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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant amendment filed 04/17/2026 has been entered and is currently under consideration. Claims 1-15 remain pending in the application.
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) 4-5, 7-13, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (CN115336828 of record with reference made to examiner provided machine translation) hereinafter Zhang in view of Zhang et al. (WO2018/049645 of record) hereinafter D1, Flather et al. (US7771644 of record) hereinafter Flather, Ye et al. (US2021/0330004 of record) hereinafter Ye, Fujihana et al. (US2010/0050319 of record) hereinafter Fujihana and Baris (US5822791 of record).
Regarding claim 4, Zhang teaches:
A rubber-dipped glove with wear-resistant fingers (Fig 1-2; ln 30-31), comprising a glove core and rubber-dipped layers (ln 30-31) comprising a finger rubber-dipped layer (ln 30-37) and a palm rubber-dipped layer (Fig 1-2: second dipping coating 1; ln 39-45), wherein the palm rubber-dipped layer is fixed on surfaces of the glove core and the finger rubber-dipped layer (ln 132-157), the finger rubber-dipped layer is embedded within knitting gaps of fingers of the glove core (ln 132-157), the finger rubber-dipped layer comprises a main rubber (ln 33-37; nitrile latex), sulfur (ln 33-37, ln 77-89), zinc oxide (ln 33-37, ln 77-89), an ultra-fast rubber vulcanization accelerator (ln 33-37, ln 77-89; zinc diethyl dithiocarbamate), a peroxide decomposer (ln 33-37, ln 77-89; zinc dibutyl dithiocarbamate), a wetting agent (ln 33-37, ln 77-89; dispersant) and an alkali swelling thickener (ln 33-37, ln 77-92; sodium carboxymethylcellulose), and the palm rubber-dipped layer comprises a main rubber (ln 39-45; nitrile latex), sulfur (ln 39-45, ln 77-89), zinc oxide (ln 39-45, ln 77-89), an ultra-fast rubber vulcanization accelerator (ln 39-45, ln 77-89; zinc diethyl dithiocarbamate), titanium dioxide (ln 39-45, ln 77-89), an anionic surfactant (ln 39-45, ln 63-65), a vulcanization activator (ln 39-45, ln 77-89; zinc oxide) and an emulsifier (ln 39-45, ln 77-92; sodium carboxymethylcellulose).
Zhang further teaches:
A method for producing the rubber-dipped glove with wear-resistant fingers (ln 159-262), the method for producing the rubber-dipped glove with wear-resistant fingers comprising the following steps:
S1, preparing a rubber material of the finger rubber-dipped layer: the main rubber, the sulfur, the zinc oxide, the ultra-fast rubber vulcanization accelerator, the peroxide decomposer, the wetting agent and the alkali swelling thickener are mixed in set proportions and dispersed uniformly (ln 33-37, ln 77-89, 164-166; see mapping of finger rubber dipped layer above);
S2, preparing a rubber material of the palm rubber-dipped layer: the main rubber, the sulfur, the zinc oxide, the ultra-fast rubber vulcanization accelerator, the titanium dioxide, the white carbon black, the anionic surfactant, the vulcanization activator and the emulsifier are mixed in set proportions and dispersed uniformly (ln 39-45, ln 63-65, 77-89, 170-173; see mapping of palm rubber dipped layer above), wherein the ultra-fast rubber vulcanization accelerator is zinc diethyl dithiocarbamate (ln 33-37, ln 77-89), the peroxide decomposer is zinc dibutyl dithiocarbamate (ln 33-37, ln 77-89), and the alkali swelling thickener is one of hydrophobically modified soluble acrylic emulsions, hydrophobically modified cellulose ethers, and nonionic polyurethanes (ln 33-37, ln 77-92; sodium carboxymethylcellulose);
S3, mold sleeving (ln 183-184);
S4, rubber-dipping of glove fingers: the fingers of the glove core are first dipped in a coagulator, and then dipped in the finger rubber material prepared in S1 (ln 198-199);
S5, drying treatment (ln 195-196);
S6, glove dipping: the glove with the fingers dipped with the finger rubber-dipped layer in whole is dipped in the palm rubber material prepared in S2 (ln 198-199);
S8, preheating (ln 211);
S9, soaking and washing (ln 213-215); and
S10, ripening: the soaked and washed glove is dried, and after drying, the rubber-dipped glove with wear-resistant fingers is obtained (ln 217-219).
Zhang does not teach the palm rubber-dipped layer comprises white carbon black.
In the same field of endeavor regarding glove production, D1 teaches latex gloves having white carbon black for the motivation of providing reinforcement to the rubber (p 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the palm rubber-dipped layer as taught by Zhang to include white carbon black as taught by D1 in order to provide reinforcement to the rubber.
Zhang in view of D1 does not teach
S4, the fingers of the glove core are air dried after dipping in a coagulator followed by dripping of the excess rubber material and,
S6, the glove with the fingers dipped with the finger rubber-dipped layer in whole is first dipped in a coagulator, air dried, followed by dripping of the excess rubber material.
In the same field of endeavor regarding glove production, Flather teaches applying a coagulant dip for each layer of dipped rubber (col 4, ln 10-13) and air drying after dipping in a coagulator (col 6, ln 23-25) followed by dripping of the excess rubber material (col 6, ln 45-47, 52-55) for the motivation of reaching the desired degree of thickness and flexibility (col 4, ln 10-13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method as taught by Zhang in view of D1 to include coagulant dips for each rubber layer and drying and dripping as taught by Flather in order to reach the desired degree of thickness and flexibility.
Zhang in view of D1 and Flather does not teach S5, is an oven drying treatment. Zhang teaches drying treatment, but is silent as to the specific method. Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to look to other methods of drying treatments in the art.
Flather teaches an oven drying treatment (col 4, ln 14-17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have tried oven drying as taught by Flather for the drying treatment as taught by Zhang in view of D1 and Flather and there would be a reasonable expectation of success since Zhang and Flather teaches drying of rubber layers.
Flather further teaches applying a coagulant dip for each layer. Zhang further teaches applying a third layer of rubber (ln 204-205). Therefore it would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art that the prior art teaches S7, soaking.
Zhang in view of D1 and Flather does not teach shaking the hand mold to make the dipping rubber material even.
In the same field of endeavor regarding glove production, Ye teaches shaking the rubber coated glove for the motivation of reducing the thickness of the coating ([0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by Zhang in view of D1 and Flather with the shaking as taught by Ye in order to reduce the thickness of the coating.
Zhang in view of D1, Flather, and Ye does not teach the finger rubber material having a viscosity of 100-200 mpa.s.
In the same field of endeavor regarding glove production, Fujihana teaches a coating material having a viscosity that overlaps with the claimed range for the motivation of preventing generation of pinholes and maintaining porosity and flexibility of the coating ([0045]).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP 2144.05.
Since overlapping ranges are evidence of prima facie obviousness, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have chosen the portion of the finger rubber material viscosity as taught by Fujihana that overlaps with the claimed range in order to prevent generation of pinholes and maintain porosity and flexibility of the coating.
Zhang in view of D1, Flather, Ye, and Fujihana does not teach S10, the soaked and washed glove is oven dried at a low temperature and then at a high temperature.
In the same field of endeavor regarding glove production, Baris teaches a drying step after a water bath comprising two heating steps at different temperatures for the motivation of preventing blistering (col 7, ln 1-7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the drying step as taught by Zhang in view of D1, Flather, Ye, and Fujihana with the two step heating as taught by Baris in order to prevent blistering.
Ye further teaches that drying and curing can occur in the same oven ([0042]).
Regarding claim 5, Zhang in view of D1, Flather, Ye, Fujihana, and Baris teaches the method of claim 4.
Zhang further teaches wherein in S1, the main rubber is one of nitrile rubbers, water-based PU resins, and water-based butyl latexes (ln 33-37); the wetting agent is one of alkyl sulfates, sulfonates, fatty acids or fatty acid ester sulfates, carboxylic acid soaps, and phosphates, or a mixture thereof (ln 33-37, ln 77-89; dispersant).
Regarding claim 7, Zhang in view of D1, Flather, Ye, Fujihana, and Baris teaches the method of claim 4.
Zhang further teaches wherein in S3, the mold sleeving is performed as follows: the glove core is first sleeved on the hand mold (ln 183-184), and then the glove core on the hand mold is preheated, where a temperature for preheating is controlled at 40-50°C (ln 186-187, ln 354).
Regarding claim 8, Zhang in view of D1, Flather, Ye, Fujihana, and Baris teaches the method of claim 4.
Zhang further teaches wherein in S4, the coagulator is one of a calcium nitrate-methanol solution with a concentration of 0.5-2%, and a glacial acetic acid-methanol solution with a concentration of 1.5-3% (ln 223-226, ln 356-357).
