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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Claims 1-4 and 6-7 in the reply filed on 4/1/2026 is acknowledged. Claim 5 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claims.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2009191235 to Hiroyuki et al. (as found on the IDS dated 7/26/2023).
Regarding Claims 1 and 2, Hiroyuki teaches a chloroprene-based polymer [abstract] with a H-NMR signal at 3.80-6.50 ppm (corresponding to instant peak B) and a H-NMR signal at 4.13 – 4.30 ppm (corresponding to C of claim 2) [0007] wherein this ratio is between 0.01/100 and 0.65/100 [0031] thereby reading on the C/B ratio is 0.10/100 or more of claim 2.
Hiroyuki does not explicitly teach an area of a peak at 5.80 to 6.00 ppm (i.e., instant claimed A) or an area of the peak at 5.40 to 5.60 ppm (i.e., instantly claimed D) and is therefore silent on the A/B and D/B ratios. Consequently, the Office recognizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by the reference(s).
However, Hiroyuki teaches a product prepared from all of the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts by a substantially similar process e.g., obtaining a chloroprene-based polymer by heat-treating a polymer obtained by polymerizing 100 parts by mass of a chloroprene monomer in the presence of 0.5-7 parts by mass of a rosin acid and/or a rosin acid metal salt until the polymerization rate reaches 55% or more [Hiroyuki, 0007] while using a potassium persulfate catalyst at 40°C [Hiroyuki, Example 1]. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties - i.e. peak area ratios of A/B and D/B- would implicitly be achieved in a product prepared from all of the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts by a substantially similar process. See In Re Spada, 911, F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990) and MPEP 2111.01 (I)(II). If it is applicant’s position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant’s position and (2) it would be the Office’s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure as to how to obtain the claimed properties in a product prepared from all of the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts by a substantially similar process.
Regarding Claim(s) 4, Hiroyuki teaches the chloroprene-based polymer of claim 1, as set forth above and incorporated herein by reference.
Hiroyuki is silent regarding an amount of alkali metal cation per unit mass in the chloroprene-based polymer latex is 0.05 to 0.12 mmol/g or that the chloroprene-based polymer latex is freeze-dried to obtain a solid content containing the chloroprene-based polymer, and an ethanol-toluene azeotropic mixture soluble content specified in JIS K 6229 is extracted by refluxing from the solid content to obtain an extract, and the obtained extract is acid treated with hydrochloric acid, an amount of rosin acid of in the solid content measured by gas chromatography is 1.4 to 3.2% by mass. Consequently, the Office recognizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by the reference(s). However, Hiroyuki, when modified in the manner proposed above, teaches a product prepared from all of the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts by a substantially similar process e.g., comprising 0.5-7 parts metal salt of rosin acid [0007] (as compared to 1.2 to 2.2 parts rosin acid salt of instant application [0025]) and 0.5 parts potassium hydroxide [Example 1] (as compared to 0.1-0.5 parts potassium hydroxide of instant application [0026]).
Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties - i.e. 0.05-0.12 mmol/g of alkali metal cation and amount of rosin acid of 1.4 to 3.2% - would implicitly be achieved in a product prepared from all of the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts by a substantially similar process. See In Re Spada, 911, F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990) and MPEP 2111.01 (I)(II). If it is applicant’s position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant’s position and (2) it would be the Office’s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure as to how to obtain the claimed properties in a product prepared from all of the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts by a substantially similar process.
Regarding Claim(s) 6, Hiroyuki teaches the chloroprene-based polymer of claim 1 that is subjected to heat treatment to obtain a chloroprene polymer composition [0027] reading on a compound composition.
Claim(s) 3 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2009191235 to Hiroyuki in view of 20200044899 to Yuhei et al. For the purposes of examination, citations for Yuhei are taken from the European equivalent of the document EP3783040.
Regarding Claim(s) 3, Hiroyuki teaches the chloroprene-based polymer of claim 1, as set forth above and incorporated herein by reference.
Hiroyuki does not particularly teach a vulcanized molded body comprising the chloroprene-based polymer of claim 1.
However, Yuhei discloses chloroprene-based polymers [abstract] that is vulcanized to make a vulcanized molded body [Yuhei, 0075]. Yuhei and Hiroyuki are analogous art as they are from the same field of endeavor, namely chloroprene-based polymers.
Before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make a vulcanized molded body as taught by Yuhei, using Yuhei’s chloroprene-based polymer.
The motivation would have been that vulcanized molded bodies are suitably used for a variety of products such as a transmission belt, a conveyor belt, a hose, a wiper, an immersion product, a seal, packing, an adhesive, a boot, and other items [Yuhei, 0081]
Regarding Claim(s) 7, Hiroyuki teaches the compound composition of claim 6, as set forth above and incorporated herein by reference.
Hiroyuki does not particularly teach a vulcanized molded body comprising the chloroprene-based polymer of claim 6.
However, Yuhei discloses chloroprene-based polymers [abstract] that is vulcanized to make a vulcanized molded body [Yuhei, 0075]. Yuhei and Hiroyuki are analogous art as they are from the same field of endeavor, namely chloroprene-based polymers.
Before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make a vulcanized molded body as taught by Yuhei, using Yuhei’s chloroprene-based polymer.
The motivation would have been that vulcanized molded bodies are suitably used for a variety of products such as a transmission belt, a conveyor belt, a hose, a wiper, an immersion product, a seal, packing, an adhesive, a boot, and other items [Yuhei, 0081]
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
should be directed to Devin Darling whose telephone number is (703) 756-5411. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00.
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 Lanee Reuther can be reached on (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.
/DEVIN MITCHELL DARLING/Examiner, Art Unit 1764
/ARRIE L REUTHER/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights