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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendments filed on 03/18/2026 have been entered. Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-10 and 14-17 are currently under examination on the merits.
Any rejections and/or objections made in the previous Office action and not repeated below are hereby withdrawn
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-2, 4-5, 8-10 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Ismail et a. (Polymer testing, V20, P509-516, of record, see IDS 03/28/2024) in view of Kaiya et al (JPS5980449, of record, See IDS 05/22/2023, ‘449 hereafter).
Regarding claims 1, 9-10 and 16, Ismail discloses a rubber composition and a vulcanized molded article formed from the same, comprising a rubber resin being chloroprene in a content of around 67% by mass based on total mass of the rubber composition satisfying limitations of present claim 16 (Experimental section, Table 1, ENR/CR=25/75, 75/112=67%), and an epoxidized natural rubber reading upon diene-based polymer having an epoxy group wherein the mass ratio of the rubber resin chloroprene to diene-based polymer can be 100/0 to 100/33, (see Experimental section, Table 1, ENR/CR can be 0/100 to 25/75=33.3/100, in this ratio range, modulus of the composition is significantly increased, see Figs. 7 and 8), significantly overlaps instantly claimed range of 0 to 25 parts of diene-based polymer per 100 part of chloroprene polymer; and 0.5 parts by mass of a thiourea compound being a sulfur-based vulcanization agent (Table 1, ETU). Ismail does not specifically set forth a composition having a content range of diene-based polymer to 100 parts by mass of rubber resin (chloroprene polymer) in the presently claimed range. However, in the same field of endeavor of rubber composition, ‘449 discloses a rubber composition comprising a rubber resin (solid rubber) and a diene-base liquid polymer having epoxy group in a preferred content range of 1 to 20 parts per 100 parts of rubber resin (page 4, specifically 10 parts per 100 parts as in Examples 1 and 2, Table 1, LPB ), and the rubber resin including chloroprene polymer (Chlorobutyl rubber, page 3), to render the rubber composition having excellent physical properties (pages 1 and 2). In light of these teachings, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use a diene-base liquid polymer having epoxy group in a preferred content of 1 to 20 parts per 100 parts of rubber resin, to render the rubber composition having improved physical properties.
Regarding claims 4-5 and 17, modified Ismail teaches all the limitations of claim 1, ‘449 also discloses that the diene-base liquid polymer having epoxy group can be an epoxidated polybutadiene which inherently has a chemical structure that reads upon Chemical Formula 1 as in claim 4, wherein the mole ratio of epoxy group to diene unit can be 0.2 to 10.0 per mole of diene polymer (page 4), thus n/m as in the chemical formula 1 formula can be 5 to 0.1 (1/0.2 to 1/10), overlapping n/m of 1.5 to 5 as instantly claimed. ‘449 also discloses that the viscosity of the diene-base liquid polymer can be in a preferred range of 1000 to 10,000, which is a liquid at room temperature, thus it is a low molecular weight diene-base polymer having n and m satisfying the range of present claim 4 and weight average molecular weight as in present claim 5.
Regarding claim 8, modified Ismail teaches all the limitations of claim 1, Ismail also discloses that the composition does not contain plasticizer, satisfying present claim 8, wherein the content of plasticizer being 0.
Regarding claims 2, 14 and 15, modified Ismail teaches all the limitations of claim 1, Ismail also discloses that the chloroprene polymer is Baypren 210, which is a homopolymer having molecular weight and molecular weight satisfying present claims 14 and 15 (Baypren 210 is a polychloroprene having Mooney Viscosity around 43 as shown in Lanxess product data sheet, which has molecular weight around 200,000 and low molecular weight distribution).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Ismail et a. (Polymer testing, V20, P509-516, of record, see IDS 03/28/2024) in view of Kaiya et al (JPS5980449, of record, See IDS 05/22/2023, ‘449 hereafter) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Sullivan et al (US 3370051, ‘051 hereafter).
Regarding claim 7, modified Ismail teaches all the limitations of claim 1, but the prior art does not disclose that the sulfur-based vulcanization agent is a thiazolidinethione compound. However, it is known in the art that the thiazolidinethione compound including 3-methylthiazolindine-2-thione is an excellent vulcanization agent for polychloroprene to prevent premature vulcanization or scorching, as evidenced by ‘051 (C1/L17-L22, C2/L39-L47, C3/L21), wherein the content of thiazolidinethione compound in a rubber composition is in range of 0.1 to 2.5 wt% with respect to chloroprene polymer (C3/L64-L75). In light of these teachings, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use thiazolidinethione compound as known in the art, to modify the rubber composition of Ismail, in order to prevent premature vulcanization or scorching of the rubber composition.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 03/18/2026 have been fully considered and they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Ismail does not disclose or suggest the claimed subject matter comprising "more than 0 parts by mass and 25 parts by mass or less of a diene-based polymer having an epoxy group”, which has excellent tensile strength and water resistance. The Examiner’s position is that Ismail discloses a ratio range of 0 to 33.3 parts by mass of a diene-based polymer having an epoxy group to 100 parts by mass of chloroprene polymer, in which the modulus of the composition increases with increasing of the content of diene-based polymer having an epoxy group, significantly overlaps instantly claimed range as in claim 1. In addition, the secondary reference ‘449 as cited further teaches that the diene-base polymer having epoxy group in a preferred content range of 1 to 20 parts with respect to 100 parts of rubber resin in a rubber composition provides excellent physical properties, as set forth in the rejection parts above; thus cited prior art fairly suggest a rubber composition as presently claimed, which inherently has better tensile strength and water resistance as argued. Applicant also argues that the reference ‘449 does not disclose the rubber composition including a thiourea compound or a thiazolidinethione compound, it is noted that the rejection as drafted above does not require the teachings of these compounds from ‘449. It is further noted that the individual reference itself is not required to make a suggestion for the combination to be obvious. The test under 35 USC 103 is not what the reference expressly or individually teach, but what their combined teaching would fairly have suggested to a person skilled in the art. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986)(See MPEP 2145).
For the reasons set forth above and of record, the claims stand properly rejected.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 RUIYUN ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7934. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00-5:00 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, Arron Austin can be reached on 571-272-8935. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/RUIYUN ZHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782