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 .
This Office Action is in response to a response to a Nonfinal rejection filed March 27, 2026.
Claims 1-9 and 19-20 have been elected without traverse.
Claims 10-18 have been withdrawn as non-elected.
Claims 1 and 5 have been amended.
Claims 21-22 are cancelled.
Claims 1-9 and 19-20, and 23-24 are currently pending.
This Action is FINAL.
Response to Argument
In view of the Remarks and Amendments, the rejections of claims 1-9 and 19-20 under 35 USC § 103 have been maintained.
Only focal arguments which are related to the patentability of the instant Application are addressed as follows:
Applicant states “However, this reason does not take into account what Xu actually teaches as a whole. In particular Examples 14 and 15 of Xu constitute the only actual dose-effect.”
While the Office generally agrees that Cehavir in view of Xu discloses a preferred substitution pattern that is different from the pattern of the present claims, the Office respectfully disagrees that such a disclosure constitutes a teaching away. "The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain." (In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)).) Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. (MPEP 2123 (II) (citing 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).) Thus, although Cehavir in view of Xu may disclose a preferred embodiment of the recited compound, such a disclosure does not teach away from the broader disclosure and the teachings of the nonpreferred embodiments.
The applicant states “Examples containing approximately 0.5 wt% dry filler or less (e.g. Examples 2 to 6 with approximately 0.5 wt% silica and Examples 17 to 18 with approximately 0.04 wt% silica) exhibit inferior performance, with respect to aged adhesion force. However, Examples containing approximately 1 wt% dry filler or more (e.g. Examples 7 to 11 and 19) show significantly improved and more stable adhesions.”
The examiner is unconvinced. The examiner calculates the amount of dry filler in Examples 2-4 is 1.719 wt% (5.73 parts filler/100 parts total of the aqueous composition×0.3 by dry weight×100=1.719 wt%), which is higher than 0.5 wt%. The examiner asks how is the amount of dry filler calculated in these examples?
Examples 6 and 7 are calculated to have an amount of dry filler of 0.114 wt% and 1.14 wt%, respectively (0.38 parts filler/100 parts total aqueous composition × 0.3 dry weight × 100 = 0.114 wt%). While the examiner sees a difference in aged adhesion stability, the applicant has not demonstrated criticality of the ranges. The highest amount of filler is 1.14 wt% of Example 7 which is well below the claimed upper limit. The applicant has not provided evidence that the upper limit of 10% by dry weight of at least one filler is critical. Thus, Applicant has not shown the criticality of the upper limit.
Regarding Examples 8-11, the examiner is unconvinced. It is difficult to attribute the effect on aged adhesion force and aged coverage to the amount of filler because different aqueous dispersions of different fillers are used within Examples 8-11. For instance, Example 8 is the only example in the instant specification that uses Aersoil 300 in an aqueous dispersion of 20% by weight. Examples 9 and 11 comprises the same carbon black dispersion of 23.5% by weight (Example 9 comprises 2.26% dry weight and Example 11 comprises 1.161% dry weight). The highest amount of filler 2.26% dry weight, which is well below the claimed upper limit. The applicant has not provided evidence that the upper limit of 10% by dry weight of at least one filler is critical. Thus, Applicant has not shown the criticality of the upper limit.
The examiner agrees with the calculation of dry filler for Examples 17-18 and sees a difference in aged adhesion force (72 h) and aged coverage (24 h) in comparison with Example 19. However, it is difficult to attribute these effects to the amount of filler because two different aqueous dispersions of fumed silica are used within Examples 17-19 (Examples 17-18 uses Aerosil 300 in an aqueous dispersion 2% by weight while Ex. 19 uses Levasil CT16APL in an aqueous dispersion 30% by weight).
Furthermore, the examples are not commensurate in scope with the claim. Claim 1 recites an amount of rubber latex, blocked isocyanate, filler, at least one epoxy group containing compound, and at least one polymer with carboxylic acid functional groups. However, Examples 2-19 all use the same VP latex and SBR latex and block isocyanate. There is no evidence that all rubber latexes, blocked isocyanates, fillers, epoxy group containing compounds, and polymer with carboxylic acid functional groups recited in the instant claim would behave in the same manner.
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 1-9, 19-20, and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cevahir et al. (US2017/0130396A1) in view of Xu et al. (CN 106084362 A – machine translation).
In regards to claims 1 and 5, Cevahir et al. disclose an aqueous dipping composition for coating a textile reinforcing material [0017-0027, 0047-0049, 0055-0056; Tables 1-2; Examples] comprising 6-21% by dry weight of a rubber latex, 0.7-3% by weight of blocked polyisocyanate [0056], 0.1-2% of glycerol based glycidyl epoxy or sorbitol based glycidyl epoxy resin [0055], and 0.1-2% by weight of an acrylic polymer resin [0049]. Cevahir et al. disclose compositions free of resorcinol and formaldehyde [0001, 0014-0017].
Cevahir et al. do not disclose the composition comprising 0.3-10% by dry weight of at least one filler.
Xu et al. disclose a dipping solution of an eco-friendly fiber structure material free of resorcinol and formaldehyde wherein the dipping solution comprises 100 parts of butylpyrrolidone latex (Example 1 of Table 1, 16.1 wt.% = 100/618.6), 3.3-190 parts by dry weight of a blocked isocyanate compound, 0.5-20 parts by dry weight of a rubber modifier, and 17.9 parts by dry weight of an epoxy resin (Example 1 in Table 1, 2.8 wt.% = 17.9/618.6). Xu et al. disclose the epoxy resin [0013] comprises one or more of a glycidyl ether type epoxy resin, a sorbitol type epoxy resin, a polyglycerin glycidyl ether type epoxy resin, a metacresol type epoxy resin, or a bisphenol A type epoxy resin. Xu et al. disclose the rubber latex comprises one or more of a carboxylated butadiene-vinylpyridine carboxylic acid latex, a carboxylated styrene-butadiene latex or a carboxylic acid acrylonitrile butadiene rubber latex [0014]. Xu et al. disclose using carbon black or the silicates of mica, kaolin, and bentonite as rubber modifiers [0015-0016] and are also commonly known in the art as rubber fillers, therefore the use of 0.5-20 parts by dry weight of a rubber modifier [Abstract; 0011, 0015-0016] meets the instant claim limitation of 1-10% by dry weight of at least one filler.
Xu et al. disclose the rubber modifier used in 0.5 to 20 parts by dry weight mixed with the rubber latex can improve adhesion of the fiber framework material and the rubber [0043]. To one of ordinary skill in the art, Cevahir et al. and Xu et al. are to the same technical field of aqueous dipping compositions comprising similar components with similar technical objectives to improve adhesion of rubber to fibers and fabric. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the filler and in the amounts of the instant application to a latex dipping composition as done in Xu et al. to the dipping solution of Cevahir et al. to improve the adhesion and coverage of the dipping solution to the fibers of the textile materials.
In regards to claim 2, Cevahir et al. disclose the rubber latex comprising vinyl pyridine (VP) and styrene-butadiene latexes [0057].
In regards to claim 3, Cevahir et al. disclose a blocked isocyanate of 4,4”-methylene diphenyl diisocyanate [0046, 0056].
In regards to claims 4 and 23-24, Xu et al. disclose using carbon black or the silicates of mica, kaolin, and bentonite as rubber modifiers [0015-0016] and are also commonly known in the art as rubber fillers, therefore the use of 0.5-20 parts by dry weight of a rubber modifier [Abstract; 0011, 0015-0016] meets the instant claim limitation of 0.3-10% by dry weight of at least one filler.
In regards to claims 6 and 19, Cevahir et al. disclose ammonium hydroxide [0053].
In regards to claim 7, Cevahir et al. disclose colorants [0058].
In regards to claims 8 and 20, Cevahir et al. disclose a solid content of 5-30 % by dry weight [Examples; Tables 1-2] and is 15% by dry weight in a non-limiting example [0053].
In regards to claim 9, Cevahir et al. disclose the ratio of rubber latex to the other components is 4 [Tables 1-2; Examples 1-10].
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREA WU whose telephone number is (571)272-0342. The examiner can normally be reached M F 8 - 5.
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.
/ANDREA WU/Examiner, Art Unit 1763
Prosecution Insights