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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 22 October 2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Soerens et al. (US 20060115653 A1) (previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Soerens teaches an elastomeric glove comprising a body-facing layer (donning layer) of a first elastomeric material, a middle layer (primary layer) of natural rubber, and an outer layer (grip layer) of a third elastomeric material (Soerens, Abstract, Par. 0005-0006, 0016, 0025, and 0062-0063). Soerens teaches the first elastomeric material and the third elastomeric material are nitrile rubbers comprising acrylonitrile (Soerens, Par. 0026 and 0062-0063).
Regarding claim 5, Soerens does not state that the first elastomeric material comprises an accelerator and therefore satisfies the limitation of the first elastomeric material being accelerator free.
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 6 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soerens et al. as applied to claim 1 above under 35 USC § 102, further in view of Yeh et al. (US 6673404 B1) (previously cited).
Regarding claim 6, Soerens teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above for claim 1. Soerens is silent regarding the first elastomeric material further comprising neoprene, butyl, elastane, or isoprene.
Yeh teaches an elastomeric glove comprising body-facing layer (inner coating) of a first elastomeric material; a middle layer (intermediate layer) of a second elastomeric material; and an outer layer (base glove or first elastomeric layer) of a third elastomeric material (Yeh, Abstract, Col. 1 Lines 41-63, and Col. 3 Lines 5-18). Yeh teaches that the first elastomeric material comprises a blend of an acrylonitrile, nitrile rubber and another synthetic rubber such as isoprene (Yeh, Col. 6 Lines 10-24). Yeh teaches that the third elastomeric material is a nitrile rubber (Yeh, Col. 2 Lines 23-33, Col. 2 Lines 55-65).
Soerens and Yeh are analogous art as they both teach elastomeric gloves comprising a body-facing layer comprising acrylonitrile, a middle layer, and an outer layer comprising acrylonitrile. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the body-facing layer elastomeric material of Yeh as the first elastomeric material of Soerens. This would allow for improved donnability (Yeh, Col. 1 Lines 40-64). It further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the same nitrile rubber for the nitrile rubber of the third elastomeric material as the first elastomeric material to simplify manufacturing by only needing one nitrile rubber.
Regarding claims 9-11, modified Soerens teaches an elastomeric glove that is identical or substantially identical to the instant invention as stated above for claims 1 and 6. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), see MPEP 2112.01. As stated above for claims 1 and 6 modified Soerens teaches an elastomeric glove with the same material for the first and second elastomeric material, and a material for the third elastomeric material with an amount of acrylonitrile of 25-40 wt.% (Yeh, Col. 3 Lines 5-48 and Col. 4 Lines 38-65), which overlaps the range of the instant invention of greater than above 30 wt.% as stated by the instant specification Par. 0033-0034. Modified Soerens further teaches that the elastomeric glove has a thickness of about 3 to about 15 mils, including a range of about 3 to about 5.5 mils (0.076 to 0.14 mm) (Soerens, Par. 0091), which lies within the range of the instant invention of less than 0.19 mm as stated by the instant claim 12. Further, the instant specification states that the claimed chemical resistance is achieved by the glove thickness and the acrylonitrile content of the outer layer (See the instant specification Par. 0005, 0034-0035, and 0045). Modified Soerens thus teaches an elastomeric glove that is identical or substantially identical to the instant invention with the an overall thickness that renders obvious that of the instant invention and an amount of acrylonitrile in the outer layer that renders obvious that of the instant invention. Therefore, absent objective evidence to the contrary, the elastomeric glove of modified Soerens would have inherently exhibited the chemical resistance properties of instant claims 9-11.
Claims 8, 12, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soerens et al. as applied to claim 1 above under 35 USC § 102.
Regarding claim 8, Soerens teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above for claim 1. Soerens teaches the elastomeric glove can be any glove such as surgical gloves (Soerens, Par. 0001 and 0016). While Soerens is silent regarding the specific length of the glove, this is merely an obvious change in size/proportion of the glove to fit a user’s hand. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. (See MPEP 2114.04, IV). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to change the overall size/proportion of the glove to have the claimed length to fit a user’s hand.
Regarding claim 12, Soerens teaches an elastomeric glove that is a surgical glove and thus comprises a glove body comprising a cuff region, a finger region, and a palm region (Soerens, Par. 0001 and 0016). Soerens teaches the glove body comprises a body-facing layer (donning layer) of an elastomeric material that is a nitrile rubber comprising acrylonitrile, a middle layer (primary layer) of a natural rubber latex, and an outer layer (grip layer) of an acrylonitrile nitrile rubber (Soerens, Abstract, Par. 0005-0006, 0016, 0025-0026, and 0062-0063). Soerens does not teach that the body-facing layer must comprise an accelerator, and thus teaches embodiments wherein the body-facing layer is accelerator-free. Soerens teaches the second elastomeric material is formed of a natural rubber latex and does not state that other materials that would material affect the basic and novel characteristics of the invention and therefore satisfies the limitation of consisting essentially of a natural rubber latex (Soerens, Par. 0005-0006). Soerens teaches the middle layer accounts for most of the glove’s weight, and thus renders obvious embodiments wherein the middle layer has a greater average thickness than each of the body-facing layer and the outer layer (Soerens, Par. 0016). Soerens teaches the body-facing layer, the middle layer, and the outer layer have a combined thickness of about 3 to about 15 mils, including a range of about 3 to about 5.5 mils (0.076 to 0.14 mm) (Soerens, Par. 0091), resulting in a palm region thickness of about 0.076 to 0.14 mm which lies within the claimed range of less than 0.19 mm and therefore satisfies the claimed range, see MPEP 2131.03.
Regarding claim 14, Soerens teaches that the elastomeric glove is powder-free (Soerens, Par. 0003-0004 and 0077).
Regarding claim 16, Soerens does not state that the body facing layer or outer layer comprises protein. Further, Soerens teaches that the body-facing layer comprises an acrylonitrile and the outer layer comprises an acrylonitrile nitrile as discussed above for claim 12, which is the same as the instant invention as per the instant claim 12. Therefore, Soerens satisfies the limitation of the body-facing layer and the outer layer each containing less than about 50 micrograms/gram of protein.
Claims 12, 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeh et al. in view of Modha et al. (US 20180332910 A1) (previously cited).
Regarding claims 12, Yeh teaches an elastomeric glove comprising a cuff region, a finger region, and a palm region, the glove comprising: body-facing layer (inner coating) of an elastomeric material comprising acrylonitrile; a middle layer (intermediate layer) of a natural rubber latex material; and an outer layer (base glove or first elastomeric layer) of an acrylonitrile material (Yeh, Abstract, Col. 1 Lines 41-63, Col. 2 Lines 23-33, Col. 2 Lines 55-65, Col. 3 Lines 5-48, Col. 4 Lines 38-65, Col. 6 Lines 10-24, Col. 6 Lines 56-61, and Col. 12 Lines 43-58). Yeh teaches that an accelerator is not required for the first elastomeric material (Yeh, Col. 6 Lines 38-46), and therefore satisfies the limitation of being accelerator free. Regarding the middle layer consisting essentially of the natural rubber latex material, Yeh teaches the middle layer comprises a natural rubber latex material and a nitrile rubber, including a ratio of 95/5 of natural rubber latex to nitrile rubber (Yeh, Abstract and Col. 3 Lines 30-48). The nitrile rubber is not stated to material affect the basic and novel characteristics of the layer of forming a glove, and thus Yeh satisfies the limitation of the middle layer consisting essentially of a natural rubber latex material. Yeh teaches the body-facing layer, middle layer, and outer layer have a combined thickness (i.e., a thickness of the entire glove) in the palm region of 0.004-0.020 inches (0.10-0.51 mm) (Yeh, Col. 8 Lines 32-58), which overlaps the claimed range of less than about 0.19 mm and therefore establishes a prima facie case of obviousness over the claimed range, see MPEP 2144.05, I. Yeh further teaches that the layers may further comprise colorants (colored pigments) (Yeh, Col. 2 Lines 34-37 and Col. 3 Lines 44-48).
Yeh is silent regarding the middle layer having a greater average thickness than each of the body-facing layer and the outer layer.
Modha teaches an elastomeric glove comprising a glove body comprising a cuff region, a finger region, and a palm region (Modha, Abstract and Par. 0065). Modha teaches the glove body comprises a body facing layer (third layer) of an elastomeric material (Modha’s third elastomeric formulation) comprising acrylonitrile, a middle layer (Second layer, donning side layer) of a natural rubber latex, and an outer layer (first layer, gripping side layer) of a nitrile material (Modha’s first elastomeric formulation) (Modha, Abstract, Par. 0005-0007, 0017, 0044, 0070-0071, and 0110). Modha further teaches that the middle layer has an increased total percentage of the glove, such as an average thickness of from about 30% to about 90% of the overall thickness of the glove (Modha, Par. 0123), and thus renders obvious embodiments wherein the middle layer has an average thickness that is greater than an average thickness of the body-facing layer and the outer layer (i.e., when the middle layer has a thickness that is 90% of the overall thickness), see MPEP 2144.05, I. Modha teaches that the increased thickness of the middle layer, combined with a contrast of the layers from colorants, allows for improved contrast and improved breach detection capabilities (Modha, Abstract, Par. 0058 and 0123).
Yeh and Modha are analogous art as they both teach elastomeric gloves comprising an acrylonitrile body facing layer, a natural rubber latex middle layer, and an acrylonitrile outer layer wherein the layers may comprise colorants. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the glove of Yeh to include colorants in the outer and middle layers, and create the middle layer to have an increased thickness such that the thickness of the middle layer is greater than the thickness of the outer and body-facing layers. This would allow for improved contrast and breach detection capabilities (Modha, Par. 0058 and 0123).
Regarding claim 14, modified Yeh teaches that the elastomeric glove is powder free (Yeh, Abstract and Col. 1 Lines 41-48).
Regarding claim 16, Modified Yeh does not state that the body facing layer or outer layer comprises protein. Further, modified Yeh teaches that the body-facing layer comprises an acrylonitrile and the outer layer comprises an acrylonitrile nitrile as discussed above for claim 12, which is the same as the instant invention as per the instant claim 12. Therefore, modified Yeh satisfies the limitation of the body-facing layer and the outer layer each containing less than about 50 micrograms/gram of protein.
Claims 12, 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Modha et al.
Regarding claims 12, Modha teaches an elastomeric glove comprising a glove body comprising a cuff region, a finger region, and a palm region (Modha, Abstract and Par. 0065). Modha teaches the glove body comprises a body facing layer (third layer) of an elastomeric material (Modha’s third elastomeric formulation) comprising acrylonitrile, a middle layer (Second layer, donning side layer) consisting essentially of a natural rubber latex, and an outer layer (first layer, gripping side layer) of a nitrile material (Modha’s first elastomeric formulation) (Modha, Abstract, Par. 0005-0007, 0017, 0044, 0070-0071, and 0110). Modha does not state that any accelerators are present in the elastomeric material and therefore satisfies the limitation of the elastomeric material being accelerator free. Modha teaches that the body-facing, middle, and outer layers of material have a combined thickness of from about 0.03 to about 0.20 mm, such as between about 0.06 mm to about 0.15 mm in the palm region of the elastomeric glove (Modha, Par. 0065), which lies within the claimed range of less than about 0.19 mm and therefore satisfies the claimed range, see MPEP 2131.03. Modha further teaches that the middle layer has an average thickness of from about 30% to about 90% of the overall thickness of the glove, and thus renders obvious embodiments wherein the middle layer has an average thickness that is greater than an average thickness of the body-facing layer and the outer layer (i.e., when the middle layer has a thickness that is 90% of the overall thickness), see MPEP 2144.05, I.
Regarding claim 14, Modha teaches that the elastomeric glove is powder free (Modha, Par. 0023, 0033, and 0116).
Regarding claim 16, Modha does not state that the body facing layer or outer layer comprises protein. Further, Modha teaches that the body-facing layer comprises an acrylonitrile and the outer layer comprises an acrylonitrile nitrile material (Modha, Par. 0005-0007, 0015-0017, 0026-0027, 0036, 0044, 0070-0071, and 0101), which is the same as the instant invention as per the instant claim 12. Therefore, Modha satisfies the limitation of the body-facing layer and the outer layer each containing less than about 50 micrograms/gram of protein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks and amendments filed 22 October 2025 have been fully considered.
On pages 6-10 of the remarks, Applicant argues that Soerens teaches a vast list of possible materials and thus Soerens in view of Yeh does not render obvious the specific claimed material and layer arrangement without improper hindsight on Applicant’s disclosure. This is not found persuasive for the following reasons:
To note, the grounds of rejection have been updated in view of the present claim amendments. The grounds of rejection above now solely rely upon Soerens under 35 USC § 102.
Soerens teaches a glove having a primary layer and also including a donning layer and a gripping layer (Soerens, Par. 0016 and 0025). It is known in the art that a donning layer is a body-facing layer that aids a user in donning the glove and that a gripping layer is an outer layer that aids a user in gripping the glove. Furthermore, Soerens teaches the layers are formed by dipping a former into elastomeric compositions to form a primary layer and additional layers such as donning and gripping layers before or after the primary layer (Soerens, Par. 0075 and 0086-0087). Thus, the disclosure of Soerens reasonably encompasses an embodiment of the glove exhibiting the layer arrangement of a body-facing layer (donning layer), a middle layer (primary layer), and an outer layer (gripping layer) in that order.
Soerens further states that the middle layer (primary layer) may be formed from an aqueous polymer such as a natural rubber latex (Soerens, Par. 0005). Soerens further teaches the body-facing layer and the outer layer (gripping and donning layers) may comprise a nitrile polymer (Soerens, Par. 0063 and 0082). While Soerens lists other materials for the middle layer, such as nitrile polymers, silicone polymers, PVC polymers, polyurethane polymers, or solvent-based polymers (Soerens, Par. 0005-0006 and 0083), it is the examiner’s position that this list is not so vast as to not anticipate the claimed rubber materials or not so vast to have not been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to choose a natural rubber latex as the material for the middle layer, and a nitrile rubber for the body-facing layer and the outer layer. Further, when the species is clearly named, the species claim is anticipated no matter how many other species are additionally named. See Ex parte A, 17 USPQ2d 1716 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990), see MPEP 2131.02 (II). Soerens thus discloses a body-facing layer, middle layer, and outer layer wherein each layer is individually formed from a rubber composition that is chosen from a finite list of species, resulting in a body-facing layer and outer comprising a nitrile rubber, and a middle layer comprising a natural rubber latex, see MPEP 2131.02(II) and MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that MPEP 2131.02 is not applicable to rejections under 35 USC §103, it is noted that the rejections above to claim 1 are in view of 35 USC § 102 due to the present claim amendments. Furthermore, the MPEP sections would still be applicable to the previous grounds of rejection under 35 USC § 103. The MPEP section clearly states that when a species is clearly named, the species is anticipated no matter how many other species are additionally named as stated above, see MPEP 2131.02 (II). As Soerens clearly names the species of each layer, Soerens anticipates the specific layer arrangement. Even if a secondary reference is then utilized to modify one of the materials of the layers, like in the previous grounds of rejection or in the rejection to claim 6 above, this would not change Soeren’s anticipating an acrylonitrile material for each of the outer and inner layer, and a natural rubber latex for the middle layer.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). As stated above, Soerens anticipates the claimed layer arrangement and thus no knowledge gleaned only from Applicant’s disclosure is utilized in the rejection above.
In view of the above, Soerens teaches the claimed layer arrangement and rubber materials and Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Secondly, on page 8 of the remarks, Applicant argues that Soerens does not teach a middle layer consisting essentially of a natural rubber latex. This is not found persuasive for the following reason:
Soerens teaches a middle layer comprising a second elastomeric material which is formed of a natural rubber latex and does not state that the middle layer comprises other materials that would material affect the basic and novel characteristics of the invention (Soerens, Par. 0005-0006). The transition phrase “consisting essentially of” limits the scope of a claim to the specified materials or steps “and those that do not materially affect the basic and novel characteristic(s)” of the claimed invention. In re Herz, 573 F.2d 549, 551-52, 190 USPQ 461,463 (CCPA 1976), see MPEP 2111.03, III. For the purposes of searching for and applying prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103, absent a clear indication in the specification or claims of what the basic and novel characteristics actually are, "consisting essentially of" will be construed as equivalent to "comprising." See, e.g., PPG, 156 F.3d at 1355, 48 USPQ2d at 1355, see MPEP 2111.03, III. The instant specification has not indicated what the basic and novel characteristics of the middle layer are and Applicant has not indicated how any additional materials required by Soerens would materially affect the basic and novel characteristics of the middle layer. Therefore, Soerens satisfies the limitation of consisting essentially of a natural rubber latex and Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Thirdly, on pages 10-13 of the remarks, Applicant argues that neither Yeh in view of Modha of Modha alone does not teach the instant claim 12 as Modha teaches a laundry list of rubber materials for the layers. This is not found persuasive for the following reason:
The rejection of Yeh in view of Modha above does not rely upon Modha to teach the specific layer materials. Modha is used as a secondary reference, and therefore, it is not necessary for this secondary reference to contain all the features of the presently claimed invention, In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973), In re Keller 624 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). Rather this reference teaches a certain concept, and in combination with the other applied prior art establishes a prima facie case of obviousness over the presently claimed invention. Modha teaches that it is well known and well within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art to include colorants in an outer and middle layer of an elastomeric glove, and create the middle layer to have an increased thickness such that the thickness of the middle layer is greater than the thickness of the outer and body-facing layers. Modha further provides motivation for the combination such as allowing for improved contrast and breach detection capabilities (Modha, Par. 0058 and 0123).
Regarding the arguments in view of Modha alone, Modha teaches the glove comprises a third layer comprising a third elastomeric composition (Modha, Par. 0044 and 0110). Modha further teaches that the layers of the glove may comprise an acrylonitrile material (Modha, Par. 0070 and 0076-0078). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a material listed as a suitable material for a glove layer, such as acrylonitrile rubber, for the third layer of Modha. While Modha lists a variety of different elastomeric materials for the layers of the glove, it is the examiner’s opinion that the number of elastomeric materials listed is not so vast as to not be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to choose one of the listed materials, such as nitrile rubber. Further, when the species is clearly named, the species claim is anticipated no matter how many other species are additionally named. See Ex parte A, 17 USPQ2d 1716 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990), see MPEP 2131.02 (II). Modha thus reasonably discloses a third elastomeric composition that can be chosen from a finite list of species known for forming layers of the glove, such that the third elastomeric composition comprises an acrylonitrile material, see MPEP 2131.02 (II) and MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding the middle layer being formed from a natural rubber latex, the claimed middle layer corresponds to Modha’s second layer or donning side layer. Modha teaches that the second layer can be formed from a natural rubber such as a natural rubber latex (Modha, Par. 0005-0006, 0016, 0026, 0036, and 0070-0071). Modha does not state that other rubber materials are required for the second layer and thus satisfies the limitation of consisting essentially of a natural rubber latex. Although Modha lists a variety of different elastomeric materials for the middle layer, it is the examiner’s opinion that the number of elastomeric materials listed is not so vast as to not be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to choose one of the listed materials, such as a natural rubber latex.
In view of the above, both Yeh in view of Modha and Modha alone teach or render obvious the claimed material and layer structure and Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS J KESSLER JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3075. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5:30 M-Th.
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, Aaron Austin can be reached at 571-272-8935. 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.
/THOMAS J KESSLER/Examiner, Art Unit 1782