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 .
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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-12 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-10 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 “from 0 wt% to greater than or equal to about 45% nitrile rubber”. For purposes of examination, this limitation will be read as “from 0 wt% to less than or equal to about 45 wt% nitrile rubber”.
Claims 2-10 are rejected as being dependent on indefinite claim 1.
Claim 7 recites an acronym without setting for what it stands for.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 5, and 9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,127,612. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the reference patent recites all the limitations of claims 1, 5, and 9.
Claims 1, 5, and 9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,127,612. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the reference patent recites all the limitations of claims 1, 5, and 9.
Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,127,612. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1 and 7 of the reference patent recites all the limitations of claim 2.
Claim 3 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,127,612. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1 and 8 of the reference patent recites all the limitations of claim 3.
Claims 4 and 10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,127,612. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1 and 9 of the reference patent recites all the limitations of claims 4 and 10.
Claim 7 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,127,612. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1 and 13 of the reference patent recites all the limitations of claim 7.
Claim 8 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,127,612. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1 and 18 of the reference patent recites all the limitations of claim 8.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11 and 12 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art is U.S. Pre-grant Publication 2022/0135776 to Modha et al. (herein Modha) and U.S. Pre-grant Publication 2022/0016322 to Treilhes et al. (herein Treilhes).
Modha teaches an elastomeric article such as a glove formed from a blend of nitrile rubber and a polychloroprene rubber that is free of accelerators (abstract). Modha teaches that the glove has a aged tensile strength of 25 to 35 MPa (paragraph 0039). However, Modha teaches that the blend of nitrile rubber and polychloroprene contains 5 to 50 parts of polychloroprene per 100 parts of nitrile/chloroprene blend (paragraph 0057) which is less than the claimed amount of chloroprene. Furthermore, Modha does not teach that the glove contains a second layer comprising nitrile rubber.
Treilhes teaches a multilayer glove formed from a layer of a styrene block copolymer composition and a layer of one or more synthetic elastomers such as polychloroprene and nitrile rubber (abstract). Table 1 of Treilhes shows that the one or more synthetic elastomers can be a blend of 70/30 chloroprene/nitrile rubber. Treilhes does not teach that the styrene block copolymer-containing layer can contain greater than or equal to 90 wt% nitrile rubber.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY M DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-6957. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-4:30, off 2nd 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, Maria V Ewald can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
/ZACHARY M DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights