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 1-19 is acknowledged.
Claim 20 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 7/21/26.
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) 1-2, 4-5, 17, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sisson (GB 1340065).
Claims 1, 4:
Sisson teaches a method for dip molding articles by:
1) dipping a shaped former into a bath of resin or resin composition (specifically a plastisol, which is a dispersion of polymer particles in plasticizer) (1:30, 51),
2) immersing the coated former in a fluidized bed of a particulate fusible material (specifically polymer particles) (1:35, 80),
3) withdrawing from the fluidized bed (2:95), and
4) heating to fuse the polymer particles thereby forming the plasticized polymer film on the former (1:39-45).
Claim 2:
The dip molding process on a former forms an article in the shape of the former, and the formed molding is allowed to cool to handleable temperature such as 30-40 °C (2:99).
Claim 5:
The coated plastisol is caused to partially gel due to the thermoplastic resin in the plastisol and is in this form at the ambient temperature of the process (2:10-25, 85).
Claims 17, 19:
The polymer particles are PVC in a particle size of 63 microns (2:90).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sisson (GB 1340065).
Sisson does not specify the wt% of the first layer relative to the final article. However, Sisson does teach the former is in contact with the plasticizer and also the particles for sufficient time to coat the former (1:26-46). In this respect, the relative amount of material for each step would have been obvious through routine optimization where the first coating of plasticizer must provide sufficient adhesion for the subsequent particles and the second coating of particles must provide sufficient matt surface effect.
Claim(s) 3, 6, 10-12, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sisson (GB 1340065) in view of Hamann (US2012/0309852 A1).
Claim 3:
Sisson is discussed above, but does not teach the particular article made. However, Hamann teaches that gloves, condoms, catheters and the like are made using the dip forming technique (abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to practice the method of Sisson where the formed article is a glove, etc. because Hamann teaches the dip forming method is suitable for this purpose.
Claims 6, 10-12, 18:
Hamann features an all-in-one approach where all the components are mixed to form a hydrosol (Fig. 2), but establishes the components for dip molding including a cross-linking agent [0024], a hydrolytic stabilizer for PLA (Id.), and amorphous PLA [0005; 0019] as well as prior known elastomers of styrenic block copolymers [0009].
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sisson (GB 1340065) in view of McGary (US 4463156).
Sisson is discussed above, but does not teach additives in the fluidized bed. However, McGary teaches a similar process, again applied to dip forming gloves, where pigments are included in the fluidized bed to be co-deposited with the polymer particles (9:48-54). At least zinc oxide is well known as one of the most common and conventional white pigments. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to practice the method of Sisson and include zinc oxide in the fluidized bed in order to impart a white color to the resulting glove because McGary establishes it is suitable to add white pigment (titania) to the fluidized bed.
Claim(s) 7-9, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sisson (GB 1340065) in view of Hamann (US2012/0309852 A1) in view of Kitora (US 2012/0108720 A1) and Vanheule (US 2016/0312003 A1).
Although the prior art cited above teaches the broad categories of compositions for the various additives, the specific compositions are not recited.
However, Kitora teaches a PLA composition for forming a molded article that includes a carbodiimide as a hydrolytic stabilizer [0052] and dicumyl peroxide as a crosslinker [0037]. The crosslinker is provided in a minor amount that is optimized for sufficient crosslinking and economic efficiency [0038].
Similarly, Vanheule teaches plasticizers for PLA including DBEEA [0007; 0084].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use these recited compounds for their specified purpose in a prior art process calling for these additive components.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX A ROLLAND whose telephone number is (571)270-5355. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6:30.
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 5712721234. 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.
/ALEX A ROLLAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights