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 § 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 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.
Claims 1, 3-5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sunada (JP 2003055409 A, attached with machine translation).
Regarding claims 1 and 4, Sunada teaches chloroprene polymer made from polymerization of 2-chloro-1,3-butadiene (chloroprene) and other monomer(s) (claims 1, 4). The polymer may be a copolymer of 2-chloro-1,3-butadiene and 2-methyl-1,3-butadiene (isoprene) (p. 3, [0006]). The emulsion polymerization of the monomers may take place in the presence of sulfur (p. 3, [0007]-[0008]).
Regarding claims 3 and 7, Sunada remains as applied to claims 1 and 4 above. Sunada further teaches sulfur content in amounts ranging from 0.2-2 parts by mass of sulfur to 100 parts by mass of the total monomer content (p. 3, [0007]).
Regarding claim 5, Sunada remains as applied to claim 4 above. Sunada is silent as to the THF-insoluble content ratio of the copolymer at the claimed temperature. Nevertheless, Sunada teaches a polymer having the same ingredients in the same amounts. Sunada’s copolymer will necessarily possess the same THF-insoluble content ratio characteristics as the claimed copolymer. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. See MPEP 2112.01.
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 2 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sunada as applied to claims 1 and 4 above.
Regarding claims 2 and 8, Sunada remains as applied to claims 1 and 4 above. Sunada further teaches that polymerization is carried out to a conversion of 50-100% (p. 5, [0020]). Sunada’s Example 9 combines 80 parts by mass of chloroprene and 20 parts by mass isoprene (approximately 75 mol% chloroprene and 25 mol% isoprene), reading on claim 2 (pp. 10-11, [0042]). Although Ex. 9 does not include sulfur, Sunada does teach adding 0.2-2 parts by mass of sulfur per 100 parts by mass of chloroprene-containing monomers (p. 3, [0007]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the sulfur of Sunada with the composition of Sunada’s Ex. 9 to arrive at the claimed invention, and to achieve a product with improved tensile strength, flex fatigue resistance, abrasion resistance, and dynamic characteristics, as taught by Sunada (p. 3, [0007]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sunada as applied to claims 1 and 4 above, and further in view of Minorikawa (US 2012/0238678 A1).
Sunada does not restrict the average molecular weight of the THF solubles in the copolymer latex. In the same field of endeavor, Minorikawa teaches a chloroprene polymer latex with tetrahydrofuran solubles having a weight average molecular weight ranging from 300,000 to 1,100,000 (p. 2, [0027]). Like Sunada’s latex, Minorikawa teaches use of the latex as an adhesive (Sunada, p. 6, [0024]; Minorikawa, p. 2, [0024]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to adopt the molecular weight range of Minorikawa for use in the composition of Sunada to arrive at the claimed invention, and because it is shown to be suitable in similar polymers with similar end uses. See MPEP 2144.07.
Claims 9 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sunada as applied to claims 1 and 4 above, and further in view of Murata (US 11427701 B2).
Regarding claims 9 and 11-14, Sunada remains as applied to claims 1 and 4 above. Sunada further teaches that the polymer may be processed using molding techniques known in the art (p. 6, [0024]). However, Sunada is silent as to the specific molding techniques that may be used. Murata teaches a composition of 100 parts by mass of copolymer particles, 0.1-1.0 part by mass sulfur, 1-10 parts by mass metal oxide, 0.1-5 parts by mass vulcanization accelerator, and 0.1-5 parts by mass antioxidant (col. 2, lines 34-39). The composition may be dip molded and cured to form a medical disposable glove (col. 3, lines 64-66; col. 12, lines 21-28; col. 2, lines 47-49). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the copolymer of Sunada and the composition, method, and glove of Murata to arrive at the claimed invention, and to obtain a product having excellent mechanical properties and flexibility (col. 2, lines 3-4).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sunada in view of Murata as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Ogawa (US 2022/0073657 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Sunada remains as applied to claim 9 above. Sunada is silent as to use of an additional rubber in the composition. In the same field of endeavor, Ogawa teaches that it is known in the art to use 40-60% by mass isoprene rubber in combination with 40-60% by mass chloroprene rubber to form a dip-molded glove with breaking strength of 18 to 25 MPa. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the isoprene of Ogawa and the chloroprene copolymer of Sunada, to arrive at the claimed invention, and to achieve a product having at least the breaking strength of competitors' products (p. 1, [0006]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH K AMATO whose telephone number is (571)270-0341. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 am - 4:30 pm 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, Rob Jones can be reached at (571) 270-7733. 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.
ELIZABETH K. AMATO
Examiner
Art Unit 1762
/ROBERT S JONES JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1762
Prosecution Insights