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 .
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.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chou et al. (US 2008/0034467), in view of Takeuchi (JP-2004156155-A).
Regarding claims 1 and 6
Chou discloses a disposable glove made of a superabsorbent polymer (i.e., SAP) (abstract and claim 1).
The glove of Chou has a glove body with a lower enclosed opening defining an internal glove cavity spatially coupled to the lower encloses opening and including a plurality of independently offset finger channels (see Figure 1).
Chou discloses that the SAP may be polyvinyl acetate (claim 2).
Chou discloses that SAP may be present in an amount of 80 to 90 wt % (claim 4).
Chou discloses that glycerin may be included in the composition (para 0042), but does not teach the amount. However, Takeuchi discloses that is a disposable glove that glycerin may be added as a plasticizer (para 0040), and that the plasticizer may be used in amounts of especially 5 to 30 parts by weight (para 0051). Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add to the teachings of Chou by using glycerin in an amount of 5 to 30 parts by weight, with a reasonable expectation of success, as suggested by Takeuchi.
As the amount of polyvinyl acetate and glycerin of the references overlaps the claimed amount, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have selected the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 U.S.P.Q. 549.
Chou discloses that the gloves have two layers, with the inner layer reading on the claimed glove, and teaching that the glove can have an overall thickness of 0.2 mm, and that the inner layer can be 10 percent of the thickness (i.e., 0.2 mm), and further teaches that the glove can be at a thickness selected for an intended application, making the selection of thickness obvious if not anticipated.
Regarding claim 2
Chou discloses an enclosed little finger channel, an enclosed ring finger channel, an enclosed middle finger channel, an enclosed index finger channel, and an enclosed thumb channel (see figure 1).
Regarding claim 3
Translucent is a property of the composition, and as the reference(s) read on the claimed composition, and when the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention but has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP § § 2112- 2112.02.
Regarding claims 4, 10-11 and 13
Chou does not require 8 % or more of additives.
It is noted that the 80 % of the reference is seen to read on or make obvious the limitation of “approximately” 78 %, as the term approximately allows for some leeway.
Chou discloses soaking the gloves in water and getting 6.3%, 7.1 % and 6.4 % water (Table 1, SAP dispersion latex glove example 1, 2 and 3).
Regarding claims 5 and 12
The melting point is a property of the composition, and as the reference(s) read on the claimed composition, and when the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention but has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP § § 2112- 2112.02.
Regarding claims 7 and 14
The decomposition temperature is a property of the composition, and as the reference(s) read on the claimed composition, and when the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention but has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP § § 2112- 2112.02.
Regarding claims 8 and 15
Chou discloses a pH of 4.5 to 6 (claim 10).
As the pH of Chou overlaps the claimed amount, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have selected the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 U.S.P.Q. 549.
Regarding claims 9 and 16
The specific weight is a property of the composition, and as the reference(s) read on the claimed composition, and when the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention but has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP § § 2112- 2112.02.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES E MCDONOUGH whose telephone number is (571)272-6398. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10-10.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at 5712721177. 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.
JAMES E. MCDONOUGH
Examiner
Art Unit 1734
/JAMES E MCDONOUGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734