DETAILED ACTION
The communication dated 5/14/2026 has been entered and fully considered.
Claims 1 and 35 have been amended. Claims 3-5 have been cancelled. Claims 1-2 and 6-37 are pending. Claims 1-2, 6-34 and 36-37 are withdrawn from further consideration.
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 III in the reply filed on 5/14/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-2, 6-34 and 36-37 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5/14/2026.
Response to Arguments and Amendments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 11, filed 5/14/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 35 under § 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Applicant argues that KODEMURA does not teach the newly amended limitation of the polyvalent metal salt is copper gluconate. The Examiner agrees that KODEMURA is silent as to the newly amended limitation of the polyvalent metal salt being copper gluconate. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Hosaka et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2004/0203320), hereinafter HOSAKA.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claim(s) 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KODEMURA et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2023/0101503), hereinafter KODEMURA, in view of Hosaka et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2004/0203320), hereinafter HOSAKA.
Regarding claim 35, KODEMURA teaches: A rubber article (KODEMURA teaches a rubber article [0187].), which is reinforced by an organic fiber material, (KODEMURA teaches a reinforced organic fiber material [0187].), wherein the organic fiber material comprises an organic fiber and adhesive layer coating a surface of the organic fiber (KODEMURA teaches the organic fiber material comprises an organic fiber and adhesive layer [0187].), wherein the adhesive layer is made of an adhesive composition (KODEMURA teaches a composition [Abstract; 0017; 0173; 0208].), the adhesive composition comprising: (A) a rubber latex having unsaturated diene (KODEMURA teaches a rubber latex having unsaturated diene [Abstract; 0017].), and (B) a polyvalent metal salt (KODEMRUA teaches a polyvalent metal salt [0173].), and further comprising at least one component selected from the group consisting of the following (C) to (F): (C) an aqueous component having a plurality of phenolic hydroxy groups in molecule, (D) a water-soluble component containing an amide bond structure, (E) an amine compound, and (F) polyvinyl alcohol (KODEMURA teaches a water-soluble component (sodium salt of a naphthalene sulfonic acid and formalin) [0208].), . . . .
KODEMURA teaches all of the claimed limitations as stated above, but is silent as to: wherein the (B) polyvalent metal salt is copper gluconate. In the same field of endeavor, rubber articles, HOSAKA teaches a polyvalent metal salt that is copper gluconate [0116]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify KODEMURA, by substituting the polyvalent metal salt with copper gluconate, as suggested by HOSAKA, in order to have an increased polishing rate [0116].
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 CAROLINE BEHA whose telephone number is (571)272-2529. The examiner can normally be reached MONDAY - FRIDAY 9:00 A.M. - 5:00 P.M.
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, ABBAS RASHID can be reached at (571) 270-7457. 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.
/C.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1748
/JACOB T MINSKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights