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 .
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Saito (JPH044218549; reference made to include English translation.)
Saito in Example 3 (¶[0078]) exemplifies a process of modifying a styrene-isoprene bloc copolymer by using 2-hydroxypropyl ester acrylate and 2,5-dimethyl-di-(t-butylperoxy) hexanoic; a radial (from peroxy) generator. This is done by mixing all the components in a mixer then kneaded with a twin screw extruder. No solvents are used. (See also ¶[0035] which teaches solvent-less processing also).
As no solvents are used the amount of water or organic solvent used in this step is 0 parts per 100 of the styrene-isoprene block copolymer (a conjugated diene that is also synthetic as it is a created block copolymer of styrene and isoprene). The radical generator is contacted in the solid form and kneaded. This anticipates the modification step of Claim 1, Claim 2, Claim 3, and Claim 8.
The exemplified hydroxylpropyl ester acrylate used to modify the block copolymer is not an acid or acid anhydride according to Claim 6 and 7. However, Saito clearly teaches acid compounds for this purpose in ¶[0024/0026]. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art can at once envisage the hydroxylpropyl ester acrylate modifier being any of the specifically taught acids of ¶[0026] including the specifically taught maleic acid. This anticipates Claim 6. The amount used in Example 3 is 120 parts per 3000 of the conjugated block copolymer which is 4 parts per 100 parts of the conjugated copolymer, anticipating Claim 7.
Emulsification occurs with 75g of conjugated diene polymer (500 * 0.15), 500 g distilled water and 1 sodium dodeclbenzene sulfonate (See Example 1 emulsification which is used in Example 3). Note the solvent limitations of the claims only limit the modification step. Dissolving a modified conjugated diene that was made according to the modification step recited is not excluded from being applied against the claims as the solvent limitations are only against the modification and no future step. The amount of surfactant used is 1/75 * 100 = 1.33 per 100 of conjugated diene anticipating Claim 5.
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.
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito (JPH044218549; reference made to include English translation).
Saito is applied as above under §102.
Saito uses distilled water for the emulsification process and does not explicitly teach or suggests an alkaline water for this purpose. In other words, water that has a basic pH. Saito does not teach or suggest the type of water used.
Saito in ¶[0055] basic substances may be added to the aqueous dispersion as necessary. As pH is a measure of acidity or basicity in water, this reasonably suggests the aqueous (water) dispersions may be basic. Additionally, when using an acid modifier to the copolymer (taught by Saito in ¶[0026]), this would necessarily produce acid dispersion due to the acid functionality on the copolymer and using a basic substance to neutralize the acid would be reasonably suggested.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art the time the invention was filed to practice the invention of Saito, in particular that of Example 3, such that the water used to emulsify the copolymers of Saito included a basic substance, in particular, when using an acid modifier as immediately envisaged above, to neutralize acid components in the resulting latex (emulsified copolymers) and because Saito teaches basic compounds may be added to the aqueous dispersions One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to add the basic compound to the water used for emulsification rather than after emulsification has been completed because it logically follows the amount of basic compound in the dispersion can be more accurately controlled at that time as it is prepared with only the water to be used for emulsion rather than after all other additional components are used. Further, the basic compound would be present in the resulting aqueous dispersion just as ¶[0055] teaches.
This reads over Claim 4.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 10 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.
The closest prior art is Satoh (WO2019171981; reference made to US20210040246) which teaches acid modified conjugated diene made by a similar method to Claim 1 but requiring the use of at least 100 to 400 parts by weight of an organic solvent with respect to 100 parts of synthetic isoprene. ¶[0029]
Claims 9 and 10 are methods of making latex compositions (comprising sulfur vulcanization) and method of dip molding used the product of method of Claims 1-8. This product made by a method is product by process language. Applicant has provided data in Table 1 that demonstrates the resulting latex made from similar processes using more solvent than allowed by the modification step recited by Claim 1 produce latexes which have higher swell index and viscosity and also have foaming not present in the latexes produced by the recited method. This in turn reasonably suggests the resulting dip molded articles have less swelling compared to ones made with solvent modification step. This imparts a structural difference to the modified conjugated diene made by the method of Claims 1-8 that is not achievable using Satoh due to its requirement to use an organic solvent in excess to what is recited by the process of Claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER M RODD whose telephone number is (571)270-1299. The examiner can normally be reached 7 am - 3:30 pm (Pacific).
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.
/Christopher M Rodd/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766