DETAILED ACTION
Summary
This is a non-final office action for application 18/266,880 filed on 13 June 2023. The preliminary amendment filed on 7 August 2023 is acknowledged. Claims 1-13 are pending.
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, 7, 9 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by OTSUKA (JP-2009173890-A).
The OTSUKA (JP-2009173890-A) reference is included, with translation, in the IDS dated 13 September 2023.
Regarding Claim 1, OTSUKA teaches a chloroprene rubber composition where an ethylenically unsaturated sulfonic acid compound is added to a polychloroprene latex (Abstract). OTSUKA teaches that its composition contains a chloroprene copolymer ([0004]). OTSUKA teaches general formulas for its sulfonic acid compound including formula (6) (after [0005] in JP-language section):
PNG
media_image1.png
293
583
media_image1.png
Greyscale
where R is H or alkyl, n is an integer including 0, Y is H, alkyl, hydroxyl or halogen, and M is H, Na, K, or NH4 ([0005]). This structure contains at least 8 carbons and overlaps the requirement of the claim where R, n and Y are defined as to contain no more than two carbons. OTSUKA teaches that its ethylenically unsaturated sulfonic acid compound is preferably sodium p-styrenesulfonate ([0016]) which is an aromatic compound with 8 carbon atoms that satisfies formula 6 above where R=Y=H. n=0 and M=Na. OTSUKA also teaches a sodium salt of naphthalenesulfonic acid ([0023]) for this component, which is an aromatic compound with 10 carbon atoms. OTSUKA teaches that this compound is present in preferably 0.05-10 parts by mass per 100 parts of the solid content of the chloroprene latex ([0017], Claim 2) which overlaps the 0.0012-0.15 parts per 100 parts solid content that this recited by the claim. OTSUKA exemplifies 0.1 parts sodium p-styrenesulfonate per 100 parts chloroprene rubber ([0024]) which is within the recited range.
Regarding Claim 3, OTSUKA teaches the invention of Claim 1 where OTSUKA teaches sodium p-styrenesulfonate which is an aromatic compound with two substitutions on a benzene ring (vinyl and sulfonate).
Regarding Claim 7, OTSUKA teaches the invention of Claim 1. OTSUKA teaches that its chloroprene copolymer is the primary component of its latex ([0008]). OTSUKA does not other polymeric components of its latex ([0024]). OTSUKA teaches examples which contain 97+3=100 parts of chloroprene and 2,3-dichloro-1,3-butadiene monomers ([0024]) and 0.1 parts dodecyl mercaptan, 4 parts disproportionated rosin acid, 0.1 parts of sodium p-styrenesulfonate ([0024]) which would bring the amount of chloroprene down from 100% to within the recited range. Using the above exemplary amounts, this calculates to 100/(100+4+0.1+0.1) ≈ 96.0 parts chloroprene polymer per 100 parts of the solid content of the latex.
Regarding Claim 9, OTSUKA teaches the invention of Claim 1. OTSUKA further teaches that it is preferred to add a tackifying resin, such as an alkylphenol resin, rosin resin, rosin ester, and others. ([0019]). OTSUKA exemplifies an alkylphenol resin ([0028]).
Regarding Claim 12, OTSUKA teaches the invention of Claim 1. OTSUKA teaches that its composition is used to make an adhesive (Abstract). OTSUKA exemplifies preparing an adhesive using its composition ([0028]).
Regarding Claim 13, OTSUKA teaches the invention of Claim 1. OTSUKA teaches that its latex composition can be used as an adhesive ([0008]) or a dry adhesive film ([0008]) which is interpreted as containing the solid content of the latex composition as it has been dried. OTSUKA exemplifies applying the adhesive containing the polychloroprene latex to canvas adherends with a brush, which is equivalent to laminating, and then pasting the adhesive-coated surfaces of canvas together ([0031]). This satisfies the limitations of the claim where the first and second adherends are each pieces of canvas with the adhesive containing the polychloroprene latex adhesive, and its solid content in between the two pieces.
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 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OTSUKA (JP-2009173890-A).
Regarding Claim 2, OTSUKA teaches the invention of Claim 1 above where OTSUKA that its aromatic additive contains formula (6) depicted above where the Y-attachment on the benzene ring is defined as H, alkyl, hydroxyl or halogen ([0005]), so a compound where Y is chlorine is within the teachings of OTSUKA. OTSUKA does not exemplify a chlorine-substituted aromatic sulfonic acid derivative, but it would be obvious to modify the examples of OTSUKA and use a chlorine-substituted aromatic sulfonate derivative based on the teachings of the specification.
Regarding Claim 4, OTSUKA teaches the invention of Claim 1 above where OTSUKA teaches that its sulfonic acid derivative additive may be an aromatic additive satisfying formula (6) depicted above where M=H, Na, K, NH4 ([0005]). OTSUKA exemplifies sodium p-styrenesulfonate (M=Na, MW=206.20 g/mol) which has a molecular weight outside of the recited range, but the general teachings of OTSUKA include structures with a molecular weight within the recited range. Note that the neutral non-salt version of the exemplified sodium styrenessulfonate where M=H is p-styrenesulfonic acid which has a molecular weight of 184.21 g/mol which is within the recited range. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the examples of OTSUKA and use a compound such as p-styrenesulfonic acid as its sulfonic acid derivative based on the teachings of the specification.
Claims 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OTSUKA (JP-2009173890-A) in view of HASHIMOTO (US-20140011936-A1).
Regarding Claim 8, OTSUKA teaches the invention of Claim 1 above. OTSUKA teaches that is composition preferably contains a metal oxide ([0021]). OTSUKA exemplifies magnesium oxide and zinc oxide ([0028]).
OTSUKA teaches can its composition may contain an antioxidant ([0022]). OTSUKA does not exemplify an antioxidant, but it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the examples of OTSUKA and include an antioxidant based on the teachings of the specification.
OTSUKA does not teach an accelerator. HASHIMOTO, in an invention of a polychloroprene latex (Abstract) with a metal oxide (Abstract) and an aging inhibitor (Abstract) which is preferably a hindered phenol ([0062]), teaches that its composition may contain a vulcanization accelerator ([0067]). HASHIMOTO exemplifies a vulcanization accelerator ([0088], Table 1). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the invention of OTSUKA with the teachings of HASHIMOTO and include a vulcanization accelerator. One would have been motivated to do so because it would be nothing more than using a known compound in a typical manner to achieve predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding Claim 10, OTSUKA teaches the invention of Claim 1 above. OTSUKA does not teach the use of its latex to form dip-molded products. HASHIMOTO, in an invention of a polychloroprene latex (Abstract), teaches that its polychloroprene latex composition can be used to prepare dip-molded articles, such as disposable medical gloves ([0017]). HASHIMOTO exemplifies producing a dip-molded article ([0070]). HASHIMOTO teaches that its dip-molded articles are superior in flexibility and resistant to deterioration in flexibility over time ([0072]). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the invention of OTSUKA with the teachings of HASHIMOTO and form dip-molded articles such as gloves from the polychloroprene latex composition for the purpose of obtaining a dip-molded article which has superior flexibility properties ([0072]).
Claim 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OTSUKA (JP-2009173890-A) in view of TAKENOSHITA (JP-2007191710-A).
Regarding Claim 11, OTSUKA teaches the invention of Claim 1. OTSUKA teaches that its copolymer latex can be used to form an adhesive ([0028]) and when OTSUKA tests its adhesive, it teaches applying it to the surface of two adherends, leaving it sit for 30 minutes and then pasting and crimping the adherends together. OTSUKA does not specifically teach that its adhesive is a pressure sensitive adhesive, although the crimping step suggests that pressure is applied during the adhesion test. To the extent that OTSUKA does not teach a pressure sensitive adhesive, TAKENOSHITA, in an invention of a chloroprene-based polymer latex having a strong adhesive strength (Abstract) teaches that its chloroprene latex adhesive can used to form a pressure-sensitive adhesive (p. 3, first paragraph, number 9 in the list; p. 9, second-to-last claim). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of OTSUKA with the teaching of TAKENOSHITA and form a pressure sensitive adhesive from its chloroprene latex for the purpose of obtaining a pressure sensitive adhesive with strong adhesive strength.
Claims 1-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HASHIMOTO (US-20140011936-A1).
Regarding Claim 1, HASHIMOTO teaches a polychloroprene latex (Abstract). HASHIMOTO generally teaches 5-t-butyl catechol (aromatic compound with 10 carbon atoms) as a polymerization terminator ([0050]) but does not teach any amounts for this component. HASHIMOTO does not specifically teach an aromatic compound having 7-10 carbon atom in amounts within the recited range. But HASHIMOTO teaches examples very close to those in the instant specification where it is disclosed that the recited aromatic compound (B) is formed as a by-product of emulsion polymerization of the chloroprene (co)polymer (cur spec: [0024] (top of p. 9)). HASHIMOTO teaches that its emulsion polymerization temperature is preferably 30-50°C ([0048]) while the instant specification discloses polymerization temperatures of 30-55°C (cur spec: [0037]) and that the recited aromatic compound (B) is formed as a byproduct if the temperature above 30°C (cur spec: [0037]). HASHIMOTO teaches that is polymerization rate is more preferably 85-95% while the instant specification discloses that the recited aromatic compound (B) is formed as a byproduct if the polymerization conversion rate is 90% or more (cur spec: [0034]). The instant specification discloses in Example 3 (cur spec: Table 1; [0074] referencing conditions of Example 1 [0058]) where 4-chlorovinylbenze, 2-methylbenzyl chloride and 3-methylbenzyl chloride are all formed as byproducts of the emulsion polymerization, without adding them. HASHIMOTO teaches very similar examples for forming polychloroprene latex including water, rosin acid, potassium hydroxide, naphthalene sulfonic acid formaldehyde condensate, dodecyl mercaptan, potassium persulfate initiator ([0074],[0075]) which are the same emulsion polymerization components disclosed in the instant examples (cur spec: [0074] referencing conditions of Example 1 [0058]). Since instant example 3 discloses that 4-chlorovinylbenze, 2-methylbenzyl chloride and 3-methylbenzyl chloride are all formed as byproducts in the recited amounts (cur spec: Table 1), then one would also that the examples of HASHIMOTO would also inherently produce the recited aromatic compounds as byproducts of its emulsion polymerization. HASHIMOTO does not exemplify precisely the same polymerization temperature (45°C) and polymerization conversion rate (95%) as instant example 3 (cur spec: Table 1), but those are both within the general teachings of HASHIMOTO (30-50°C in [0048], and 85-95% in [0049]). It would be obvious to modify the examples of HASHIMOTO and use the same polymerization temperature and conversion rate as instant example 3 as they are within the range taught by HASHIMOTO in its specification. This composition would inherently have 4-chlorovinylbenzene, 2-methylbenzyl chloride and 3-methylbenzyl chloride are all formed as byproducts in amounts within the range recited by the claim.
Regarding Claim 2, modified HASHIMOTO teaches the invention of Claim 1 where 4-chlorovinylbenzene, 2-methylbenzyl chloride and 3-methylbenzyl chloride are found to be inherently present. These all feature chlorine atoms attached either to an aromatic ring or a methyl group attached to the aromatic ring.
Regarding Claim 3, modified HASHIMOTO teaches the invention of Claim 1 where 4-chlorovinylbenzene, 2-methylbenzyl chloride and 3-methylbenzyl chloride are found to be inherently present. These are all disubstituted aromatic compounds (vinyl+chloro, methyl + chloromethyl, and methyl + chloromethyl, respectively.
Regarding Claim 4, modified HASHIMOTO teaches the invention of Claim 1 where 4-chlorovinylbenzene, 2-methylbenzyl chloride and 3-methylbenzyl chloride are found to be inherently present. These have molecular weights of 138.6 g/mol, 140.6 g/mol and 140.6 g/mol, respectively.
Regarding Claims 5-6, modified HASHIMOTO teaches the invention of Claim 1 where 4-chlorovinylbenzene, 2-methylbenzyl chloride and 3-methylbenzyl chloride are found to be inherently present.
Regarding Claim 7, modified HASHIMOTO teaches the invention of Claim 1. HASHIMOTO teaches that its chloroprene copolymer is the primary polymer component of its latex (Abstract). HASHIMOTO teaches that its latex contains additives which would drop the copolymer down below 99.9 wt% and into the recited range such as 2.5 parts rosin acid (Table 3), and an additive mixture of zinc white #2, aging inhibitors, sulfur, vulcanization accelerators, and surfactants (Table 1) which is 100 parts chloroprene latex and 14 parts additives which calculates to 100/(100+14) ≈ 87.7 wt% chloroprene latex which is within the recited range.
Regarding Claim 8, modified HASHIMOTO teaches the invention of Claim 1. HASHIMOTO teaches that its composition contains a vulcanization accelerator ([0067]) and exemplifies a vulcanization accelerator (Table 1). HASHIMOTO teaches that its latex may contain a metal oxide ([0016]) such as zinc oxide ([0056]). HASHIMOTO exemplifies zinc white #2 (Table 1). HASHIMOTO teaches that its composition may contain an antioxidant ([0052]). HASHIMOTO teaches that its composition contains an aging inhibitor which is preferably a hindered phenol ([0062]). HASHIMOTO does not characterize its hindered phenol anti-aging agent as an antioxidant. Here, the specification of the current invention is used as evidence that a hindered phenol is an antioxidant (cur spec: [0064] phenolic antioxidant dispersion 5).
Regarding Claim 10, modified HASHIMOTO teaches the invention of Claim 1. HASHIMOTO teaches that its composition is used to prepare dip-molded articles, such as disposable medical gloves ([0017]). HASHIMOTO exemplifies producing a dip-molded article ([0070]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID R FOSS whose telephone number is (571)272-4821. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 - 5:00.
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, ARRIE L REUTHER can be reached at (571)270-7026. 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.
/D.R.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1764
/KREGG T BROOKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764