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 .
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s response to a Nonfinal rejection filed May 21, 2026.
Claim 2 is cancelled due to Applicant’s amendments.
The previous 112(b) rejection is withdrawn due to Applicant’s cancellation.
Claims 1 and 3-7 are currently pending.
This Office Action is FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 and 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “immersing the molded article in hot water at 30 to 70°C for a few tens of seconds to several minutes”. The terms “few” and “several” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “few” and “several” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The amount of time the molded article is immersed in hot water is rendered indefinite.
Claims 3-6 are rejected for being dependent on claim 1.
Claim Analysis
Summary of Claim 1:
A method for producing a molded article, the method comprising
a washing step of washing a molded article with hot water at 40 to 1000C,
the molded article being prepared from a latex composition containing a conjugated diene polymer latex and a xanthogen compound,
a vulcanization step of vulcanizing the molded article prepared from the latex composition by heating the molded article at 80 to 150°C, and
a leaching step of leaching the molded article prepared from the latex composition by immersing the molded article in hot water at 30 to 70°C for a few tens of seconds to several minutes before the vulcanization step,
wherein the washing step includes washing the molded article subjected to the vulcanization step using the hot water.
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, 3, 5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aihara et al. (WO 2018155243 as listed on IDS dated August 1, 2023) in view of Chieng et al. (US 20150010745 A1).
The examiner refers to the US equivalent of Aihara et al., US 20200056019.
The method of claim 1 is incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding claim 1, Aihara et al. disclose in Example 1 a molded article is washed in a water bath at 60°C for 5 minutes and vulcanized at 130°C [0205], thereby reading on the leaching step and vulcanization step. Aihara et al. further teach the molded article of example 1 is formed from a polyisoprene latex and a zinc diisopropyl xanthate [0200-0202], thereby reading on the molded article prepared from a latex composition containing a conjugated diene polymer latex and a xanthogen compound of the instant claim.
Aihara et al. is silent on a washing step of washing the molded article with hot water and wherein the washing step includes washing the molded article subjected to the vulcanization step using the hot water as recited in the instant claim.
Chieng et al. teach a method of making a polymer article formed from dip coating wherein the latex is cured and then dipped into water having a temperature of 50-60°C [0015-0019], thereby reading on the washing step with hot water lying within the claimed temperature range after the vulcanization step. Chieng et al. offer the motivation that the step of washing removes surface impurities [0019]. Aihara et al. is also concerned with removing impurities from dip molded latex articles [0159]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add a washing step of the vulcanized molded article as taught by Chieng et al. to the method of Aihara et al. with reasonable expectation that more impurities are removed from the dip molded latex article.
Regarding claim 3, Aihara et al. disclose in Example 1 the molded article was washed in hot water for 5 minutes [0205], thereby lying within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 5, Aihara et al. disclose the conjugated diene polymer in Example 1 is a synthetic polyisoprene [0200-0202], thereby reading on the instant claim.
Regarding claim 7, Aihara et al. disclose in Example 1 a molded article prepared by crosslinking a polyisoprene latex and a zinc diisopropyl xanthate [0200-0202], thereby reading on the conjugated diene polymer latex and the xanthogen compound of the instant claim.
Aihara et al. is silent on the amount of carbon disulfide as recited in the instant claim.
However, Aihara et al. teach when heat is applied to the molded article the components generated by decomposition such as carbon disulfide are volatized [0122]. Carbon disulfide is known to be toxic. Therefore, the amount of carbon disulfide remaining in the molded article would be considered a result effective variable by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed amount of carbon disulfide cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the amount of carbon disulfide present in the molded article of Aihara et al. to reach the desired toxicity level, since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (See MPEP 2144.05(b).)
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aihara et al. (WO 2018155243 as listed on IDS dated August 1, 2023) in view of Chieng et al. (US 20150010745 A1) and in further view of Huynh et al. (US 679093 as listed on IDS dated February 6, 2025).
The examiner refers to the US equivalent of Aihara et al., US 20200056019.
The method of claim 1 is incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding claim 4, Aihara et al. is silent on if the washing is performed by swirling the molded article in a tumbler washing tank as recited in the instant claim.
Huynh et al. teach a process of reducing the amount of extractable protein in a latex article comprising contacting the latex article with a rinse solution (claim 1). Huynh et al. teach the latex article is a glove and may be tumbled in a bath comprising the rinse solution [col 6, line 45-52], thereby reading on the instant claim. Aihara et al. is also concerned with gloves [0163]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to tumble the molded article of Aihara et al. with the method taught by Huynh et al. since both are related to gloves.
Regarding claim 6, Aihara et al. do not teach a metal salt is added to the hot water as recited in the instant claim.
Huynh et al. teach a metal salt is added to the wash step (claim 1). Huynh et al. teach the concentration of metal salt dissolved in the wash is 0.1 to 10 wt% salt (claim 5). Huynh et al. offer the motivation that adding metal salt to the wash lowers the total protein levels, particularly antigenic protein levels [col 7, line 11-30]. Aihara et al. is also concerned with lowering the amount of proteins in rubber to prevent allergies [0122]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add metal salt as taught by Huynh et al. to the wash step of Aihara et al. with reasonable expectation that the protein levels in rubber would be reduced and prevent allergic reactions.
Huynh et al. do not teach the amount of metal salt relative to the weight of the molded article as recited in the instant claim.
However, Huynh et al. offer the motivation that in general, the higher the concentration the more efficient the protein extraction from the latex will be [col 7, line 4-10]. Thus, the amount of metal salt would be considered a result effective variable by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed amount of metal salt cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the amount of metal salt present in the washing step of Aihara et al. as taught by Huynh et al. to reach the desired protein levels, since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (See MPEP 2144.05(b).)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 4-6, filed May 21, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1, 3, and 5 under 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Aihara et al. (WO 2018155243 as listed on IDS dated August 1, 2023) in view of Chieng et al. (US 20150010745 A1).
Applicant states, “Aihara does not disclose performing both a leaching step before crosslinking and washing with hot water after crosslinking and does not teach such treatment improves the odor and color tone change by leaching.”
The examiner agrees and directs attention to the new grounds of rejection above, wherein Aihara et al. is silent on a washing step after crosslinking.
However, Chieng et al. teach a method of making a polymer article formed from dip coating wherein the latex is cured and then dipped into water having a temperature of 50-60°C [0015-0019], thereby reading on the washing step with hot water lying within the claimed temperature range after the vulcanization step. Chieng et al. offer the motivation that the step of washing removes surface impurities [0019]. Aihara et al. is also concerned with removing impurities from dip molded latex articles [0159]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add a washing step of the vulcanized molded article as taught by Chieng et al. to the method of Aihara et al. with reasonable expectation that more impurities are removed from the dip molded latex article.
Regarding claim 7, Applicant states “However, as is evident from the results of the examples and the comparative examples in the specification, the leaching step before crosslinking and washing with hot water after crosslinking must be employed in order to set the amount of carbon disulfide within the recited range.
The examiner acknowledges the examples shown in Table 1 appear to have unexpected results in view of the method. However, the examples are not commensurate in scope with claim 7. Claim 7 recites “a molded article prepared by cross-linking a conjugated diene using a xanthogen compound”. However, examples 1-6 and comparative examples 1-4 all use the same carboxy-modified synthetic polyisoprene and zinc diisopropyl xanthate. There is no evidence that all conjugated dienes and all xanthogen compounds would behave in the same manner.
Furthermore, the amounts of xanthogen would also have an effect on the amount of carbon disulfide as well. However, Applicant has only provided data for 2.5 parts per 100 parts polyisoprene. There is no evidence that any amount of the xanthogen would behave in the same manner.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. 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 ANDREA WU whose telephone number is (571)272-0342. The examiner can normally be reached M F 8 - 5.
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, Joseph Del Sole can be reached at (571) 272-1130. 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.
/ANDREA WU/Examiner, Art Unit 1763
/JOSEPH S DEL SOLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1763
Prosecution Insights