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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-10, 16-22 and species B in the reply filed on 9/26/24 is acknowledged.
Claims 12-14, 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 9/26/24.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-10, 16, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by (CN 113370548) referred to as 548.
As to claim 1, 548 teaches a method of preparing an elastomeric laminate article, the method comprising:(i) providing a first aqueous coating composition comprising a first polymer and discrete silicon dioxide nanoparticles [0109, 0036], wherein the first polymer is a polyurethane [0017, 0024, 0034-0036, 0038-0040];(ii) providing a second aqueous coating composition comprising a second polymer [0041, 0042];(iii) coating a substrate with the first aqueous coating composition to form a first film on the substrate [0041, 0042, 0024, 0034-0036, 0038-0040]];(iv) coating the first film with the second aqueous coating composition to form a second film on the first film [0041, 0042]; and(v) removing the substrate [0043-0045].
As to claim 2, 548 teaches the second polymer is selected from a polyurethane [0043-0045].
As to claim 3, 548 teaches the second polymer is a polyurethane [0017, 0024, 0034-0036, 0038-0040].
As to claim 6, 548 teaches the discrete silicon dioxide nanoparticles comprise surface silanol groups as colloidal and aqueous dispersions of silica inherently has hydroxyl groups ie silanol [0109, 0034, 0036].
As to claim 7, 548 teaches the step of providing a first aqueous coating composition comprising a first polymer and discrete silicon dioxide nanoparticles comprises combining a source of the first polymer with a source of discrete silicon dioxide nanoparticles to form the first aqueous coating composition [0034, 0036].
As to claim 8, 548 teaches the source of the first polymer comprises an aqueous polyurethane dispersion and/or wherein the source of discrete silicon dioxide nanoparticles is colloidal silica [0034, 0036]. Colloidal silica is distinguished from aqueous silica by its particle size being on the nanometer scale and aqueous silica being micrometer in size, hence one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the aqueous dispersion of nanosize silica to be colloidal silica [0034, 0036].
As to claim 9, 548 teaches the method further comprises providing a third aqueous coating composition comprising a third polymer, and, between the step of coating the first film with the second aqueous coating composition to form a second film on the first film and the step of removing the substrate , coating the second film with the third aqueous coating composition to form a third film on the second film [0034-0036, 0038-0040].
As to claim 10, 548 teaches the elastomeric laminate article is a condom [0001].
As to claim 16, 548 teaches the first polymer and the second polymer are the same polyurethane [0040].
As to claim 19, 548 teaches the source of discrete silicon dioxide nanoparticles is colloidal silica [0034, 0036]. Colloidal silica is distinguished from aqueous silica by its particle size being on the nanometer scale and aqueous silica being micrometer in size, hence one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the aqueous dispersion of nanosize silica to be colloidal silica [0034, 0036].
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.
Claim 4 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (CN 113370548) referred to as 548.
As to claim 4, 548 teaches the discrete silicon dioxide nanoparticles have a particle diameter overlapping the range 1 to 100 nm [0109, 0034, 0036]
As to claim 17, 548 teaches the discrete silicon dioxide nanoparticles have a particle diameter overlapping the range 2 to 50 nm [0034, 0036, 0109].
Claim(s) 5, 18, 21, 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (CN 113370548) referred to as 548 in view of Anand (WO 96/19531).
As to claims 5 and 18, 548 does not explicitly state the discrete silicon dioxide nanoparticles have a BET surface area of at least 250 m2/g.
Anand teaches a latex rubber composition [abstract] for use as a condom [Page 1 line 16] and notes use of silica in a range of 150 m2/g to 430 m2/g [Page 10 line 14-18] as this silica resulted in increased tear strength without detrimental effects on modulus and tensile properties [page 11 line 15-25]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of 548 and utilized 150 m2/g to 430 m2/g an overlapping range to the claimed range, as suggested by Anand, as this silica had proven successful at increasing tear strength without detrimental effects on modulus and tensile properties.
As to claim 21, 548 does not explicitly state the first aqueous coating composition comprises the discrete silicon dioxide nanoparticles in an amount of 0.1 to 3 wt%.
Anand teaches a latex rubber composition [abstract] for use as a condom [Page 1 line 16] and notes use of silica in a range of .5%-5% by wt in the aqueous solution [Page 6 line 9-15] as this silica resulted in increased tear strength without detrimental effects on modulus and tensile properties [page 11 line 15-25]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of 548 and utilized .5%-5% by wt an overlapping range to the claimed range, as suggested by Anand, as this silica had proven successful at increasing tear strength without detrimental effects on modulus and tensile properties. Moreover, Anand notes that too much silica detrimentally effects modulus and tensile properties but too little hurts tear strength [page 11 line 15-25]. It is well settled that the determination of the optimum value of a result effective variable, in this case wt % of silica, is within the skill of one practicing art, see MPEP § 2144.05 II. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the wt % to the exact value of 0.1 to 3 wt%, as suggested by Anand, in order to obtain desirable tear strength, modulus, and tensile properties.
As to claim 22, 548 does not explicitly state the first aqueous coating composition comprises the first polymer and the discrete silicon dioxide nanoparticles in a weight ratio of the first polymer to the discrete silicon dioxide nanoparticles of from 5:1 to 200:1.
Anand teaches a latex rubber composition [abstract] for use as a condom [Page 1 line 16] and notes use of silica to polymer in a range of overlapping the claimed ratio as this silica resulted in increased tear strength without detrimental effects on modulus and tensile properties [page 11 line 15-25]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of 548 and utilized 5:1 to 200:1 polymer to silica an overlapping range to the claimed range, as suggested by Anand, as this silica ratio had proven successful at increasing tear strength without detrimental effects on modulus and tensile properties. Moreover, Anand notes that too much silica detrimentally effects modulus and tensile properties but too little hurts tear strength [page 11 line 15-25]. It is well settled that the determination of the optimum value of a result effective variable, in this case wt ratio of polymer to silica, is within the skill of one practicing art, see MPEP § 2144.05 II. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the ratio to the exact value of 5:1 o 200:1, as suggested by Anand, in order to obtain desirable tear strength, modulus, and tensile properties.
Claim(s) 5 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (CN 113370548) referred to as 548 in view of Lazaro (Influence of the Production Process Conditions on the Specific Surface Area of Olivine Nano-Silicas).
As to claims 5 and 18, 548 does not explicitly state the discrete silicon dioxide nanoparticles have a BET surface area of at least 250 m2/g.
Lazaro teaches a “cheaper and greener” method of producing nanosilica [Abstract]. Lazaro notes both conventionally formed nanosilica [Table 1] and nanosilica made by his olivine method [Table 2] both having overlapping ranges with at least 250 m2/g [Table 1, 2] and that process parameters of making the nanosilica can be manipulated to result in a desired surface area [Conclusion, Abstract]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of 548 and utilized silica with surface area above 250 m2/g, as suggested by Lazaro, as surface area could be set to what was desired by the user, Lazaro’s method was “cheaper and greener”, and this surface area was conventional for nanosilica.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARMAND MELENDEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-0342. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM- 6 PM Monday-Friday.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/ARMAND MELENDEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights