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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on March 17, 2026 have been entered. Claims 1-7 and 11-17 are pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zapp et al (US 4144154 A).
Regarding Claim 1: Zapp teaches a composition comprising an elastomer such as polychloroprene (col. 4, lines 51-53), 1-3 phr of a polythiol (col. 4, line 58-col. 5, line 14) with primary mercapto groups (col. 5, lines 49-65), and 1-10 phr of zinc oxide (col. 6, lines 16-24), wherein the elastomer may be prepared as a latex (col. 4, lines 37-41). One of ordinary skill in the art would know that polymer latexes are typically water-based.
Regarding Claim 11: Zapp teaches molded articles (col. 10, lines 41-46).
Regarding Claim 12: Zapp teaches a method of producing a molded article comprising heating the composition (col. 10, lines 41-46).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-7 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loccufier (US 2019/0062579 A) in view of Pye (Choosing plastic colorants, 2019, Ultrus Prospector Knowledge Center).
Regarding Claim 1 and 4-7: Loccufier teaches a composition comprising a chloroprene polymer latex (para. 0033) and a thiol compound comprising a mercapto group (para. 0102-0104), such as pentaerythritol tetrakis (3-mercaptobutylate) as a preferred thiol compound (para. 0113), dispersed in an aqueous medium (para. 0054), wherein the polychloroprene is present at 3-43 wt% (para. 0067) and the thiol compound is present at 0.1-25 wt% (para. 0100). Based on calculations, the thiol compound is present at 0.2-833 parts by weight per 100 parts of the polychloroprene, which overlaps the claimed range. In a working example, the thiol is present at approximately 3.6 parts by weight per 100 parts of a latex particle (para. 0342, 0345, 0359-0360). One of ordinary skill could easily envision applying this amount to a composition comprising a polychloroprene as the latex particle. Loccufier further teaches zinc oxide (para. 0194).
However, Loccufier is silent to the content of zinc oxide.
Pye teaches that inorganic pigments, such as zinc oxide (p.2, Table of suitable colourants) are typically present at 2% in polymer compositions (p.2, first paragraph). Pye and Loccufier are analogous art because they are directed toward the same field of endeavor, namely pigmented polymer compositions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the amount of zinc oxide pigment in the composition of Loccufier to 2 parts by weight, based on the amount of chloroprene, to achieve a high level of opacity and coloring strength.
Regarding Claims 2-3 and 13-14: Loccufier teaches a homopolymer or copolymer of polychloroprene (para. 0033, latex particles preferably includes at least one monomeric unit selected from the group consisting of butadiene, chloroprene and isoprene). In the case that the polychloroprene is a homopolymer, the amount of a comonomer is 0%.
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loccufier (US 2019/0062579 A) in view of Pye (Choosing plastic colorants, 2019, Ultrus Prospector Knowledge Center) and Shimano et al (EP 3260488 A1).
Regarding Claim 15: Loccufier and Pye teach the limitations of claim 2, as set forth. However, Loccufier is silent to the combination of a chloroprene homopolymer and a chloroprene copolymer.
Shimano teaches a latex composition comprising a chloroprene homopolymer, a chloroprene copolymer, or a combination thereof (para. 0010), which is advantageous for adhesive strength (para. 0023). Shimano and Loccufier are analogous art because they are directed toward the same field of endeavor, mainly aqueous chloroprene latex coatings.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a combination of a chloroprene homopolymer and a chloroprene copolymer in the composition taught by Loccufier to enhance the adhesion of the composition to a substrate.
Regarding Claims 16-17: Loccufier is silent to the comonomer content in the chloroprene copolymer.
Shimano teaches that the copolymer should contain from 0.01-20% by mass of the comonomer, and that said range is favorable for adhesive strength and contact properties (para. 0023).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the comonomer content of the chloroprene within the range taught by Shimano in order to optimize the adhesive strength and contact properties of the composition.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1-7 and 11-17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAITLIN N ILLING whose telephone number is (571)270-1940. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-4PM.
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, Mark Eashoo can be reached at (571)272-1197. 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.
/C.N.I./Examiner, Art Unit 1767
/MARK EASHOO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1767
Prosecution Insights