claim 1, Bibeau discloses a chloroprene polymer in an aqueous dispersion [abstract] (i.e., chloroprene polymer latex), comprising an emulsifying agent [Column 2, lines 42 – 45 and 56 – 64] (i.e., an emulsifier), and chloroprene rubber wherein modifiers such as sulfur is used with the chloroprene rubber [Column 5, Lines 12-19] (i.e., chloroprene polymer (A) modified with sulfur (B)). The chloroprene rubber is a copolymer of chloroprene and other materials that can be copolymerized with chloroprene [Column 6, line 64 – Column 7, line 5] reading on (A-1) and (A-2); the amount of sulfur is in an amount of 0.001 to 1.0 percent based on monomer weight [Column 5, Lines 12-19], therefore reading on equation (1) (0.25 parts < Y < 0.60 parts); the chloroprene polymer particle diameter is from 0.15-2 microns (150 to 2000 nm) [abstract], reading on equation (2) (120nm < X < 320nm).
Bibeau teaches a latex containing sulfur in the range set forth in equation (1), and having a particle size which overlaps with the range set forth in equation (2). The combination of the sulfur content “Y” and particle size “X” taught in Bibeau result in equation (3) being satisfied for all X values greater than 150nm when Y values are as high as 0.175.
Though the prior art particle size range is not identical to the claimed range, it does overlap. It has been held that, where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPG 90 (CCPA 1976) (MPEP 2144.05).
Bibeau is silent regarding the tetrahydrofuran insoluble fraction of the chloroprene polymer (A) is 40 to 90 % by mass.
Consequently, the Office recognizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by the reference(s). However, Bibeau, when modified in the manner proposed above, teaches a product prepared from all of the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts by a substantially similar process, including a sulfur content in the instantly claimed range. Per the instant specification, tetrahydrofuran insoluble fraction is controlled by the addition of sulfur during polymerization and polymerization conversion (see [0046] of the PG-PUB of the instant application). Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties - i.e. Insoluble fraction of the chloroprene polymer - would implicitly be achieved in a product prepared from all of the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts by a substantially similar process. See In Re Spada, 911, F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990) and MPEP 2111.01 (I)(II). If it is applicant’s position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant’s position and (2) it would be the Office’s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure as to how to obtain the claimed properties in a product prepared from all of the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts by a substantially similar process.
Bibeau does not teach the emulsifier is a rosin acid soap obtained by saponifying 1.5 to 2.5 parts by mass of a rosin acid with an excess amount of sodium hydroxide and/or potassium hydroxide.
However, Hashimoto teaches a polychloroprene latex [title] with a rosin acid soap added at 0.1-10 parts by mass [Hashimoto, 0065] wherein inventive examples teach a potassium salt of disproportionated rosin acid [0074] (i.e., saponified rosin acid with potassium hydroxide) and an additional addition of potassium hydroxide [0074] (i.e., excess potassium hydroxide) thereby reading on the claimed emulsifier, a rosin acid soap obtained by saponifying rosin acid with an excess amount of potassium hydroxide, relative to the chlorine polymer [Hashimoto ,0037]. Since Hashimoto teaches 0.1 to 10 parts rosin acid soap and presumably the content of the soap is primarily derived from the rosin acid, it would be reasonably expected that the rosin acid soap would overlap with the claimed range of 1.5 to 2.5 parts by mass of a rosin acid. Bibeau and Hashimoto and are analogous art as they are from the same field of endeavor, namely polychloroprene polymer compositions.
Before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to substitute Bibeau’s emulsifier with the amount of Hashimoto’s rosin acid soap emulsifier thereby arriving at the claimed invention.
The motivation is that Hashimoto’s emulsifier type and amount provide colloid stabilization and prevents foaming and deterioration in article appearance such as pinholes [Hashimoto, 0065].
Regarding Claim 3, Bibeau in view of Hashimoto teaches the sulfur-modified chloroprene polymer latex composition of claim 1, further comprising a cross-linking accelerator in an amount of 0.0 parts, and an antioxidant in amounts up to 2% weight of the polymer [Col 6, lines 8-15] as set forth above and incorporated herein by reference.
Bibeau does not teach the composition comprises a metal oxide in an amount of 1.0 to 10.0 parts.
However, Hashimoto teaches a metal oxides in an amount of 1-10 parts [Hashimoto, 0057]. Bibeau and Hashimoto and are analogous art as they are from the same field of endeavor, namely polychloroprene polymer compositions.
Before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the instantly claimed invention to add Hashimoto’s metal oxide to Bibeau’s composition.
The motivation would have been that metal oxides contribute to sufficient crosslinking, tensile strength, tensile modulus, and prevents molded articles with a coarse touch feeling.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US4035564 to Bibeau in view of US20140011936 to Hashimoto et al.
Regrading Claim 10, Bibeau discloses a chloroprene polymer in an aqueous dispersion [abstract] (i.e., chloroprene polymer latex), comprising an emulsifying agent [Column 2, lines 42 – 45 and 56 – 64] (i.e., an emulsifier), and chloroprene rubber wherein modifiers such as sulfur is used with the chloroprene rubber [Column 5, Lines 12-19] (i.e., chloroprene polymer (A) modified with sulfur (B)). The chloroprene rubber is a copolymer of chloroprene and other materials that can be copolymerized with chloroprene [Column 6, line 64 – Column 7, line 5] reading on (A-1) and (A-2); the amount of sulfur is in an amount of 0.001 to 1.0 percent based on monomer weight [Column 5, Lines 12-19] therefore reading on equation (1) (0.10 parts < Y < 0.60 parts); the chloroprene polymer particle diameter is from 0.15-2 microns (150 to 2000 nm) [abstract], reading on equation (2) (120nm < X < 320nm).
Bibeau teaches a latex containing sulfur in the range set forth in equation (1), and having a particle size which overlaps with the range set forth in equation (2). The combination of the sulfur content “Y” and particle size “X” taught in Bibeau result in equation (3) being satisfied for all X values greater than 168nm when Y values are as high as 0.22.
Though the prior art particle size range is not identical to the claimed range, it does overlap. It has been held that, where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPG 90 (CCPA 1976) (MPEP 2144.05).
Bibeau is silent regarding the tetrahydrofuran insoluble fraction of the chloroprene polymer (A) is 40 to 90 % by mass.
Consequently, the Office recognizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by the reference(s). However, Bibeau, when modified in the manner proposed above, teaches a product prepared from all of the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts by a substantially similar process, including a sulfur content in the instantly claimed range. Per the instant specification, tetrahydrofuran insoluble fraction is controlled by the addition of sulfur during polymerization and polymerization conversion (see [0046] of the PG-PUB of the instant application). Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties - i.e. Insoluble fraction of the chloroprene polymer - would implicitly be achieved in a product prepared from all of the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts by a substantially similar process. See In Re Spada, 911, F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990) and MPEP 2111.01 (I)(II). If it is applicant’s position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant’s position and (2) it would be the Office’s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure as to how to obtain the claimed properties in a product prepared from all of the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts by a substantially similar process.
Bibeau does not teach the emulsifier is a rosin acid soap obtained by saponifying 1.5 to 2.5 parts by mass of a rosin acid with an excess amount of sodium hydroxide and/or potassium hydroxide.
However, Hashimoto teaches a polychloroprene latex [title] with a rosin acid soap added at 0.1-10 parts by mass [Hashimoto, 0065] wherein inventive examples teach a potassium salt of disproportionated rosin acid [0074] (i.e., saponified rosin acid with potassium hydroxide) and an additional addition of potassium hydroxide [0074] (i.e., excess potassium hydroxide) thereby reading on the claimed emulsifier, a rosin acid soap obtained by saponifying rosin acid with an excess amount of potassium hydroxide, relative to the chlorine polymer [Hashimoto ,0037]. Since Hashimoto teaches 0.1 to 10 parts rosin acid soap and presumably the content of the soap is primarily derived from the rosin acid, it would be reasonably expected that the rosin acid soap would overlap with the claimed range of 1.5 to 2.5 parts by mass of a rosin acid. Bibeau and Hashimoto and are analogous art as they are from the same field of endeavor, namely polychloroprene polymer compositions.
Before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to substitute Bibeau’s emulsifier with the amount of Hashimoto’s rosin acid soap emulsifier thereby arriving at the claimed invention.
The motivation is that Hashimoto’s emulsifier type and amount provide colloid stabilization and prevents foaming and deterioration in article appearance such as pinholes [Hashimoto, 0065].
Bibeau does not teach the composition comprises a metal oxide (C) or that the metal oxide (C) is a zinc oxide dispersion.
However, Hashimoto teaches the addition of metal oxides such as zinc oxide [0056] to the polychloride latex [0057] thereby reading on zinc oxide dispersion as the zinc oxide is considered to be dispersed in the same water as the polychloride latex. Bibeau and Hashimoto and are analogous art as they are from the same field of endeavor, namely polychloroprene polymer compositions.
Before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the instantly claimed invention to add Hashimoto’s zinc oxide to Bibeau’s composition, thereby arriving at the claimed invention.
The motivation would have been that metal oxides contribute to sufficient crosslinking, tensile strength, tensile modulus, and prevent molded articles with a coarse touch feeling.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/6/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states that Bibeau contains no disclosure or suggestion regarding setting the amount of sulfur in the sulfur-modified chloroprene polymer to 0.25 parts by mass or more and less than 0.60 parts by mass, as specified in the amended claim 1.
In response, attention is drawn to the updated rejection of claim 1 wherein Bibeau teaches 0.25 to 0.60 parts of sulfur in the sulfur modified chloroprene polymer.
Applicant states neither Bibeau nor Hashimoto discloses or suggests a latex containing a zinc oxide dispersion. Applicant further states Hashimoto’s Table 1 according to JIS K 1410-1995 does not qualify as “zinc oxide dispersion” because its moisture loss upon heating is 0.3% or less.
Regarding defining “zinc oxide dispersion” because its moisture loss upon heating is 0.3% or less, it is noted that instant specification is silent regarding how much water content is required to define the zinc oxide as “dispersed” or not. Both instant specification [0053] and Hashimoto [0055] describe the addition of metal oxide such as zinc oxide in similar manners, wherein both are silent regarding any difference of a dispersed metal oxide or solid metal oxide. Moreover, the instant claims are drawn to a sulfur-modified chloroprene polymer latex, rather than a method. Therefore both the instantly claimed latex and Bibeau’s latex would comprise the same ingredients, specifically referring to a zinc oxide component, suspended in water (i.e., zinc oxide dispersion).
For these reasons, Applicant's arguments are not persuasive.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVIN MITCHELL DARLING whose telephone number is (703)756-5411. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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, ARRIE LANEE REUTHER can be reached at (571) 270-7026. 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.
/DEVIN MITCHELL DARLING/Examiner, Art Unit 1764
/MELISSA A RIOJA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights