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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on July 14, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Interpretation
Instant claim 1 recites following:
PNG
media_image1.png
74
664
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The claim as submitted for examination is very broad and under broadest reasonable interpretation term “mixture” is viewed as combination or blend of at least 2 different substances (here CR and PEI) as well as any other component encompassed by term “comprising” this would include other resins, fillers, diluents etc. the mixture can be any type composition such as adhesives, coatings, sealants and composites.
Polyethyleneimine, is also known as polyethylene polyamine and the two names are interchangeable.
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, 2, 6, 8, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Geidysh (SU 1388410).
With respect to claim 1, Gedyish discloses rubber composition comprising polyethylenepolyamine (PEPA) polymer which meets instantly claimed polyethyleneimie and polychloroprene rubber (see examples) in form of a latex.
With respect to claims 6 and 8, vulcanizing agents and accelerators of Gedyish include sulfur, thiuram, thaiazoles, sulfenamides and metal oxide.
With respect to claims 2, 15 and 16, PEPA is utilized in an amount of 1% solids (top of col. 2) if water is not used in calculation. With water, content of PEPA is 0.16 or 0.22 phr (examples).
Claims 1, 2, 6, 9, 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Watanabe (JP 2003-138065 disclosed by the applicants in an IDS dated 12/14/2023).
With respect to claim 1, Watanabe discloses a composition comprising polychloroprene and polyethyleneimine in form of a latex (Watanabe’s claim 1).
With respect to claims 2 and 15-18, polyethyleneimine is utilized in an amount of 0.1-5 parts [0016]. Watanabe discloses criticality of the polyethyleneimine content where if the content is less than 0.1 the composition have poor adhesive strength.
With respect to claim 6, Watanabe discloses use of zinc oxide crosslinker (examples)
With respect to claim 9, latex of Watanabe further discloses use of tackifier (claim 3 of Watanabe) [0019].
Claims 1, 8, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Qian (CN 110669267 translation provided).
With respect to claim 1, Qian discloses rubber composite comprising fillers (claim 1 of Qian), wherein rubber is selected from nitrile rubber or chloroprene rubber (claim 3 of Qian), examiner utilizes this rejection for its teachings of chloroprene rubber. Polyethyleneimine is added to the chloroprene rubber along with silicate filler (attapulgite) as disclosed in the examples. In teachings of Qian polyethyleneimine is first deposited onto surface of filler and resulting composition has better dispersion and better bonding with chloroprene rubber at the interface with the filler [0031].
With respect to claim 8, utilized in the examples Accelerator DM is a tradename for 2,2’-dithiobisbenzothiazole (CAS 120-78-5) and accelerator CZ is a tradename for N-cyclohexyl-2-benzothiasolesulfenamide (CAS 95-33-0).
With respect to claim 9, Qian discloses use of stearic acid, which meets instant limitation of organic acid (examples).
Claim 1, 2, 4-6, 8, 9, 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Laakso (US 2010/0010152).
With respect to claim 1, Laakso discloses composition comprising chlorinated elastomer, polymercapto crosslinking agent and a combination of chelating agent and accelerators (claim 1 of Laakso). The goal of the teachings of Laakso is to provide a curative system for halogenated elastomers which has better cure rate and improved storage stability [0015].
Claim 3 of Laakso discloses that the chlorinated elastomer is polychloroprene.
Per claim 27 of Laakso, chelating agent is a polyamine selected from polymers made from diaminoethane or aziride which is 3 membered ring comprising nitrogen. When polymerized either one of those compounds will form polyethyleneimine as it is depicted in [0028-0029] of Laakso.
With respect to claims 2 and 15-17, while claims of Laakso do not disclose range for the polyethyleneimine such is disclosed in [0024] wherein the range is 0.2-2 phr.
With respect to claims 4 and 18, examples of Laakso disclose use of Catalapo claim which as aluminum phyllosilicate is both oxidic and has pendant OH groups. Content of the clay is 30 phr (Table 6, inventive example 10). Generic clay is also considered oxidic and has pendant -OH groups.
With respect to claim 5, carbon black is utilized in an amount of 1-120 phr of carbon black [0043].
With respect to claim 6, Laakso teaches compounds such as magnesium hydroxide or magnesium oxides as part of the curative system [0049].
With respect to claim 8, the crosslinking agent of Laakso is based on mercaptothiobenzoate, which is a species in mercaptobenzothiazole family.
With respect to claim 9, additive of Laakso include colorants which meets the definition of pigment or dye [0043], plasticizers [0044], antioxidants [0047].
Claims 1, 2, 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bender (US 2020/0338869).
With respect to claim 1, Bender discloses composition comprising elastomeric material and polyalkyleneimine (Abstract). Claim 4 of Bender limits the polyalkyleneimine to specifically polyethyleneimine. Claim 7 of Bender limits the elastomer to either butadiene copolymer or polychloroprene.
With respect to claims 2 and 15-18, content of polyalkyleneimine is in a range of 0.5-50phr [0012].
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laakso (US 2010/0010152) alone or in alternative in view of Jansson (US 4,226,823) Evidentiary reference Arlanxeo Performance Elastomers, a manufacturer of polychloroprene rubbers.
Discussion of the disclosure of Laakso from paragraph 4 of this office action. The rubber composition of Laakso comprises polychloroprene, polyethyleneimine, curative system and carbon black, and is designed for melt processing and molding into a product where the molded goods will not stick to the mold itself [0003]. Laakso teaches polychloroprene rubber however, his teachings lack description of the polychloroprene.
Since Laakso does not disclose any specific information about the polychloroprene, one of ordinary skill in the art in lieu of polymerizing its own polychloroprene can purchase one that is already available in the market saving time and money.
Example of such company is Arlanxeo which produces polychloroprene rubber under tradename Baypren, to make rubber articles that require extrusion and moldings. The specific type of polychloroprene can be selected based on desired crystallization rate. One of the tradenames is Baypren 211 utilzied by applicants therefore the properties associated with the rubber would be necessarily present. Specifically, this rubber is suitable for use in melt processing extrusion and molding which are the processes disclosed by Laakso.
Consequently, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time instant invention was filed to utilize commercially available polychloroprene rubber in the composition of Laakso, especially when the polychloroprene of is specifically designed for melt processing, extrusion and molding. Additionally, according to manufacturer’s brochure the Baypren rubbers have resistance to weathering, good aging and heat resistance, good tensile properties, good adhesion and the like. These properties also saught by Laakso and affect stability at storage and processing temperature.
In the event the applicants do not agree with the position taken by the examiner, an alternative rejection in view of Janasson is hereby stated.
With respect to claim 3, Janasson discloses composition for use in cable sheeting. The composition in example 1 of Janasson utilizes ethylene-vinyl acetate which is enabled by term comprising, along with polychloroprene Baypren 211, carbon black, antioxidant, and stearic acid wherein all are encompassed by teachings of Laakso. The composition is melt-processed, extruded and cured, which steps are also encompassed by Laakso.
Baypren 211 is very specific polychloroprene rubber which can be extruded into an article (sheeting in this case) and cured/vulcanized. Janasson clearly states that use of rubber enhances adhesion of the composition to the layer underneath.
Consequently, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time instant invention to utilize Baypren 211 of Janasson as the polychloroprene rubber of Laakso. Specifically, the rubber can be processed in the same conditions and very similar temperature range in both references. As such, when incorporated into teachings of Laakso, the composition will can still form molded article. Additionally, Laakso is open to any polychloroprene used in industry today.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laakso (US 2010/0010152) in view of Jiang (US 2018/0171114).
Discussion of the disclosure of Laakso from paragraph 4 of this office action. While Laakso discloses basic composition comprising polychloroprene, polyethyleneimine, curative system and carbon black, Laakso does not disclose improvements in the composition which would assure better dispersion of the filler within elastomeric matrix.
Jiang discloses another composition comprising diene-based elastomer, polymeric amine and carbon black.
Diene based elastomer as defined by Jiang includes polychloroprene rubber [0013]. Polymeric amine as defined by Jiang is polyethyleneimine [0025].
With respect to claim 7, Jiang discloses carbon black filler [0039], which is utilized in along with sulfur containing silanes bearing alkoxy groups [0040-0042]. Alkoxysilanes are well established compounds referred to as coupling agents, that improve adhesion between fillers and rubber matrix.
One of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand that bifunctional silanes of Jiang and presence of a hydrolysable groups results in formation of covalent bonds at the interface between filler and polymer, which in turn enhances filler dispersion, adhesion, mechanical strength and the like.
In the light of the above disclosure, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time instant invention was filed to utilize coupling agents of Jiang in the teachings of Laakso and thereby obtain the claimed invention. As it was disclosed above, the addition of coupling agents increases adhesion between rubber and filler further improving mechanical properties of the rubber composition.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATARZYNA I KOLB whose telephone number is (571)272-1127. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Mark Eashoo can be reached at 5712701046. 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.
/KATARZYNA I KOLB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767 July 30, 2026
Prosecution Insights