DETAILED ACTION
This office action follows a reply filed on April 10, 2026. Claims 1-2 have been amended. Claims 1-4, 6-13 and 15-20 are currently pending and under examination.
All previous rejections are withdrawn, as applicants have amended to limit the amount of peroxide within a range of 0.3-1 phr, which was not previously required by the claimed invention. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is proposed below.
The texts of those sections of Title 35 U.S. Code are not included in this section and can be found in a prior Office action.
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
Claims 1-9 and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 5980449 in view of Gilmont (US 3,129,204) and/or Dembowski (US 4,138,537), and further in view of Kwiatanowski (US 3,249,579), as evidenced by Nippon (Nisso-PB Liquid Polybutadiene Product Website Product List, Nippon Soda Co, 2025, 8 pages). For convenience, the translation of JP ‘449 will be cited below.
JP ‘449 teaches a rubber composition comprising 0.2-30 phr of a diene (co)polymer containing 0.2-10 moles of epoxy groups per mole of polymer into 100 parts of a solid rubber, and 0.1-10 parts by weight of a vulcanization aid, where the solid rubber is specifically listed to include polychloroprene. JP ‘449 teaches that by compounding a diene (co)polymer with epoxy groups into solid rubber, the compatibility and affinity with the solid rubber are increased, improving processability by plasticizing or softening the solid rubber. JP ‘449 teaches that during vulcanization, both the epoxy groups and the carbon-carbon double bonds of the polymer contribute to the vulcanization reaction, resulting in excellent rubber properties and a vulcanized rubber that is free of bleeding.
JP ‘449 teaches that in vulcanizing the solid rubber composition, a vulcanizing agent such as sulfur, zinc white and an organic peroxide, which is conventionally used for vulcanizing each solid rubber, can be added.
JP ‘449 does not teach or suggest the molecular weight of the diene (co)polymer with epoxy groups or the amount of peroxide to be added, as claimed.
As to the claimed molecular weight, JP ‘449 teaches the epoxy groups of the diene (co)polymer in an amount of 0.2-10 mol per mole of polymer and the viscosity as 0.1-20,000 Ps. JP ‘449 exemplifies the use of epoxy modified polybutadiene known commercially available epoxidized liquid polybutadiene manufactured by Nippon and having a viscosity of 4700 Poise. Known epoxidized polybutadienes manufactured by Nippon also include JP-100, which has a molecular weight of 1300 and a viscosity of 220 Poise, and JP-200, which has a molecular weight of 220 and a viscosity of 1000 Poise, as evidenced by Nippon. JP-100 and JP-200 are epoxidized 1,2-polybutadienes, and both meet the requirements of JP ‘449. Viscosity is directly related to the molecular weight of a polymer. Therefore, it can be seen that the molecular weights suggested by JP ‘449 also overlap with the claimed ranges of 900-2500.
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used JP-100 or JP-200 as the epoxidized 1,2-polybutadiene, as these are clearly within the teachings of JP ‘449, and meet applicants’ preferred compounds.
Gilmont teaches that polychloroprene can be vulcanized with 0.1-10 wt% of 2,5-bis(tert-butylperoxy)-2,5-dimethylhexane (col. 2, ll. 1-37 and 51-65). Gilmont teaches that suitable plasticizing agents and vulcanization accelerators can also be added (col. 3, ll. 1-17), and also teaching that the compositions are useful for preparing tires (col. 3, ll. 25-30).
Dembowski teaches that polychloroprene can be vulcanized with 0.1-10 phr of a beta-substituted diperoxyketal, further teaching that the compositions can further include a plasticizer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have added 0.1-10 phr of a peroxide, such as 2,5-bis(tert-butylperoxy)-2,5-dimethylhexane, as suggested by Gilmont, or a beta-substituted diperoxyketal as suggested by Dembowski, as these are both suitable types of peroxides and amounts useful for vulcanizing polychloroprene, as JP ‘449 does not limit the type or amount of peroxide that can be used to vulcanize the solid rubber.
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used the diene (co)polymer containing epoxy groups as the plasticizer in Gilmont or Dembowski, as Gilmont and Dembowski both allow for the inclusion of plasticizers, and JP ‘449 teaches that the diene (co)polymer containing epoxy groups acts as a plasticizer in solid rubber such as chloroprene rubber, has improved compatibility and affinity for the solid rubber, and is free from bleed, as the JP ‘449 teaches that the epoxy groups and carbon-carbon double bonds contribute to the crosslinking during vulcanization.
JP ‘449 does not teach or suggest the chloroprene rubber (CR) as a homopolymer or copolymer as claimed; however, choosing either a homopolymer or copolymer is prima facie obvious, and Kwiatanowski teaches that polychloroprene is well known, teaching that the chloroprene can be copolymerized with small amounts of other monomers such as acrylonitrile for good processability and oil resistance (col. 3, ll. 11-16), which would be desirable in JP ‘449.
JP ‘449 in view of Gilmont or Dembowski and further in view of Kwiatanowski is prima facie obvious over instant claims 1-3, 6-9 and 15-17.
As to claims 4 and 13, JP ‘449 teaches the epoxy groups in an amount of 0.2-10 mol per mole of polymer and the viscosity as 0.1-20,000 Ps. An epoxy modified 1,2-type liquid polybutadiene comprising 0.2-10 mol epoxy groups per mol of polymer suggests applicants’ general formula (1) when n/m is 0.1-5, which overlaps with the claimed range of 1.5-5, and it has been held that overlapping ranges are sufficient to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-12 and 18-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action, as applicants have limited the peroxide content to 0.3-1 phr, which was not previously required by the instant invention. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIEANN R JOHNSTON whose telephone number is (571)270-7344. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00 AM - 4:00 PM EST.
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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at (571)272-1302. 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.
/Brieann R Johnston/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Prosecution Insights