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. 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 § 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 1-19 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. Regarding claim 1: Independent claim 1 recites limitations regarding the toluene insoluble content of copolymer latex B (see lines 10-11) and the toluene soluble content of copolymer latex A (see lines 12-13); however, the claim does not specify the temperature at which the (in)soluble contents of the latex A and B are determined. One of ordinary skill in the art will recognize that solubility is dependent on temperature, generally increasing as temperature increases. The absence of a recited temperature(s) for the (in)soluble contents therefore renders the claim indefinite, as it is unclear at which temperature the soluble content of latex A and the insoluble content of latex B should be analyzed to determine whether a composition falls within the recited invention. Regarding claim 2: The limitation regarding the toluene insoluble content of latex A does not recite a temperature at which the solubility is measured. The claim is therefore indefinite as it is unclear at what temperature the toluene insoluble content must be in the recited range to meet the claim. Regarding claim 3: The limitation regarding the toluene insoluble content of latex B does not recite a temperature at which the solubility is measured. The claim is therefore indefinite as it is unclear at what temperature the toluene insoluble content must be in the recited range to meet the claim. Regarding claim 4 : The limitation regarding the toluene insoluble content of the copolymer latex composition does not recite a temperature at which the solubility is measured. The claim is therefore indefinite as it is unclear at what temperature the toluene insoluble content must be in the recited range to meet the claim. Regarding claims 5-7: Claim 5 is reproduced below. As written, it is unclear in what manner and/or for what purpose the recited dip molded body is required to use the latex composition of the parent claim. It is therefore unclear whether the claim is intended to require a certain process be performed, and if so what that process is. In the event that the claim was intended to require that the dip molded body was made from the latex of the parent claim, it is suggested that applicant to amend claim 5 to state that the drip molded body comprise the composition of the parent claim (see instant claims 11, 14, and 17 for examples of this language being used in the instant application). Claims 6 and 7 depend from claim 5 and do not correct this deficiency. The claims are therefore indefinite per the same rationale as claim 5. Regarding claim 8: The limitation regarding the toluene insoluble content of latex B does not recite a temperature at which the solubility is measured. The claim is therefore indefinite as it is unclear at what temperature the toluene insoluble content must be in the recited range to meet the claim. Regarding claim 9: The limitation regarding the toluene insoluble content of the copolymer latex composition does not recite a temperature at which the solubility is measured. The claim is therefore indefinite as it is unclear at what temperature the toluene insoluble content must be in the recited range to meet the claim. Regarding claim 10: The limitation regarding the toluene insoluble content of the copolymer latex composition does not recite a temperature at which the solubility is measured. The claim is therefore indefinite as it is unclear at what temperature the toluene insoluble content must be in the recited range to meet the claim. Regarding claims 11-19: Claims 11 and 19 all ultimately depend from independent claim 1 and do not correct the deficiency discussed in paragraph 5 of this Action. The claims are therefore indefinite per the same rationale as claim 1. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-19 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of record is Nagatani et al, JP2019143002 . A machine translation of Nagatani was used for the preparation of this Action. The examiner notes that Fujimoto et al, US2020/0223961, is cited as evidence that it is not reasonably expected that Nagatani would inherently meet the claimed ratio of b/a. Nagatani discloses the production of a composition comprising a chloropropene latex A having a toluene insoluble content of 70 wt% or more and a chloroprene latex B having a toluene insoluble content of 10 wt% or less, wherein the weight average molecular weight of the toluene soluble content has a weight average molecular weight of 200000 to 500000 (abstract). Nagatani requires that the prior art composition is prepared using an emulsifier that having a ratio of 8,15-isopimalic acid to dihydropimalic acid less than 1.0 (abstract; page 1: lines 40-43; page 2: lines 8-16). Nagatani does not provide any teachings regarding the content of abietic acid, neoabietic acid, palustric acid, levopimaric acid or salts thereof etc. Nagatani therefore does not teach that the emulsifier is characterized by a ratio of b/a of 0.10 or more, wherein b is the total amount of abietic acid, neoabietic acid, palustric acid, levopimaric acid or salts thereof and a is the total amount of dehydroabietic acid, pimaric acid, isopimaric acid, dehydroabietic acid, and salts thereof. Furthermore, Fujimoto teaches that the rosin acids which are used as an emulsifier are a mixture of a resin acid such as abietic acid, neoabietic acid, etc.; a fatty acid, and the like. Note that Fujimoto specifically teaches that the composition of these components depends on a variety of factors including the collection method of the rosin(s), the production area and type of pines, the distillation purification, and disproportionation reactions (¶0038). In view of the variety of factors which can influence the proportions of each component in the rosin acid, the evidence in the record does not provide a reasonable basis to expect that the emulsifier of Nagatani would necessarily and inherently meet the claimed ratio of b/a. Finally, no re ference has been found that would provide a motivation to modify the composition of Nagatani to have a ratio b/a as defined in lines 14-20 of claim 1 while also meeting Nagatani’s requirement that the ratio of 8,15-isopimalic acid to dihydropimalic acid is less than 1.0. The claimed invention is therefore allowable. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Musch et al, US5026779; Musch et al, 4485216; Hoff, Jr., US4035446; and Kitagawa et al, US3714296, all disclose the production of compositions comprising a mixture of a soluble chloroprene (co)polymer and an insoluble chloroprene (co)polymer. The cited references do not teach a blend of two polymers wherein one polymer has a toluene insoluble content of 70% by mass or more, and the toluene soluble content of the other polymer has a weight average molecular weight of 5000 to 250000 as required. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT JEFFREY S LENIHAN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-5452 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mon.-Fri. 5:30-2:00PM . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Heidi Riviere Kelley can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-270-1831 . 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. /JEFFREY S LENIHAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765