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.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enomoto (WO2018117109, herein Enomoto, US20190161601 is being used as English language equivalent), in the view of Makoto (JP2013036011, herein Makoto, a machine translation is being used for citation purpose).
Regarding Claims 1, 3, Enomoto teaches a dip molding composition [0015], comprising at least:
“An elastomer that contains a (meth)acrylonitrile-derived structural unit” [0016] matches the carboxyl group-containing nitrile rubber elastomer, which is “This elastomer used in the embodiments of the present invention may also be hereinafter referred to as “carboxylated (meth)acrylonitrile-butadiene elastomer”, or simply as “XNBR”” [0055] with “Amount of MEK-insoluble component 60% and 64%; examples 26; 29 ” [P21; Table 6], lie in the claimed range of the elastomer has an MEK-insoluble content of 60% by weight or more, 80% by weight or less.
Enomoto utilizes polycarbodiimides as organic crosslinking agent, including: CARBODILITE V-02-L2, V-04, E-02 and V-02 (trade names, manufactured by Nisshinbo Holdings Inc.) [0226], but does not explicitly teach the epoxy crosslinking agent comprising an epoxy compound that contains three or more glycidyl ether groups in one molecule and has a basic skeleton containing an alicyclic, aliphatic or aromatic hydrocarbon; however, Makoto teaches the crosslinking agents may be used alone or in combination of two or more kinds, including: epoxy-based compounds, and carbodiimide-based compounds [0022], wherein, Makoto teaches “trimethylolpropane polyglycidyl ether” [0023] reads on the epoxy compound that contains three glycidyl ether groups in one molecule and with basic skeleton containing aliphatic hydrocarbons, specifically, “it is more preferred to use an epoxy crosslinking agent that contains at least one selected from trimethylolpropane triglycidyl ether” [0104], which is in specific, “trimethylolpropane polyglycidyl ether (e.g., "Denacol EX-321" manufactured by Nagase ChemteX Corporation)” [0023] which has the property of the epoxy crosslinking agent has an MIBK/water distribution ratio of 50% or higher, matches the “ “DENACOL EX-321” (trade name) manufactured by Nagase ChemteX Corporation was used as an epoxy crosslinking agent” [Instant App. US20230159686; 0232]. Makoto further teaches the carbodiimide compound may be any compound containing at least two carbodiimide groups, and examples thereof include "Carbodilite V-02", "Carbodilite V-02-L2", "Carbodilite V-04", "Carbodilite E-02", manufactured by Nisshinbo Corporation. [0025]. Because both the polycarbodiimides, CARBODILITE V-02-L2, V-04, E-02 and V-02 (trade names, manufactured by Nisshinbo Holdings Inc.) [0226] as taught by Enomoto and the “trimethylolpropane polyglycidyl ether” [0023], Makoto further teach the crosslinking agent range “0.9 parts by mass of a crosslinking agent” [0035] lies in the claimed range, the crosslinking agents taught by Makoto are known in the art to be useful for crosslinking agents for the carboxyl group-functionalized acrylic copolymer based resin coating formulation, at the time of the invention a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute the polycarbodiimides [0226] taught by Enomoto with the “trimethylolpropane polyglycidyl ether” [0023] taught by Makoto, and would have been motivated to do so because both compounds individually are known to be effective organic crosslinking agent for curing the carboxyl group-functionalized acrylic copolymers, and lead to excellent adhesion to surface substrates, removability, little increase in adhesive strength over time after application to an adherend, and excellent stain resistance [0022] as taught by Makoto, which further matches the “A higher stress retention rate indicates a state where more stress is maintained after the stretching, which represents a larger elastic deformation force causing the test piece to return back to the original shape upon removal of an external force, and makes the glove to have a better fit and more favorable tightening of its cuff portion, so that the glove is less wrinkled.” [Instant App. US20230159686; 0209], wherein, the adhesion, removability the mechanical stability, collectively indicate the higher stress retention. (see MPEP 2144.06).
Enomoto teaches “pH modifier” [0016].
Enomoto teaches “Example 24: MEK-insoluble component 60%; MMA 3.1%; AN 26%; butadiene 70.9% ” [Table 6; P20], wherein, conjugated diene monomer-derived structural unit is butadiene; ethylenically unsaturated nitrile monomer-derived structural unit is AN; ethylenically unsaturated carboxylic acid monomer-derived structural unit is MMA (COOH), all lie in the claimed ranges.
Regarding Claim 2, Enomoto teaches “Example 22; MMA (COOH) 4%” [Table 6; P20], lies in the claimed range.
Regarding Claim 4, Enomoto teaches “adjusting the resulting solution with ammonia to have a pH of 10.5” [0266] lies in the claimed range.
Regarding Claims 5, 6, Enomoto teaches “zinc oxide (hereinafter, also referred to as “ZnO”) as crosslinking agents” [0079] in the concentration of “ZnO 0.5%” [Table 6; P20], lies in the claimed range.
Regarding Claim 7, The Office realizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by the reference(s). However, Enomoto and Makoto teach all of the claimed ingredients, in the claimed amounts, and Enomoto further teaches “cured film” [0032], and dip-molded article [0198] indicate the composition as being made by a substantially similar process. The original specification does not provide any disclosure on how to obtain the claimed properties outside the components of the composition itself. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e., MEK swelling rate, would necessarily arise from a composition with all the claimed ingredients and the amounts. "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. If it is the applicant’s position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant’s position; and (2) it would be the Office’s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure that there is no teaching enabling a person of ordinary skill in the art to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients, absent undue experimentation.
Regarding Claims 8-9, Enomoto and Makoto collectively teach the composition from the instant application specification, Enomoto further teaches “cured film” [0032], and dip-molded article [0198].
The Office realizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by the reference(s). However, Enomoto and Makoto teach all of the claimed ingredients, in the claimed amounts, as taught by Enomoto and Makoto collectively, and teaches the composition as being made by a substantially similar process as taught by Enomoto as of “cured film” [0032]; dip-molded article [0198]. The original specification does not provide any disclosure on how to obtain the claimed properties outside the components of the composition itself. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e., stress retention rate, would necessarily arise from a composition with all the claimed ingredients and the amounts. "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. If it is the applicant’s position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant’s position; and (2) it would be the Office’s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure that there is no teaching enabling a person of ordinary skill in the art to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients, absent undue experimentation.
Regarding Claim 10, Enomoto teaches “gloves” [0011].
Claim 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enomoto (WO2018117109, herein Enomoto, US20190161601 is being used as English language equivalent), in the view of Makoto (JP2013036011, herein Makoto, a machine translation is being used for citation purpose).
Regarding Claim 11, Enomoto and Makoto collectively teach composition and the processing of the dip-molded article from the instant application specification.
Enomoto further teaches “method of producing a glove, the method including:” [0026]
“(1) the step of immersing a glove forming mold in a liquid coagulant to allow the coagulant to adhere to the glove forming mold;” [0027] matches the claimed step 1;
“(2) the step of leaving the glove dipping composition according to any one of [1] to [3] to stand with stirring;” [0028] matches the claimed step 2;
“(3) the dipping step of immersing the glove forming mold, to which the coagulant has thus adhered in the step (1), in the glove emulsion composition;” [0029] matches the claimed step 3;
“(4) the gelling step of leaving the glove forming mold, to which the glove dipping composition has thus adhered, to stand at a temperature for a period that satisfy the following conditions:” [0030] matches the claimed step 4;
“(5) the leaching step of removing impurities from a cured film precursor thus formed on the glove forming mold;” [0032] matches the claimed step 5;
“(6) the beading step of, after the leaching step, winding the cuff portion of the resulting glove;” [0033], matches the claimed step 6;
“(7) the precuring step of heating and drying the cured film and (8) the curing step of heating the cured film precursor to obtain a cured film, the heating being performed at such a temperature for such a period” [0034-35], collectively matches the claimed step 7.
Claim 12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enomoto (WO2018117109, herein Enomoto, US20190161601 is being used as English language equivalent), Makoto (JP2013036011, herein Makoto, a machine translation is being used for citation purpose) as applied in claim 1 as set forth above, in the view of Enomoto-1 (JP2016216564, herein Enomoto-1, a machine translation is being used for citation purpose).
Regarding Claim 12, Enomoto and Makoto collectively teach dip molding composition as set forth in claim 1 above.
Enomoto does not explicitly teach dispersant of epoxy crosslinking agent, however, Enomoto-1 teaches the organic compound (i.e., crosslinking agent) containing two or more identical or different functional groups selected from epoxy group [0028], can be combined with polyhydric alcohols, including: trihydric alcohols (triols) such as triethylene glycol [0029-30], collectively read on the dispersant of epoxy crosslinking agent as trihydric alcohols serve as dispersant for epoxy based crosslinking agent. Enomoto and Enomoto-1 are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor, that of the carboxyl group-functionalized acrylonitrile copolymers resin composition for glove manufacturing via dip molding. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the composition of Enomoto and add the teaching of the organic compound (i.e., crosslinking agent) containing two or more identical or different functional groups selected from epoxy group [0028], can be combined with polyhydric alcohols, including: trihydric alcohols (triols) such as triethylene glycol [0029-30] as taught by Enomoto-1. Doing so would lead to the desired property of form elastomers with high crosslinking density, and there is a high degree of freedom in controlling the strength and elongation properties of the elastomers. This makes it possible to manufacture thin rubber products while maintaining their strength, and also reduces raw material costs [0014] which is due to the selection of the specific polyol having three or more valences, such as a triol, has the effect of improving the crosslink density [0031] as taught by Enomoto-1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 12/23/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Enomoto (WO2018117109, herein Enomoto, US20190161601 is being used as English language equivalent), and Makoto (JP2013036011, herein Makoto, a machine translation is being used for citation purpose).
In this case, the applicant’s arguments are directed toward the amendment to independent claim 1, which has been addressed by the rejection set forth above.
In response to applicant's argument that “Makoto neither describes nor suggests the effect of achieving a high stress retention rate while maintaining a low modulus (flexibility) by using an epoxy crosslinking agent in place of polycarbodiimide”, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
In this case, Enomoto teaches a dip molding composition [0015] exhibits advantageous fatigue durability [0043], as analogous art, Makoto teaches “trimethylolpropane polyglycidyl ether” [0023] reads on the epoxy crosslinking agent, specifically, matches the specificized crosslinking agent from instant application, which lead to excellent adhesion to surface substrates, removability, little increase in adhesive strength over time after application to an adherend, and excellent stain resistance [0022] as taught by Makoto, which further matches the “A higher stress retention rate indicates a state where more stress is maintained after the stretching, which represents a larger elastic deformation force causing the test piece to return back to the original shape upon removal of an external force, and makes the glove to have a better fit and more favorable tightening of its cuff portion, so that the glove is less wrinkled.” [Instant App. US20230159686; 0209], wherein, the adhesion, removability the mechanical stability, collectively indicate the higher stress retention. Hence, neither Enomoto nor Makoto teaches away the instant application.
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 extension fee 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 Zhen Liu whose telephone number is (703)756-4782. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 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, Mark Eashoo can be reached on (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.
/Z. L./Examiner, Art Unit 1767
/MARK EASHOO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1767