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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments, filed 16 June 2026, with respect to rejections in view of Okamura have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicant has amended the claim to include a C7-C9 hydrocarbon which is not discussed in Okamura. Accordingly, the rejections in view of Okamura has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments and arguments, filed 16 June 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 16 and 20-26 under Moore have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicant has amended the claims to include a C7-C9 aliphatic hydrocarbon and chlorinated polyethylene which is not taught in a way that is considered anticipatory in Moore. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Moore and later Okamura under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 16 does not use a traditional transitional phrase (MPEP § 2111.03) but instead uses “being based on”. In light of the specification (PGPub [0024]) this language is considered to mean comprising which is inclusive and open ended.
Claim 16 uses the term “predominant solvent”. Predominant has two meanings from the Merriam-Webster dictionary 1) having superior strength, influence, or authority; 2) being most frequent or common. In light of the specification (PGPub [0028]) the term “predominant solvent” is considered to be the solvent having the larger weight amount.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Clarence D. Moore (US Patent #3,179,617, hereinafter referred to as “Moore”).
As to Claim 31: Moore teaches a composition comprising chlorosulfonated polyethylene (i.e., a chlorinated elastomer), acetone and monochlorobenzene (i.e., a polar aprotic solvents), and aliphatic hydrocarbon (i.e., hydrocarbon solvents) (Col. 5, Lines 5-25) in a ratio of 23:77 (Col. 4, Lines 1-15, Part A).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 16 and 20-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clarence D. Moore (US Patent #3,179,617, hereinafter referred to as “Moore”).
As to Claim 16: Moore teaches a composition comprising a rubbery elastomer which can be chlorosulfonated polyethylene (i.e., a chlorinated elastomer) and a mixture of three different solvents with an example including acetone (i.e., a polar aprotic solvent), xylene, and heptane (i.e., a C7 aliphatic hydrocarbon solvent).
Moore does not teach an example wherein the C7-C9 aliphatic hydrocarbon solvent is the predominant solvent.
However, Moore teaches that the amount of the solvent can be from 100-500 parts per 100 parts of resin, the second solvent can be 10-350 parts per 100 parts resin, and the third solvent can be 10-185 parts per 100 parts resin (Col. 4, Lines 28-45). At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use the third solvent in the highest amount of the three solvents because Moore teaches that this is an acceptable amount of solvent to help redissolve the rubber (Col. 4, Lines 60-72).
As to Claims 20 and 21: Moore teaches the composition of claim 16 (supra). Moore further teaches that the polar aprotic solvent is acetone (i.e., a ketone) (Col. 5, Lines 5-25).
As to Claim 22: Moore teaches the composition of claim 16 (supra). Moore further teaches that the polychloroprene is 15.5% of the composition (Col. 5, Lines 5-25).
As to Claim 23: Moore teaches the composition of claim 16 (supra), Moore further teaches that the chlorinated elastomer is polychloroprene (Col. 5, Lines 5-25).
As to Claim 24: Moore teaches the composition of claim 16 (supra). Moore further teaches that the chlorinated elastomer is polychloroprene which has a chlorine content of about 35% by weight (Col. 5, Lines 5-25).
Claims 25 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clarence D. Moore (US Patent #3,179,617, hereinafter referred to as “Moore”) in view of Okamura et al. (US Patent #5,368,928, hereinafter referred to as “Okamura”).
As to Claim 25: Moore renders obvious the composition of claim 16 (see above).
Moore does not teach the Mooney viscosity of the chlorinated elastomer.
However, Okamura teaches that chlorosulfonated polyethylene is known for mixing with polar aprotic and hydrocarbon solvents (Col. 6, Lines 34-39). Okamura further teaches that the chlorosulfonated polyethylene has a Mooney viscosity of 30-60 (Col. 4, Lines 50-53). Moore and Okamura are analogous art in that they are from the same field of endeavor, namely chlorinated polymers with mixed solvents. At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use the specific polymer of Okamura as the chlorosulfonated polyethylene in Moore because Okamura teaches this leads to good dispersion (Col. 3, Line 50 - Col 4, Line 57).
As to Claim 26: Moore and Okamura the composition of claim 16 (supra). Okamura further teaches that the chlorinated elastomer is chlorosulfonated polyethylene which has a sulfur content in a preferable amount of 0.8 to 1.2% by weight (Col. 4, Lines 48-51).
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 ANDREW J OYER whose telephone number is (571)270-0347. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM EST M-F.
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.
/Andrew J. Oyer/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767
Prosecution Insights