DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1-6 are currently pending in the application.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enomoto et al. (US 2015/0218352 A1), in view of Tsukamoto et al. (US 2018/0371237 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 3 and 6, Enomoto teaches an emulsion composition for producing a glove by dip molding, containing (1) a carboxylated acrylonitrile elastomer (XNBR), comprising acrylonitrile residues (30 to 40% by weight); unsaturated carboxylic acid residues (3 to 8% by weight), and butadiene residues (52-66% by wt.) (Ab., [0017-0019], Examples), and a non-sulfur crosslinking agent for providing non-sulfur crosslinked structures in XNBR [0021]. Non-limiting examples of non-sulfur crosslinking agents include poly-carbodiimides [0021], and metal oxides in an amount of 0.5 to 4 parts by wt., relative of 100 parts by wt. of the resin fraction in the emulsion [0033].
Enomoto further teaches that the pH of the emulsion may be adjusted with a pH regulator, such as potassium hydroxide ([0035], Examples), so as to adjust a pH to a value of 8 or higher [0045].
Enomoto is silent on an emulsion comprising a polycarbodiimide containing a hydrophilic segment as claimed.
At the outset, it is noted that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05.
The secondary reference to Tsukamoto teaches a carbodiimide-based crosslinking agent comprising a polycarbodiimide (A) having hydrophilic segments as being suitable for crosslinking an aqueous resin having carboxyl groups. Tsukamoto further teaches that the aqueous resin composition containing the carbodiimide-based aqueous resin crosslinking has excellent in the storage stability in the coexistence of the aqueous resin, wherein the aqueous resin is not particularly limited, so long as it is water soluble or water dispersible and is a resin crosslinking-reactive with a carbodiimide group (Ab., [0125]-[0127]).
Given the teaching in Tsukamoto on polycarbodiimide-based crosslinking agent comprising a polycarbodiimide (A) having hydrophilic segments for resins having carboxyl groups and advantage thereof, and given that Enomoto’s non-sulfur crosslinking agent for a carboxylated NBR may be a poly-carbodiimide, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include a polycarbodiimide crosslinking agent within the scope of Tsukamoto for crosslinking Enomoto’s XNBR, and provide for an emulsion having a pH higher than 8, including those having a pH within the scope of the claimed invention.
Additionally, Enomoto prescribes a metal oxide as a crosslinking agent in an amount of 0.5 to 4 parts by wt., relative of 100 parts by wt. of the resin fraction in the emulsion [0033]. Given that Enomoto teaches a metal oxide or a carbodiimide as being suitable crosslinking agents, a skilled artisan would have found it obvious to utilize Tsukamoto’s carbodiimide crosslinker also in an amount of 0.5 to 4 parts by wt.
In the alternative, Enomoto recognizes that the degree of crosslinking of XNBR impacts the strength of the formed glove [0029]. Therefore, it is the Examiner’s position that the amount of Tsukamoto’s crosslinking agent in the emulsion composition would be a result effective variable because changing it will clearly affect the type of product obtained. See MPEP § 2144.05 (B). Case law holds that “discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art.” See In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). It would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art to utilize appropriately effective amount of carbodiimide crosslinking agent in the emulsions, including those within the scope of the present claims so as to provide for the desired level of crosslinking, absent evidence of criticality for the claimed range.
Regarding claim 2, given that Enomoto teaches a metal oxide (at 0.5 to 4 wt.% of resin solids) and a carbodiimide as suitable crosslinking agents for XNBR [0021], [0033], a skilled artisan would have found it obvious to include a combination thereof at a1:1 wt. ratio, as the two are considered to be equivalents known for the same purpose, including in amounts within the scope of the claimed invention. “It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art.” In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980). MPEP 2144.06.
Regarding claim 4, Tsukamoto teaches a degree of polymerization in polycarbodiimide (A) as ranging from 2 to 20 [0069]. It is noted that per instant disclosure (PGPUB-[0045]), a polycarbodiimide having carbodiimide functional groups is 5 or more is capable of providing for micelles having an average particle size of 5 to 30 nm. Thus, a skilled artisan would reasonably expect Tsukamoto’s polycarbodiimide (A) of overlapping scope ([0031]-[0069]) to be capable of providing for the claimed limitation, absent evidence to the contrary.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to Satya Sastri at (571) 272 1112. The examiner can be reached Monday-Friday, 9AM-5.30PM (EST). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone
are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Mr. Robert 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent
Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications
may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished
applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR
system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to
the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-
free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to
the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-
1000.
/Satya B Sastri/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762
Prosecution Insights