DETAILED ACTION
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
Claims 13-17 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 6/15/2026.
Applicant’s election of group I, claims 1-12 in the reply filed on 6/15/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim Interpretation
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 2 and 6 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 that the composition is “latex free”, the term “latex” is unclear. “Latex”, as claimed, is not specially defined in the instant specification as meaning a particular type of rubber and the use of the term in the art as broadly referring to an emulsion or sol containing a number of colloidal particles containing macromolecules as applied to the claim renders the scope of the claim unclear and therefore indefinite. For examination purposes, the term “latex” is taken to mean “natural latex rubber” since the specification makes reference to natural latex rubber as disadvantageous to use in the instant claimed invention.
Claim 6, impermissibly uses the open ended term "including" in the phrase “and other compounds…including” in the context of a closed Markush group. See MPEP § 2111.03, which states, "The transitional term 'comprising', which is synonymous with 'including,' 'containing,' or 'characterized by,' is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, un-recited elements or method steps." Accordingly, it is unclear which Markush members (in addition to the ones expressly listed) should be included within the scope of these claims consistent with MPEP § 2173.05(h)(I).
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.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rasseli US(20200283603 A1) in view of Supanakorn (Multifunctional Cellulosic Natural Rubber and Silver Nanoparticle Films with Superior Chemical Resistance and Antibacterial Properties) with evidence from Prime-Nanotechnology Co., Ltd. and further in view of Cuillo (The Rubber Formulary)..
Regarding claims 1-12, Rasseli teaches an antimicrobial rubber composition containing silver as an antimicrobial agent (claim 1) comprising:
a) Natural rubber or synthetic polyisoprene as a rubber constituent;
b) A silver antimicrobial component;
c) Precipitated silica as a filler;
d) CBS (N-cyclohexyl-2-benzothiazolesulfenamide) as an accelerator;
e) Sulfur as a curing agent;
f) Stearic acid as an organic acid additive
Rasseli’s disclosed composition does not comprise a peroxide-based accelerator.
Rasseli does not teach colloidal silver nanoparticles in an amount of 0.001-5.0 wt.% of the rubber composition having a particle size of less than 500 nm, and does not explicitly teach fillers in an amount of 1-70 wt.% nor curing agents between 0.001-5.0 wt.% of the rubber composition. Rasseli is also silent on whether embodiments include composition that are free of natural latex rubber.
Supanakorn discloses antimicrobial rubber films containing silver nanoparticles. The silver particles used by Supanakorn are from Prime-Nanotechnology Co., Ltd. and have average particle size (diameter) of 34.8 ± 19.8 and 69.8 ± 30.8 nm (abstract). (The included evidence shows the silver nanoparticles available from Prime-Nanotechnology at the time of Supanakorn’s publishing, the particle sizes, and descriptions as colloidal). Supanakorn further discloses a silver nanoparticle concentration of 0.067-0.1 wt.% as exhibiting excellent antibacterial activity (abstract)
Supanakorn does not teach a rubber composition not containing natural latex rubber, nor the claimed amounts of fillers or curing agents as described above.
Cuillo discloses a rubber composition comprising synthetic polyisoprene with a total parts-by-weight of 168 parts, comprising fillers SAF Black and THERMAX amounting to 65 parts, which is 38.7 wt.% of the rubber composition, and curing agents as zinc oxide, Spider Sulfur, ALTAX, and METHYL TUADS which amount to 8 parts, which is 4.8 wt.% of the rubber composition (Chapter I, page 88). Cuillo further teaches that synthetic isoprene is often preferred to natural rubber due to it having a more controlled synthesis, better uniformity, better processing, and better compatibility with other rubbers like SBR (Introduction, pages 14 -15).
A person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the instant application would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Cuillo and Supanakorn to the antimicrobial rubber composition of Rasseli by substituting the silver antimicrobial component with the nanoparticles of Supanakorn in the disclosed concentrations, to use only synthetic polyisoprene instead of natural latex rubber, and to include fillers and curing agents in the amounts disclosed in Cuillo and the results would have been predictable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KOLTON JONES whose telephone number is (571)272-9802. The examiner can normally be reached Generally Monday-Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 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, Joseph Del Sole can be reached at (517)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.
/KOLTON JONES/Examiner, Art Unit 1763 /JOSEPH S DEL SOLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1763
Prosecution Insights