DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3, 7-10, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Re claim 1, that “the second and third layers resist chemical degradation and the first layer resists chemical permeation” , no resist step limitations are include in the claim, thus the claim is not clear.
Re Claims 8, 10 and 12 the claims lack “further” language to the additional materials and the additional materials do not limit each material to total the claimed solids content (i.e. x is 0.5 pbw, y is 10 pbw, z is 20 pbw etc., to equal 100 parts).
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.
Claims 1-3, 7-10, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Ikeda JP2010144278 in view of Sasaki JP2004051748 and Shogo JP2019203224 as evidenced by Synthomer.
Re claim 1, Ikeda discloses rubber-coated chemical resistance glove [1], i.e. multifunctional article, comprising fiber layer, mixed rubber layer of nitrile butadiene rubber and chloroprene rubber (corresponding to claimed first layer), and chloroprene rubber layer (corresponding to claimed third layer) [5] and intermediate chloroprene rubber layer (corresponding to claimed second layer) between mixed rubber layer of nitrile butadiene rubber and chloroprene rubber [9]. Each of the layers comprises additional components including filler such as bentonite [31] which is a layered clay.
There is no disclosure in Ikeda that the bentonite is a nanoclay or that the third layer is micro-roughened.
Sakaki discloses polymer composition for gloves [page 2, line 10] comprising polymer such as chloroprene rubber and acrylonitrile-butadiene rubber [page 8, lines 4-5] and layered silicate such as bentonite where the layered silicate has thickness of 1 to several tens nanometers [paragraph bridging pages 3-4). Sakaki discloses that using the silicate results in composition with improved gas barrier properties [page 3, lines 15-17] and increased modulus [page 5, lines 11-12].
In light of the disclosure of Sakaki, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use bentonite nanoclay as the bentonite in Ikeda in order to produce a glove with improved gas barrier properties and increased modulus.
Ikeda in view of Sakaki do not disclose that the third layer is micro-roughened.
Shogo discloses glove comprising rubber coating comprising polychloroprene or nitrile butadiene rubber [1, 45] where the surface of the glove has a micro size surface roughness in order to easily grip solid objects whose surface easily melts such as ice [9, 10, 19, 21].
In light of the disclosure of Shogo, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use glove in Ikeda in view of Sakaki that has third layer with micro-sized surface roughness in order to produce glove that easily grips solid objects whose surface easily melts such as ice.
Although there is no disclosure of micro-roughening by dipping the third layer into solvent mixture as claimed, (insert product-by-process FP).
Given that Ikeda in view of Sakaki and Shogo disclose first layer, second layer, and third layer as claimed, these layers would necessarily inherently have the resistance to chemical degradation and chemical permeation as claimed.
Re claim 2, Shogo discloses that the surface roughness results in the coating layer on the surface of the glove having a surface waviness and that by controlling the waviness by controlling the type and size of particles, spraying pressure, spraying time, etc., it is possible to make it even easier to grip objects whose surface tend to melt [11, 70].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to control the waviness of the glove of Ikeda in view of Sasaki and Shogo to have waviness, including both continuous and discontinuous waves, in order to produce a glove with the desired grip strength.
Re claim 7, Ikeda discloses the nitrile butadiene rubber includes that known under the tradename Synthomer 6311 [14] which as evidenced by Synthomer, is a carboxylated butadiene-acrylonitrile copolymer.
Re claim 14, it is noted that any glove would necessarily extend up to the wrist area. Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a glove that extends to the wrist to more fully protect the user.
Claims 8, 10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Ikeda JP2010144278 in view of Sasaki JP2004051748 and Shogo JP2019203224 as evidenced by Synthomer and further in view of Pimentel de Oliviera (US 2015/0374052).
The combination is set forth above.
Re claims 8, 10, 12, Ikeda in view of Sasaki and Shogo disclose glove as set forth above.
Ikeda further discloses that each of the first layer, second layer, and third layer also comprise zinc oxide [23], vulcanization accelerator [24], sulfur [25], surfactant [26], i.e. dispersing agent, polyphenol based antioxidant [27], pH adjuster that acts as a stabilizer [29], and inorganic filler such as silica or titanium oxide [31], i.e. pigment.
There is no disclosure in Ikeda in view of Sasaki and Shogo of viscosity modifier or solid content as claimed.
Pimentel de Oliviera discloses a glove comprising a knitted liner and a polymer coating [3] where the polymer coating comprises a rheology, i.e. viscosity, modifier to reduce viscosity while maintaining stability and allowing for thinner polymeric coatings to be used [43].
In light of the disclosure of Pimentel de Oliviera, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use viscosity modifier in each of the first, second, and third layers of Ikeda in view of Sakaki and Shogo in order to produce thinner, low viscosity, stable layers that would result in a more light weight glove.
Although there is no disclosure in Ikeda in view of Sakaki, Shogo, and Pimentel de Oliviera of the solids content of each of the first, second, and third layers, given that in the claimed article there would be no solvent present, it is the examiner’s position that the glove of Ikeda in view of Sakaki, Shogo, and Pimentel de Oliviera will be indistinguishable from the article presently claimed and therefore, the prior art meets claims 8, 10, and 12.
Claims 1-3, 9, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakagawa (US 2013/0219588) in view of Ikeda JP2010144278 and Sasaki JP2004051748.
Re claims 1 and 3, Nakagawa discloses a glove, i.e. multifunctional article, comprising a glove body made from fibers, a first coating, and a second coating [10-13]. The first coating (corresponding to claimed first layer) is made from a nitrile butadiene rubber [53]. The second coating (corresponding to claimed third layer) is made from chloroprene rubber [53, 74]. The third layer has an irregular uneven surface made from micron size particles, i.e. micro-roughened surface [70, 77] for anti-slipping, i.e. grip [21].
Although there is no disclosure of micro-roughening by dipping the third layer into solvent mixture as claimed, (insert product-by-process FP).
Nakagawa does not disclose a second layer as claimed.
Ikeda discloses rubber-coated chemical resistance glove [1] comprising fiber layer, mixed rubber layer of nitrile butadiene rubber and chloroprene rubber (corresponding to claimed first layer), and chloroprene rubber layer (corresponding to claimed third layer) [5] and intermediate chloroprene rubber layer (corresponding to claimed second layer) between mixed rubber layer of nitrile butadiene rubber and chloroprene rubber [9]. Each of the layers comprises additional components including filler such as bentonite [31] which is a layered clay. The intermediate or second layer provides the glove with even better chemical resistance [10].
In light of the disclosure of Ikeda, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a second chloroprene rubber layer between the first layer and third layer in the glove of Nakagawa in order to produce a glove with even better chemical resistance.
Nakagawa in view of Ikeda do not disclose nanoclay as claimed.
Sakaki discloses polymer composition for gloves [page 2, line 10] comprising polymer such as chloroprene rubber and acrylonitrile-butadiene rubber [page 8, lines 4-5] and layered silicate such as bentonite where the layered silicate has thickness of 1 to several tens nanometers [paragraph bridging pages 3-4). Sakaki discloses that using the silicate results in composition with improved gas barrier properties [page 3, lines 15-17] and increased modulus [page 5, lines 11-12].
In light of the disclosure of Sakaki, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use bentonite nanoclay in the layers of the glove of Nakagawa in view of Ikeda in order to produce a glove with improved gas barrier properties and increased modulus.
Given that Nakagawa in view of Ikeda and Sakaki disclose first layer, second layer, and third layer as claimed, these layers would necessarily inherently have the resistance to chemical degradation and chemical permeation as claimed.
Re claim 2, Nakagawa discloses that the particles form particle clustering regions in the form of continuous and discontinuous waves (see Fig 1B).
Re claim 9, Nakagawa discloses the first layer has a thickness of 0.2-2 mm [52] and the third layer has thickness of 0.05-1.1 mm [76] while Ikeda discloses the second layer has thickness of 0.18-0.23 mm [16].
Re claim 14, Nakagawa discloses the glove extends to the wrist area [42, Fig 1A].
References of Interest
The remaining references listed on form(s) 892 and/or 1449 have been reviewed by the examiner and are considered to be cumulative to or less material than the prior art references relied upon in the rejection above.
The International search report and Written Opinion have been considered.
CN 108 384 079 A (SHANDONG XINGYU GLOVES CO LTD) 10 August 2018 (2018-08-10) discloses continuous and discontinuous waves explicitly obtained from the figure 1 of CN.
US 20180055112 A1 (DEMARCO et al.) DEMARCO discloses, multilayer latex article Figs. 1 and 2 and associated text: [0005] The present disclosure is also directed to a solvent-resistant glove including a composite film, the composite film including a composite blend layer including PVOH and blocking particles, wherein the blocking particles are nanoclay particles [22] or talc particles; and a polyolefin film layer in facing relationship with the composite blend layer to form a laminate film, wherein the laminate film is free of compatibilizers. The motivation for using nanoclay is for resisting transmission of MEK. [0017] Polyvinyl alcohol is resistant to MEK, for example, if the film is thick enough, on the order of 8 mils. The problem, however, is that a thick glove does not provide the needed dexterity. In addition, PVOH is soluble in water and softens upon contact with water. In one exemplary aspect, the addition of nanoclay particles in the 10-15 μm particle size range reduces the transmission of MEK through the polyvinyl alcohol film at significantly lower thickness (1-3 mils). The addition of nanoclay particles allows the thickness of the PVOH film to be reduced and therefore make for a more dexterous glove. The time of MEK breakthrough can be controlled through the amount of nanoclay and the thickness of the final film.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAMRA L. DICUS whose telephone number is (571)272-2022. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am 4:00 pm.
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 at 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.
TAMRA L. DICUS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1787
/TAMRA L. DICUS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787