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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/4/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Any rejections and/or objections made in the previous Office action and not repeated below are hereby withdrawn.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 objected to because of the following informalities: lines 2-3 are redundant. Appropriate correction is required.
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 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. In the reply filed 7/18/2025. the applicant has stated to achieve a tensile strength at break of 17 MPa or more, the requirements of either (1)+(2)+(3) or (1)+(2)+(4) must be satisfied, wherein (1) is the Mn of block A is 10000-30000, (2) is containing 5-30 wt% of block A, (3) is the presence of a polyfunctional monomer unit, and (4) is in polymerization step 1, the amount of pure water added is 100-300% with respect to monomer. The omitted elements are: requirement of (3) or (4).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozoe et al (JP2010001458).
Ozoe teaches a polychloroprene latex for making dipping gloves (i.e. an immersion molded article) [0068], the latex comprises a chloroprene block copolymer [0014, 0022-0024], such as polymethacrylic acid-CR block copolymer with a methacrylic acid content of 23 wt% (example 1). Polymethacrylic acid has a Tg of 228°C. The content of the hydrophilic polymer block in the block copolymer is 1-40 wt% [0025] which overlaps the claimed range. The chloroprene block has chloroprene monomer units and a polyfunctional monomer unit [0028]. The number average molecular weight of the block copolymer is 500-100,000 [0025]. Ozoe exemplifies molecular weight distribution Mw/Mn in a range of 1.4-2 (examples), therefore the weight average molecular weight of the block copolymer is 700-200,000. The number average molecular weight of polymer block A is (1-40%)*(500-100,000)=5-40,000. Case law holds that in the case 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 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Ozoe is silent with respect to the tensile strength of the article. However, the teachings from Ozoe have rendered obvious the instantly claimed ingredients and amounts thereof. Therefore, it is reasonable that one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the claimed physical properties to naturally arise.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument Ozoe does not teaches the claimed tensile strength, the argument is not persuasive because 1) case law holds that the disclosure of a reference is not limited to preferred embodiments or specific working examples therein. In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794, 215 USPQ 569, 570 (CCPA 1982); In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750, 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976). 2) the block copolymer of Ozoe may not be able to form a film but the CR latex would, 3) it is noted that the comparative example 2 in the instant application has the claimed tensile strength, and the flexibility is not a feature recited in the claims; 4) the claimed tensile strength is related to the molded body instead of the block copolymer itself, therefore the block copolymer of Ozoe not having the claimed tensile strength does not mean the molded body of Ozoe not having the claimed tensile strength. Applicants should provide evidence to demonstrate Ozoe’s molded article does not have the claim tensile strength.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WENWEN CAI whose telephone number is (571)270-3590. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9am-6pm.
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 on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WENWEN CAI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763