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 .
This office action is in response to the application filed 3/14/2024.
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 4 are objected to because of the following informalities: the colon appearing after has (“has:”) in line 2 should be removed. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-13 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.
Claim 1 recites “A sulfur-free crosslinked composition for dip forming” in line 1 and then later recites “an antioxidant that contains at least one compound having a phenol structure and a sulfur atom” in lines 5-6. The requirement for the composition to be sulfur-free yet also require a sulfur atom renders the claim indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted as “A crosslinked composition”…”comprising a sulfur-free carboxylated diene rubber elastomer” as supported by claim 11. Claim 9 also contains the same indefinite language. Claims 2-13 are also rejected because they are depending from a rejected base claim.
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.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enomoto et al. (US PG Pub 2021/0162636 A1 as cited on the IDS dated 3/14/2024) in view of Shiono et al. (US PG Pub 2020/0216594 A1).
Regarding claims 1-8, Enomoto et al. teach a composition for dip molding (Title), wherein the composition comprises (claim 1):
an elastomer containing a (meth)acrylonitrile, an unsaturated carboxylic acid, and a butadiene thereby reading on the carboxylated diene rubber elastomer;
an epoxy crosslinking agent wherein the epoxy crosslinker is an organic crosslinker [0007] and wherein the crosslinker also comprises a metal crosslinker such as zinc oxide or an aluminum complex (claims 9 and 10);
an antioxidant such as a hindered phenol antioxidant [0128];
water (claim 8);
wherein the antioxidant is present in an amount of 1.7 parts by weight (0.4 g of an antioxidant / 230 g of an elastomer x 100 = 1.7 parts by weight; [0185]) thereby reading on the claimed range of from 0.05 to 4 parts by weight relative to 100 parts by weight of an elastomer.
Enomoto et al. do not teach the antioxidant contains at least one compound having a sulfur atom.
Shiono et al., from the same field of endeavor, namely nitrile rubber compositions, teach nitrile rubber compositions comprising acrylonitrile, diene and carboxylic acid monomers (Abstract, Claim 1, [0021-022]) further comprising antioxidants, wherein the antioxidant used in the preferred embodiment is 4,6-bis(octylthiomethyl)-o-cresol under the tradename Irganox 1520L ([0055], Example 1 [0089]) in the amount of 0.3 parts with respect to 100 parts of the rubber. This is the same antioxidant as used in the instant specification [0130-0131] and has both a phenol structure and a sulfur atom in the same molecule as shown in the instant specification [0131]. Shiono et al. use the Irganox 1520L in the preferred embodiments and further offer the motivation of choosing an antioxidant because it is known in the rubber field [0067]. It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the antioxidant containing at least one compound having a phenol structure and a sulfur atom in the same molecule as taught by Shiono et al. in the nitrile rubber composition of Enomoto et al., thereby arriving at the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 9-10, Enomoto et al. teach the method for producing the composition, comprising mixing the XNBR elastomer and the crosslinking agent, the antioxidant, wherein water was further added to the antioxidant thereby forming a dispersed state in an aqueous solvent [0185-0186].
Regarding claims 11-12, Enomoto et al. teach a glove formed from the XNBR composition (Title, Abstract, Claim 1, Examples).
Regarding claim 13, Enomoto et al. teach a method for manufacturing the glove comprising a step of dip-forming (Title, [0001], Examples, [0185], Claim 8).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LANEE REUTHER whose telephone number is (571)270-7026. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-3:30.
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, Patricia Mallari can be reached at 571-272-4729. 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.
/ARRIE L REUTHER/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights