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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/04/2024 has been entered.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 17 and 19-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al. (US 20040122382 A1) in view of Mundschau et al. (US 2010/0008957).
Regarding Claims 17 and 19-21, Johnson discloses a glove comprising a donning/inside surface and a gripping/outside surface (paras 0024-0025). Johnson further discloses a coating composition deposited on the inside surface of the glove (para 0024).
The coating composition comprises about 0.001-20% clinically beneficial additive (para 0065) which may be an emollient such as beeswax, butyl stearate, ceramides, cetyl palmitate, eucerit, isohexadecane, isopropyl palmitate, isopropyl myristate, mink oil, mineral oil, nut oil, oleyl alcohol, petroleum jelly or petrolatum, glyceral stearate, avocado oil, jojoba oil, lanolin (or woolwax), lanolin derivatives, retinyl palmitate (a vitamin A derivative), cetearyl alcohol, squalane, squalene, stearic acid, stearyl alcohol, myristal myristate, various lipids, decyl oleate and/or castor oil (para 0055). While Johnson does not disclose these emollients being insoluble and in a solid phase as claimed, since they are identical to the emollients presently claimed, they would inherently be insoluble and in a solid phase as presently claimed.
Johnson does not disclose the at least one acrylic polymer as presently claimed.
Mundschau discloses a formulation applied to a laminated article such as a glove (paras 0008, 0009) where the formulation includes a cosmetic carrier (para 0020) and comprises rheology enhancer including alkyl alkylate/hydroxymethyl acrylate copolymer and polyacrylic acid (paras 0060, 0061). Table 1B discloses use of sodium polyacrylate in an amount of 0.8%. The rheology enhancers increase the melt point viscosity of the formulation so that the formulation readily remains on the surface of the article and does not substantially migrate into the interior of the article, while substantially not affecting the transfer of the formulation to the skin as well as influences the overall consistency and skin feel (para 0060).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Johnson to incorporate the teachings of Mundschau and produce the glove of Johnson wherein the coating composition further comprises rheology enhancer including alkyl alkylate/hydroxymethyl acrylate copolymer and polyacrylic acid, in an amount such as 0.8%. Doing so would increase the melt point viscosity of the coating composition so that the coating composition readily remains on the surface of the glove and does not substantially migrate into the interior of the glove material, while substantially not affecting the transfer of the coating composition to the skin.
Given the amount of acrylate rheology enhancer disclosed by Mundschau (0.8%) and the amount of emollient disclosed by Johnson (0.001-20%), it would be obvious to produce the composition comprising 0.04-800 parts acrylic relative to 1 part emollient (0.8/20 to 0.8/0.001) including amounts as presently claimed in order to produce composition that provides desired benefit to the skin, desired rheology and overall consistency and skin feel.
Regarding Claims 22-23, Johnson in view of Mundschau discloses all the limitations of the present invention according to Claim 17 above. Johnson further discloses the coating composition comprising a humectant such as alanine, glycerin, PEG, propylene glycol, butylene glycol, glycerin (glycol), hyaluronic acid, Natural Moisturizing Factor (a mixture of amino acids and salts that are among the skin's natural humectants), saccharide isomerate, sodium lactate, sorbitol, and/or urea (para 0056).
Regarding Claim 24, Johnson in view of Mundschau discloses all the limitations of the present invention according to Claim 17 above. Johnson further discloses the coating composition comprises other clinically beneficial agents (i.e. active agents) (paras 0057-0060).
Regarding Claim 25, Johnson in view of Mundschau discloses all the limitations of the present invention according to Claim 17 above. Johnson further discloses the glove is an elastomeric article (para 0017).
Regarding Claims 26-27, Johnson in view of Mundschau discloses all the limitations of the present invention according to Claim 17 above. While Johnson in view of Mundschau does not disclose the wet or dry coefficient of friction of the coated glove, given that Johnson in view of Mundschau discloses coated glove identical to that claimed, including elastomeric glove material and coating composition comprising acrylic polymer, emollient, humectant, and active agent as claimed, the coated glove of Johnson in view of Mundschau would inherently exhibit dry and wet coefficient of friction as presently claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/04/2024 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that PHOSITA would not look to Mundschau, which discloses coating applied to a nonwoven laminate material, to modify a coating applied to a rubber, polyurethane, neoprene or similar elastomeric material as disclosed by Johnson. Applicant specifically argues that since Table 1B cited in the rejection disclosed coating for a non-woven fibrous laminate article which is a sock, there would be no motivation to use this coating in the elastomeric glove of Johnson.
However, given that both Johnson and Mundschau are drawn to coatings used in gloves and given that Mundschau provides motivation for combining the references, the combination of Johnson in view of Mundschau is proper. Further, while Table 1B of Mundschau discloses coating for a non-woven sock, the broader disclosure of Mundschau discloses the article may be a sock or a glove, comprising nonwoven substrate or an elastomeric material, including natural or synthetic rubber, polyurethane, or neoprene (paras 0021-0022). Therefore it would be obvious that the acrylate rheology enhancer in specific amount of Table 1B could be applied either to a nonwoven sock or to an elastomeric glove.
Applicant argues that a person having ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated by the combination of Johnson and Mundschau to produce a glove coating having the claimed ratio of acrylic polymer to emollient. Applicant argues that Johnson does not disclose use of acrylic polymer (and therefore does not disclose any amount or ratio), while Mundschau discloses ratio of acrylate to emollient that is smaller than that claimed.
However, given that Mundschau discloses 0.8 wt% acrylate rheology enhancer relative to the total composition, given that the coatings of Mundschau are for socks or gloves, and given that Johnson and Mundschau are both drawn to coatings used in gloves, it would be obvious to use same amount in Johnson with reasonable expectation of success.
Further, Mundschau is only used as teaching reference in order to teach 0.8 wt% acrylate rheology enhancer. It is noted that the "test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference... Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art", In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,208 USPQ 871,881 (CCPA 1981) and that "combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures", In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USP 224, 226 (CCPA).
The amount of emollient is taught by Johnson (0.001-20%), not Mundschau. Therefore, the combination of Johnson in view of Mundschau discloses 0.001-20% emollient and 0.8% acrylate, i.e. 0.04-800 parts acrylate relative to 1 part emollient (0.8/20 to 0.8/0.001).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BETHANY M MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-2109. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:00.
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, Callie Shosho can be reached on 571-272-1123. 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.
/BETHANY M MILLER/Examiner, Art Unit 1787
/CALLIE E SHOSHO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights