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 .
Status of the application
This is a final rejection in response to the Applicant's remarks and amendment filed on 08/27/2026. Claims 1 and 7 are currently amended, claims 2-4 and 8-9 are previously presented, claims 5-6 are cancelled, and claim 10 is withdrawn. Accordingly claims 1-4 and 7-9 are examined herein.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN114685922 with English Machine Translation Attached - of record) in view of Mukherjee (US 2003/0175500 - of record), Yu (CN 117264243 with English Machine translation Attached - of record) and WANG (CN 120289867 with English Machine translation Attached - of record).
Regarding claim 1, Wang teaches a method for surface treatment of rubber-dipped gloves (Abstract), wherein a glove core (glove model) is taken out after being dipped in an itaconate rubber solution (see [0001-0002] and [0014-0016] of English Machine Translation Attached); and the glove is rinsed after being left to stand, and then dried after the rinsing is completed (see [0024], [0063], [0074], [0086], [0091], and [0096] of English Machine Translation Attached).
However, Wang does not explicitly teach the glove core is directly immersed into a water grinding surface treatment solution for surface treatment of the rubber surface, and the surface treated glove is rinsed after being left to stand, and then dried after the rinsing is completed.
In the same field of endeavor, methods of making a glove from natural or synthetic rubber , Mukherjee teaches a method of making a glove (see claim 1; [0014]), comprises dipping a former into a liquid comprising a coagulant; after dipping into the coagulant, leaching the gloves in water (which functionally equivalent to water treatment grinding surface) to remove rubber impurities (see [0025]) and the surface treated glove is rinsed after being left to stand, and then dried after the rinsing is completed see [0031-0032]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have glove core is directly after being dipped in the solution, immersed into a water grinding surface treatment solution for surface treatment of the rubber surface, and the surface treated glove is rinsed after being left to stand, and then dried after the rinsing is completed as such is known in the art of gloves manufacturing process given the discussion of Mukherjee above presenting a reasonable expectation of success; and doing so is applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results, with the added benefit of doing so allows for removing rubber impurities and to provide slip for easy donning, without the need for additional lubricant, (as recognized by Mukherjee at [0025] and [0029]).
Wang in view of Mukherjee further teaches wherein the water grinding surface treatment solution (coagulant solution) is formed by a metal inorganic salt and water (see [0020] and [0064] of English Machine Translation Attached of Wang). However, Wang does not explicitly teach that the water grinding surface treatment solution is formed by foaming a foaming agent and water through high-speed stirring.
In the same field of endeavor, gloves manufacturing process, Yu teaches a method for processing glove core by using aqueous PU foaming composite latex (Abstract), comprising a surface treatment step, wherein the surface treatment solution includes a foaming agent and water through high-speed stirring (see [0002], [0005], [0016] and [0020] of English Machine Translation Attached).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the method as taught by Wang in view of Yu with the water grinding surface treatment solution is formed by foaming a foaming agent and water through high-speed stirring as such is known in the art of gloves manufacturing process given the discussion of Yu above; and doing so is combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, with the added benefits of doing so would improves the durability and comfort of gloves by modifying existing water-based PU formulations, and enhances the grip of gloves by spraying salt to abrade the surface of the rubber compound (see [0004] of Yu).
Wang in view of Mukherjee and Yu further teaches, wherein a composition of the water grinding surface treatment solution is as follows, by weight percentage: 1 to 60% of the foaming agent, 0.1 to 10% of the metal inorganic salt, and the balance of the water (see [0020], [0029], [0050],[0080] and [0092] of English Machine Translation Attached of Yu).
Wang in view of Mukherjee and Yu does not teach wherein the foaming agent is one of azo compounds, nitroso compounds, fatty alcohol polyoxyethylene ether sodium sulfate, and rosin soap foaming agents.
In the same field of endeavor, gloves manufacturing process, Wang’867 teaches a preparation method of high-wearing high-finger sliding soft coating glove (Abstract), includes spraying a bio-based organic polymer material onto the surface of a glove core coated with impregnated latex, wherein the impregnated latex comprises a foaming agent selected from one of azo compounds, sulfonyl hydrazide, or nitroso compounds (see [0005] and [0009-0010] of English Machine Translation Attached).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the method as taught by Wang, Mukherjee and Yu in view of Wang’867 with wherein the foaming agent is one of azo compounds and nitroso compounds, foaming agents as such is known in the art of gloves manufacturing process given the discussion of Wang’867 above; and doing so is combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, with the added benefits of doing so would allow to obtain a highly abrasion-resistant, highly slip-resistant, and soft-coated glove (see [0005] of English Machine Translation Attached of Wang’867).
Regarding claim 2, Wang in view of Mukherjee, Yu and Wang’867 further teaches the method for surface treatment of rubber-dipped gloves, wherein the glove core is surface treated within 10 to 180 seconds after being dipped in the itaconate rubber solution, and the surface treatment time is 2 to 4 seconds (see [0022] ,[0065], [0076] and [0093] of English Machine Translation Attached of Wang; and [0032] of Mukherjee).
Regarding claim 3, Wang in view of Mukherjee, Yu and Wang’867 further teaches the method for surface treatment of rubber-dipped gloves, wherein the surface treated glove is left to stand for 3 to 10 minutes before being rinsed (see [0065], [0076], [0093] and [0098] of English Machine Translation Attached of Wang).
Regarding claim 4, Wang in view of Mukherjee, Yu and Wang’867 further teaches the method for surface treatment of rubber-dipped gloves, wherein the rinsing treatment is performed by directly flushing the rubber surface of the surface treated glove with water at 0 to 40C, and the rinsing treatment time is 10-120 seconds (see [0024], [0063], [0074] and [0091] of English Machine Translation Attached of Wang; and [0031- 0032] of Mukherjee).
Regarding claim 7, Wang in view of Mukherjee, Yu and Wang’867 further teaches the method for surface treatment of rubber-dipped gloves, wherein the metal inorganic salt is sodium sulfate or sodium chloride (see [0013] of English Machine Translation Attached of Yu).
Regarding claim 8, Wang in view of Mukherjee, Yu and Wang’867 further teaches the method for surface treatment of rubber-dipped gloves, wherein a temperature of the drying treatment is 50 to 90C, and a time of the drying treatment is 10 to 40 minutes (see [0024], [0063], [0074] and [0091] of English Machine Translation Attached of Wang).
Regarding claim 9, Wang in view of Mukherjee, Yu and Wang’867 further teaches the method for surface treatment of rubber-dipped gloves discloses except for wherein a rotation speed of the high-speed stirring is 550 to 1350 rpm/min. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a rotation speed of the high-speed stirring is 550 to 1350 rpm/min , since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to wherein a rotation speed of the high-speed stirring is 550 to 1350 rpm/min for the purpose of mixing the solution uniformly.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the foaming agent of Wang’867 are applied to the dipping latex used in the dipping and uniformizing steps (steps S4-S5), rather than to a surface treatment process (step S6), and that Wang’867 is therefore directed to a different process stage and purpose.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The rejection does not rely on Wang’867 to teach a surface treatment solution containing a foaming agent. That teaching is provided by Yu, which teaches a surface treatment solution compromising a foaming agent and water formed through high-speed stirring (Yu, [0002],[0005], [0016] and [0020] of English machine Translation attached). Wang’867 is relied upon only for the specific identity of the foaming agent, namely that azo compound and nitroso compounds are known foaming agents in glove manufacturing (wang’867, [0005] and [0009-0010]). Applicant’s arguments do not address the teaching of Yu, on which the rejection relies for the surface treatment solution containing foaming agent.
Furthermore, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Wang’867 need not teach using its foaming agent in a surface treatment step. It is sufficient that Wang’867 establishes azo compound as known foaming agent in the same field of endeavor, glove manufacturing. selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Applicant argues that the surface that the surface treatment process of wang’867 is the spraying a bio-based organic polymer material, such as albumin, onto the latex-coated glove core, and that this material not the claimed foaming agent.
In response, as noted above, the rejection does not rely on the spraying step of Wang’867 to teach the clamed surface treatment, the claimed step of directly immersing the dipped glove core into a surface treatment solution after dripping and uniformizing is taught by Wang in view of Mukherjee (Mukherjee, [0025],[0029] and [0031-0032]). The foamed composition of that solution is taught by Yu. How Wang’867’s own surface treatment step is characterized is therefore not material to the rejection, which relies on Wang’867 only to identify suitable foaming agent species.
Applicant argues that the combining references would, at most, place the foaming agents of Wang’867 in the dipping step rather the leaching/surface treatment step of Mukherjee. Applicant further argues that the function, operating environment, and chemical and physical interaction of a foaming agent used for internal gelation are entirely distinct from those in an external surface treatment solution.
In response, Examiner respectfully submits that the combination as articulated in the rejection does not transplant a foaming agent from the dipping latex of Wang’867 into the leaching step of Mukherjee. Rather, Yu already teaches that a surface treatment solution in glove manufacturing is formed by foaming a foaming agent and water through high-speed-stirring. The rejection then relies on Wang’867 to show that azo and nitroso compounds are known foaming agents in the glove manufacturing art. Substituting one known foaming agent for another to perform the same foaming function yields predictable results (Please see MPEP 2143 I B for further details).
Applicant’s assertation that the foaming agent’s function and chemical and physical interaction differ between the two environments is unsupported by evidence. Applicant has not identified any technical reason, or any teaching in the reference, showing that the claimed foaming agents would be inoperable or would fail to foam in the surface treatment solution of Yu. Arguments of counsel cannot take place of evidence in the record. See In re Budnick, 537 F.2d at 538, 190 USPQ at 424; and In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965).
In addition, amended claim 1 recites the foaming agent in the alternative. When a claim covers several compositions as alternative, the claim is unpatentable if any alternative within its scope is obvious over the prior art. See Brown v. 3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 1351, 60 USPQ2d 1375. MPEP 2131. Because the combination of Wang, Mukherjee, Yu and Wang’864 renders obvious the alternative azo compounds and nitroso compounds, amended claim 1 is unpatentable regardless of the remaining alternatives.
Applicant argues that the claimed treatment solution forms crater-like cells on the itaconate rubber layer, providing excellent wear resistance and strong strip, and that the process achieves energy conservation and emission reduction.
In response, several of these features, such as crater-like cells, energy conservation, and reduced carbon emission, are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of specification, the limitation from specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Furthermore, to the extent Applicant relies on these advantages as evidence of unexpected results, no objective evidence has been provided. Applicant bears the burden of establishing that results are unexpected and significant, by comparison with the closed prior arts MPEP § § 716.02(b), 716.02(e). Any showing must also be commensurate in scope with the claims MPEP § § 716.02(d), which here encompass four distinct classes of foaming agents and the full recited ranges. The statement in paragraph [0010] are not a comparative showing. Moreover, improved wear resistance and grip are the same benefits the prior art identifies as motivation for combination (Yu, [0004]; wang’867, [0005]). The fact that Applicant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be basis for patentability when difference would otherwise be obvious. MPEP § 2145 (II).
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 MOHAMED K AHMED ALI whose telephone number is (571)272-0347. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 AM-7:30 PM.
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, Galen Hauth can be reached at 571-270-5516. 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.
/MOHAMED K AHMED ALI/ Examiner, Art Unit 1743
/GALEN H HAUTH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights