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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 6, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
New Claim 11 sets forth a xanthogen compound represented by general formula (ROC(=S)S)x-Z, in which x is 2 or more. The original disclosure does not provide support for any value x in the claimed range of 2 or more. [0115] only set forth x is generally 1 to 24 preferably 2 to 4, and particularly preferably 2. Thus, the highest upper limit for x supported by the original disclosure is 4.
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 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 and 6 – 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2018/155243 to Aihara et al. (hereinafter Aihara) in view of CN110054813 to Gui et al. (hereinafter Gui). For the purposes of examination, citations for Aihara are taken from an English-language equivalent of the document, US 2020/0056019. Citations for Gui are taken from a machine translation of the document filed with the United States Patent and Trademark Office on January 22, 2024.
Regarding Claim 1. Aihara teaches a latex composition comprising an aqueous dispersion of a latex composition comprising a sulfur vulcanizing agent and a xanthogen compound mixed with a conjugated diene polymer latex ([0140] and [0148]).
The conjugated diene polymer latex may be a synthetic polyisoprene latex, a styrene-isoprene-styrene block copolymer (SIS), or a nitrile group-containing conjugated diene polymer [0019].
Aihara does not expressly teach the sulfur-based vulcanizing agent is dispersed in water using an anionic surfactant or that the xanthogen compound is dispersed in water using at least one of a nonionic surfactant and a nonionic anionic surfactant. However, Gui also prepares a latex composition comprising a sulfur-based vulcanizing agent and xanthogen compound. The latex composition is in the form of an aqueous dispersion comprising a diffusant [0064] and a non-ionic surfactant [0007] – [0008]. Sodium methylene dinaphthalene sulfonate, i.e. an anionic surfactant, is set forth as the preferred diffusing agent/diffusant [0068]. Gui additionally teaches the non-ionic surfactant is provided in an amount of 0.1 to 4 parts by weight per 100 parts by weight of the latex [0007]. Gui and Aihara are analogous art as they are from the same field of endeavor, namely latex compositions. Before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide an anionic surfactant/diffusant and a non-ionic surfactant in the amount taught by Gui in the latex composition of Aihara. The sulfur-based vulcanizing agent of Aihara would then be dispersed in water using an anionic surfactant and the xanthogen compound would dispersed in water using a nonionic surfactant. The motivation would have been that Aihara teaches the presence of an anionic surfactant/diffusant reduces the surface tension of the latex composition and improves adhesion to the mold [0068], while the presence of the non-ionic surfactant in this amount prevents agglomeration of latex particles [0052].
Regarding Claims 2 and 3. Aihara teaches the latex composition of Claim 1 wherein the sulfur-based vulcanizing agent is present in an amount of 0.2 to 3 parts by weight per 100 parts by weight of the conjugated diene polymer [0142]. While this range is not identical to the claimed ranges of 0.1 to 1.0 and 0.1 to 0.6 parts by weight, it does overlap with each of the claimed ranges. It has been held that 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 USPG 90 (CCPA 1976) (MPEP 2144.05)
Regarding Claim 6. Aihara teaches the latex composition of Claim 1 wherein the conjugated diene polymer latex is a carboxy-modified diene polymer latex [0017] – [0019].
Regarding Claim 7. Aihara teaches a molded film formed from the latex composition of Claim 1 [0153].
Regarding Claim 8. Aihara teaches a dip molded product/article formed from the latex composition of Claim 1 [0154].
Regarding Claim 9. Aihara teaches an adhesive formed from the latex composition of Claim 1 [0153].
Regarding Claim 10. Aihara teaches the latex composition of Claim 1. Aihara teaches the xanthogen composition is provided in an amount of further preferably 0.5 to 5 parts by weight per 100 parts by weight of the conjugated diene polymer [0129]. Additionally, as detailed in the rejection of Claim 1 above, it is the Office’s position that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include a non-ionic surfactant in Aihara in an amount of 0.1 to 4 parts by weight per 100 parts by weight of the latex, as taught by Gui. Using the aforementioned values, this amount of non-ionic surfactant in Aihara can be calculated to correspond to roughly 0.02 to 8 parts by weight with respect to 100 parts by weight of the xanthogen compound.
Regarding Claim 11. Aihara teaches the latex composition of Claim 1 wherein the xanthogen compound is represented by the formula (ROC(=S)S)x-Z, in which R is a linear or branched hydrocarbon; Z is a metal atom; and x is a numerical value matching the valence of Z and in the range of 1 to 4 [0124].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 6, 2026 have been fully considered but are persuasive. Applicant argues that Gui does not teach one of the instantly claimed species of conjugated diene polymer latex. The Office agrees.
In light of the amendments to the claims, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 103 applying Gui as a primary reference have been withdrawn. Instead, all claims are now rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of Aihara as a primary reference. Aihara is properly relied upon to teach each of the claimed species of conjugated diene polymer latex. In [0019], the reference sets forth the conjugated diene polymer latex may be a synthetic polyisoprene latex, a styrene-isoprene-styrene block copolymer (SIS), or a nitrile group-containing conjugated diene polymer.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MELISSA RIOJA whose telephone number is (571)270-3305. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 am - 6:30 pm EST.
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, Arrie Lanee Reuther can be reached at (571)270-7026. 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.
/MELISSA A RIOJA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764