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 .
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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, and 7-9 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Satoh et al. (US 20190031861 A1, hereinafter Satoh) and in view of Imada et al. (US 8,563,644 B2, hereinafter Imada) and Lee (US, 6,284,856, hereinafter Lee).
Regarding claim 1, Satoh discloses a method (method including dipping a mold in the latex composition of the present invention, see [0095]) for producing a dip-molded article (dip molded article, see [0095]), comprising steps of:
immersing a mold (mold of [0095-0106]) for dip molding in a coagulant solution (solution of the coagulant agent [0096]) to deposit a coagulant (coagulant agent of [0095-0098] which is calcium chloride) on the mold for dip molding (see [0096] which teaches dipping the mold in a solution with a coagulant agent);
providing a latex composition (latex composition, see [0094] which teaches using the latex composition of the present invention disclosed by Satoh) containing a carboxy-modified conjugated diene polymer latex (synthetic polyisoprene latex, see [0028-0030, 0079] which teaches the latex composition of the present invention is synthetic polyisoprene latex) which is a dispersion (see [0040-0042] teaches that the synthetic polyisoprene latex is a dispersion of synthetic polyisoprene with mixed with water to obtain a coarsely dispersed emulsified liquid) of carboxy-modified conjugated diene polymer particles having a volume average particle size of 500 to 2,000 nm in water (water of [0042]) ([0026] teaches that the average particle size of the synthetic rubber particle is . 0.6 to 1.7 μm which is equivalent to 600 nm to 1700 nm, wherein said synthetic rubber is synthetic polyisoprene latex, see [0028].); and
immersing the mold [0095-0106] for dip molding having the coagulant (coagulant agent) deposited thereon in the latex composition ([0095-0096] teaches that prior to dipping the mold in the latex composition, said mold is dipped in a solution of the coagulant agent, thus said mold with the coagulant agent thereon is dipped into the latex composition)
It should be noted Satoh teaches the dip-molded article (dip molded article, see [0095]) has a thickness ranging from .03 to .50 mm, see [0094].
Satoh does not disclose the limitation wherein the dip-molded article has a thickness of .02 to .08 mm.
Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. A person of ordinary skill in the art, hereinafter POSITA, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have selected the overlapping portion of the thickness range that corresponds to the claimed range of 0.02 to 0.08 mm in order to make molded articles that are thinner on average, see MPEP 2144.05 for guidance on overlapping ranges.
Satoh does not explicitly disclose the limitation wherein the coagulant concentration the coagulant solution is 1 to 4 wt %, however the concentration of coagulant is not considered to confer patentability to the claims. Satoh teaches that it was known in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that excess amounts of coagulating agent can cause impurities ([0103]), wherein said coagulant agent is within a solution ([0098]). Therefore the impurities are a variable that can be modified, among others, by varying coagulant agent. For that reason, the coagulant agent would have been considered a result effective variable by POSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the coagulant agent cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, POSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to optimize, by routine experimentation, the coagulant agent in a solution to obtain the desired viscosity with respect to the amount of impurities, since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 II for guidance on routine experimentation.
Satoh does not disclose the solids content of the latex composition is 10 to 20 wt% nor the use of a glass mold.
In the same field of endeavor (dip molding, see abstract of the instant PG Pub), Imada discloses that for a latex composition the solids content concentration is preferably 15-40 wt%, and that solid content in this range produces a dip molded article having a uniform thickness that is easily obtained, see Col. 14 ll. 60-67.
Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. A person of ordinary skill in the art, hereinafter POSITA, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to further modify Satoh in view of Imada such that the solids content concentration is 15-20 wt% is a known solids content concentration wt% capable of making a dip-molded article with a uniform thickness that is easily obtainable, see MPEP 2144.05 for guidance on overlapping ranges.
Satoh teaches the use of a ceramic mold [0144] but does not particularly teach a glass mold. Imada teaches glass as a known alternative mold to ceramic for dip molding (col. 14, lines 50-55). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the date of the claimed invention to have substituted the ceramic mold of Satoh with the glass mold of Imada with a reasonable expectation of success because Imada teaches that glass is a suitable mold material for dip coating processes.
Satoh and Imada are silent as to the surface roughness of the mold. Lee teaches that a preferred mold roughness for making gloves in 8-10 microns (col. 9, lines 37-42). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the date of the claimed invention to have used a roughness of 8-10 microns as the particular roughness of the mold because Lee teaches that it is a preferred roughness for making dip molding to make gloves.
As the limitation “unroughened”, Satoh does not teach roughening the mold prior to molding [0144]. While it is recognized that Lee prefers roughening, by preferring roughening, it therefore teaches that roughening is optional. Thus, it would have been obvious to have used an unroughened mold if the mold already had the desired roughness.
Regarding claim 7, modified Satoh discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Satoh does not explicitly discloses, in the method (method including dipping a mold in the latex composition of the present invention, see [0095]), that an immersion time controlled to 0.1 to 20 seconds, wherein the mold is immersed in the coagulant solution.
It should be noted Satoh teaches an example wherein dip-molded article the immersion time of a mold in a coagulant solution is for 5 seconds, see [0144].
A POSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to immerse the mold [0095-0106]) in the coagulant solution ([0096]) for 5 seconds in order to use a known immersion time to make the dip-molded article (dip molded article, see [0095]).
Regarding claim 8, modified Satoh discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. It should be noted Satoh teaches the mold ( [0095-0106]) is preheated to 60 to 150 ° C , see [0095 0100-0101].
Satoh does not disclose the limitation wherein the temperature of the mold for dip molding in the immersing of the mold of the mold for dip molding in the coagulant solution is controlled to 20 to 100 ° C.
Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. A person of ordinary skill in the art, hereinafter POSITA, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have selected the portion of the temperature range 60 to 150 ° C (see [0101]) that corresponds to the claimed range of 20 to 100 ° C as said range is a known temperature range capable of making a dip-molded article, see MPEP 2144.05 for guidance on overlapping ranges.
Regarding claim 9, modified Satoh discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Satoh does not explicitly disclose, in the method (method including dipping a mold in the latex composition of the present invention, see [0095]), that an immersion time is controlled to 1 to 20 seconds, wherein the mold is immersed in the latex composition.
It should be noted Satoh teaches an example wherein when dip-molded article, the immersion time of a mold in a latex composition is for 10 seconds, see [0144].
A POSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to immerse the mold [0095-0106]) in the latex composition ([0094]) for 10 seconds in order to use a known immersion time to make the dip-molded article (dip molded article, see [0095]).
Regarding claim 11 modified Satoh discloses the method (method including dipping a mold in the latex composition of the present invention, see [0095]) for producing a dip-molded article (dip molded article, see [0095]) according to claim 1, wherein the carboxy-modified conjugated diene polymer latex (synthetic polyisoprene latex, see [0028-0030, 0079]) is a latex of a synthetic polyisoprene (synthetic polyisoprene, see [0028-0030, 0079])).
Regarding claim 12 modified Satoh discloses the method (method including dipping a mold in the latex composition of the present invention, see [0095]) for producing a dip-molded article (dip molded article, see [0095]) according to claim 1, wherein the latex composition ([0094]) further comprises a sulfur-based vulcanizing agent (see [0079-0080] powdered sulfur).
Regarding claim 13 modified Satoh discloses the method (method including dipping a mold in the latex composition of the present invention, see [0095]) for producing a dip-molded article (dip molded article, see [0095]) according to claim 12, wherein the latex composition ([0094]) further comprises a vulcanization accelerator (vulcanization accelerator, see [0079]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Satoh et al. (US 20190031861 A1, hereinafter Satoh) and in view of Imada et al. (US 8,563,644 B2, hereinafter Imada) and Lee (US, 6,284,856, hereinafter Lee) as applied to claim 13, and in further view of Chen et al. (US 20120021155 A1, hereinafter Chen).
Regarding claim 14 modified Satoh discloses all of the limitations of claim 13 including the vulcanization accelerator (vulcanization accelerator, see [0079]).
However, modified Satoh does not disclose that the vulcanization accelerator is a xanthogen compound.
In the same field of endeavor (dip molding, see abstract of the instant PG Pub), Chen teaches elastomeric articles can be formed using vulcanization compounds or latex dispersions (see [0050]) such as vulcanization compositions which are vulcanization accelerators such as diisopropyl xanthogen polysulfide, see [0045].
A POSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to further modify Satoh in view of Chen such that the vulcanization accelerator is diisopropyl xanthogen polysulfide as it is a known vulcanization accelerator than can minimize allergenicity as taught in [0045].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The argument as to the new limitations of the glass mold and surface roughness, the argument is unconvincing because Imada teaches glass molds. Newly cited Lee, required by the amendment teaches a desired mold roughness of 8-10 microns and teaches that roughening is optional. (Note: Frauendorf, cited below, of interest, for further teaching that roughening is recognized as optional.)
Applicant’s arguments to criticality are unconvincing because they are not commensurate in scope with the claims, which are not limited to the particular latex that was used in the examples, and which show concentrations only at 3%, not over the entire claimed range of 1-4%. Applicant argues that Examples 1-3 and 6 show better tensile elongation and tear strength, but it is unclear that the differences are large enough to be considered unexpected if they exist at all. Example 3 does not have higher tensile elongation than Example 5 (and Example 1 is very close); likewise, the tear strength of Example 3 is very close to that of Example 5. Examples 4-5 also changed the temperature compared to Examples 1-3 and 6. Applicant argues that comparative example 3 has inferior tensile stress, tensile strength, tensile elongation, and tear strength. Again, the temperature is changed, the concentration of the coagulant is decreased by a factor of 30, and the results for tensile stress are close, and for tensile elongation are not inferior to Example 3.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Frauendorf (US 2018/0345542) is cited of interest for further teaching that roughening molds is optional in dip molding [0054]
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL B CLEVELAND whose telephone number is (571)272-1418. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 9:00 am - 5:30 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, Alexa Neckel can be reached at 571-272-2450. 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.
/MICHAEL B CLEVELAND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1712