Flather further teaches a time for air drying that overlaps with the claimed range (col 6, ln 23-25).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP 2144.05.
Since overlapping ranges are evidence of prima facie obviousness, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have chosen the portion of the drying time as taught by Flather that overlaps with the claimed range.
Regarding claim 9, Zhang in view of D1, Flather, Ye, Fujihana, and Baris teaches the method of claim 4.
Flather further teaches an oven drying treatment (col 4, ln 14-17).
Zhang further teaches wherein in S5, where a temperature for oven drying is controlled at 40-60°C (ln 195-196, ln 362).
Regarding claim 10, Zhang in view of D1, Flather, Ye, Fujihana, and Baris teaches the method of claim 4.
Flather further teaches applying a coagulator for each layer of material (col 4, ln 10-13).
Zhang further teaches a coagulator is one of a calcium nitrate-methanol solution with a concentration of 1-3%, and a glacial acetic acid-methanol solution with a concentration of 2-5% (ln 223-226, ln 356-357).
Flather further teaches a time for air drying that overlaps with the claimed range (col 6, ln 23-25).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP 2144.05.
Since overlapping ranges are evidence of prima facie obviousness, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have chosen the portion of the drying time as taught by Flather that overlaps with the claimed range.
Regarding claim 11, Zhang in view of D1, Flather, Ye, Fujihana, and Baris teaches the method of claim 4.
Zhang further teaches wherein in S6, the glove with the fingers dipped with the finger rubber-dipped layer is dipped at the following position: a palm surface alone of the glove, a palm surface and a portion of a hand back of the glove, or the entire glove (Fig 1-2; ln 148-149).
Regarding claim 12, Zhang in view of D1, Flather, Ye, Fujihana, and Baris teaches the method of claim 4.
Flather further teaches applying a coagulator for each layer of material (col 4, ln 10-13).
Zhang further teaches a third layer dip (ln 204-205) and a coagulator comprising an acid-methanol solution (ln 233-236).
Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the prior art teaches wherein in S7, the soaking is performed as follows: the glove dipped with the finger rubber-dipped layer and the palm rubber-dipped layer is immersed in an acid-methanol solution for soaking, and after soaking, the glove is salt-sprayed or left untreated.
Zhang further teaches a range of values for the concentration of the acid-methanol solution that overlaps with the claimed range (ln 233-236).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP 2144.05.
Since overlapping ranges are evidence of prima facie obviousness, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have chosen the portion of the concentration of the acid-methanol solution as taught by Zhang that overlaps with the claimed range.
Regarding claim 13, Zhang in view of D1, Flather, Ye, Fujihana, and Baris teaches the method of claim 4.
Zhang further teaches wherein in S8, the preheating is performed as follows: the soaked or salt-sprayed glove in S7 is put into an oven for curing, where a temperature for curing is controlled at 65-75°C, and a time for curing is 15-40 minutes (ln 211, ln 452).
Regarding claim 15, Zhang in view of D1, Flather, Ye, Fujihana, and Baris teaches the method of claim 4.
Baris teaches a two-step heating for drying and vulcanization (col 7, ln 1-7).
Ye further teaches a temperature for low-temperature oven drying is 60-80°C and a time for low-temperature oven drying is 20-40 minutes ([0041]; Ye teaches heating after a wash at 70°C for 20 minutes prior to a further heating step).
Baris further teaches wherein in S10, a range of values for the temperature for high-temperature oven drying, and range of values for the time for high-temperature oven drying that overlaps or is close to the claimed ranges (col 7, ln 1-7).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. See MPEP 2144.05.
Since overlapping and close ranges are evidence of prima facie obviousness, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have chosen the temperature and time for high-temperature oven drying as taught by Baris that overlaps with or is close to the claimed range.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of D1, Flather, Ye, Fujihana, and Baris as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Weih et al. (US5496884 of record) hereinafter Weih and Ye et al. (US2012/0041130 of record) hereinafter D2.
Regarding claim 6, Zhang in view of D1, Flather, Ye, Fujihana, and Baris teaches the method of claim 4.
Zhang further teaches wherein in S2, the main rubber is one of nitrile rubbers, water-based PU resins, and water-based butyl latexes (ln 39-45); and the emulsifier is sodium carboxymethylcellulose (ln 39-45, ln 77-92).
Zhang in view of D1, Flather, Ye, Fujihana, and Baris does not teach the anionic surfactant is Turkish red oil and the vulcanization activator is triethanolamine.
In the same field of endeavor regarding latex formation, Weih teaches that Turkish red oil is a suitable anionic surfactant for forming latex compositions.
Zhang teaches forming latex compositions (ln 33-37).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the anionic surfactant as taught by Zhang in view of D1, Flather, Ye, Fujihana, and Baris with the Turkish red oil as taught by Weih and the results would have been predictable since the prior art references teach using anionic surfactants in the formation of latex compositions.
Zhang in view of D1, Flather, Ye, Fujihana, Baris, and Weih does not teach the vulcanization activator is triethanolamine.
Zhang teach an active agent, but is silent as to the specific composition. Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to other activators in the field of glove production.
In the same field of endeavor regarding glove production, D2 teaches triethanolamine as a suitable activator in glove production ([0022, 0044-0045]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have tried the triethanolamine as taught by D2 for the active agent as taught by Zhang in view of D1, Flather, Ye, Fujihana, Baris, and Weih and there would be a reasonable expectation of success since the prior art references teaches using activators in the production of gloves.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of D1, Flather, Ye, Fujihana, and Baris as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Sandakelum et al. (US2018/0148892 of record) hereinafter Sandakelum.
Regarding claim 14, Zhang in view of D1, Flather, Ye, Fujihana, and Baris teaches the method of claim 4.
Zhang further teaches wherein in S9, the soaking and washing is performed as follows: the cured glove is soaked and washed in water (ln 379).
Zhang in view of D1, Flather, Ye, Fujihana, and Baris does not teach the cured glove is soaked and washed in warm water at 40-60°C, where a time for soaking and washing is 0.5-1 hour.
In the same field of endeavor regarding glove production, Sandakelum teaches soaking and washing in warm water at 40-60°C, where a time for soaking and washing is 0.5-1 hour to form a glove ([0065]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the soaking and washing step as taught by Zhang in view of D1, Flather, Ye, Fujihana, and Baris with the soaking and washing step as taught by Sandakelum and the results would have been predictable since the prior art references teach soaking and washing to form a glove.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/147/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest “the ultra-fast rubber vulcanization accelerator is zinc diethyl dithiocarbamate, the peroxide decomposer is zinc dibutyl dithiocarbamate, and the alkali swelling thickener is one of hydrophobically modified soluble acrylic emulsions, hydrophobically modified cellulose ethers, and nonionic polyurethanes". However, Zhang teaches the above features as cited in the art rejection above, and applicant has not provided any arguments or evidence to address the explicit teachings of the limitations in contention.
Applicant attempts to differentiate the claimed invention over that of the prior art by arguing that the effects of the claimed invention include (1) embedding the dipping rubber material within the knitting gaps of the fingers of the glove core without increasing its thickness; and (2) fixing the palm rubber-dipped layer on the surface of the finger rubber-dipped layer and the external surface of the glove core, making the rubber-dipped glove appears to have only one rubber-dipped layer in appearance. However, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Furthermore, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). Applicant argues that the key technical features enabling the above effects include: (a) the rubber material of the finger rubber-dipped layer includes the ultra-fast rubber vulcanization accelerator, the peroxide decomposer, and the alkali swelling thickener, wherein the ultra-fast rubber vulcanization accelerator is zinc diethyl dithiocarbamate, the peroxide decomposer is zinc dibutyl dithiocarbamate, and the alkali swelling thickener is one of hydrophobically modified soluble acrylic emulsions, hydrophobically modified cellulose ethers, and nonionic polyurethanes; and (b) the viscosity of the finger rubber material is 100-200 mPa-s. Applicant attempts to discredit each reference from teaching the above features using piecemeal analysis of each reference. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The examiner further notes that the applicant again fails to address any of the teachings specifically cited in the prior art. In applicant’s piecemeal analysis of the prior art, applicant does not offer any evidence or arguments that the prior art could not be combined as reasoned in the prior art rejection to arrive at the claimed invention. Since the prior art of record teaches or suggests all of the enabling steps of the claimed invention, it would be reasonable for one of ordinary skill in the art to assume that the prior art method produces the same results as the claimed invention as well.
For at least the above reasons, the application is not in condition for allowance.
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 ALEXANDER A WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5361. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8 am-4 pm EST.
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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached at 571-270-7001. 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.
/ALEXANDER A WANG/ Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights