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 .
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.
Claim 2 is 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 2 recites “wherein the washing step is a step of washing the molded article subjected to the vulcanization step with the hot water” which causes confusion. Does the vulcanization step include hot water or the washing step? The examiner invites the applicant to clarify. For purposes of examination, the hot water is interpreted as the water for the washing step.
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.
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.
1, 3, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Aihara et al. (WO 2018155243 as listed on IDS dated August 1, 2023).
The examiner refers to the US equivalent of Aihara et al., US 20200056019.
Regarding claim 1, Aihara et al. disclose in Example 1 a molded article is washed in a water bath at 60°C [0205], thereby lying within the claimed range. 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 conjugated diene polymer latex and the xanthogen compound of the instant claim.
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].
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 2 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).
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 2, Aihara et al. disclose in Example 1 the molded article is vulcanized at 130°C [0205], thereby lying within the claimed range.
Aihara et al. do not disclose the same order of washing a molded article subjected to the vulcanization step as recited in the instant claim.
However, Aihara et al. teach the washing step may be after the heat treatment for crosslinking [0159]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to wash the molded article after the vulcanizing step as taught by Aihara et al.
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 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).)
Conclusion
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