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/Restriction
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-16, drawn to an elastomeric glove, classified in A41D 10/0055.
II. Claims 17-28, drawn to a method of making a multilayered elastomeric article, classified in B29C 41/22.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are related as process of making and product made. The inventions are distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) that the process as claimed can be used to make another and materially different product or (2) that the product as claimed can be made by another and materially different process (MPEP § 806.05(f)). In the instant case both scenarios apply: the process of group II claimed can be used to make another and materially different product and the product of group I can be made by another and materially different process; in that the limitations of group I and group II are not required by each other.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
Groups I and II are explicitly shown in different classification areas and as not requiring the same limitations establishing a clear search and examination burden.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Katie Lyddane on 7/15/2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-16. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 17-28 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 12 and 15 is 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 12 recites the limitations “the second material" and “the first material” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears applicant is attempting to refer to “the second elastomeric material” and “the first elastomeric material” which do have proper antecedent basis in the claim. The claim is examined with this interpretation.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the elastomeric article" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This claim is interpreted as any element that is elastomeric since no clear antecedent is present as there are multiple elastomeric layers claimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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) 1-8, and 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a(1) as being anticipated by US 11666106 (Robert et al.).
Regarding claim 1, ‘106 discloses: an elastomeric glove comprising [fig. 3 shows an elastomeric glove]: a first layer, wherein the first layer includes a first elastomeric material comprising nitrile rubber [100, figs. 2 and 3; par. 11 discloses element 100 which is a underguard/“first layer” when worn as a double glove and 100 is explicitly disclosed as comprising nitrile rubber in pars. 8 and 9]; and a second layer [202, fig. 3; par. 11 discloses 202 a “second layer” of a double glove and 202 is explicitly disclosed as another layer of element 100 but with a different color so it is also comprises nitrile rubber], wherein the second layer defines a reinforcement layer of the glove [202 being an additional layer inherently functions as a ‘reinforcing’ functional layer] and includes a second elastomeric material comprising nitrile rubber [already noted above both layers are made from nitrile rubber; par. 11], wherein the glove includes a reinforced portion including the first layer and the second layer [as noted above the double layered portion is inherently a ‘reinforced portion’ as two layers are inherently ‘reinforced’ with respect to a single, un-reinforced layer], and a non-reinforced portion that is free of the second layer [par. 11 states, “a second glove 202 may have different dimensions (e.g., a shorter cuff region 106) than the first inner glove 100.”; a shorter cuff region is ‘non-reinforced’ and only includes the underguard/first layer 100], wherein the glove includes a finger region, a palm region, and a cuff region [explicitly shown in figs 2 and 3], wherein the non-reinforced portion is spaced apart from the finger region [the non-reinforced portion is the cuff region which is inherently and explicitly spaced apart from the finger region; figs. 2 and 3]. It is noted that the layers noted above, 100 and 202, can be considered to be either of the first or second layer as claim 1 has no limitation stating the locations of the first and second layers. The underguard inner layer 100 can be considered as first layer and it can also be considered as the second layer, if and when the outer layer 202 is considered to be the first layer and vice versa.
Regarding claim 2, ‘106 discloses: the finger region is comprised of the reinforced portion [fig. 3, the only region that is not doubled/reinforced is the cuff region per disclosure of cuff region of second layer being shorter than the first layer].
Regarding claim 3, ‘106 discloses: the glove comprises a donning side and a grip side opposite the donning side, and the second layer is disposed on the grip side of the glove [“The glove 100 has an inner donning surface 110 and an outer grip surface 120. The inner donning surface 110 is configured to contact the wearer's skin and is made to be smooth and silky to reduce friction when donning the glove 100 on the wearer's hand. The outer grip surface 120 of the glove 100 of the present invention is configured to be exposed away from the wearer and typically has an enhanced gripping texture compared to the donning surface 110. However, the grip surface 120 is made sufficiently smooth through a friction treatment (described in detail below) to reduce friction when donning a second glove (see, e.g., FIGS. 2-3) over the glove 100 (par. 10; detailed description).”; both layers of the double glove configuration have inner donning surface and an opposing grip surface, when second layer 202 is donned it is ‘disposed on the grip side’ of underguard/first layer 100].
Regarding claim 4, ‘106 discloses: the glove comprises a donning side and a grip side opposite the donning side, and the second layer is disposed on the donning side of the glove [as noted above the respective layers of the two layers of the double glove configuration can each be referred to as first layer and the other layer as the second layer; and vice versa. As noted above each layer of the double glove has a donning inner and gripping outer layer].
Regarding claim 5, ‘106 discloses: a thickness of the finger region is greater than a thickness of the cuff region [As noted above, the double glove configuration includes an outer layer that is a shorter dimension than the inner layer in the cuff region. Therefore all regions, including the finger region of the double glove except for the cuff are doubled in thickness while the cuff thickness is the thickness of a single layer].
Regarding claim 6, ‘106 discloses: the finger region has a thickness in a range from about 0.1 mm to about 0.50 mm [the single layer 100 is disclosed as having middle finger thickness .08-.16mm; therefore the total finger region thickness is .16-.32mm; .32mm is a datapoint within the claimed range disclosing claim 6].
Regarding claim 7, ‘106 discloses: the cuff region has a thickness in a range from about 0.05 mm to about 0.40 mm [the cuff region is single layer of element 100 which is disclosed as having cuff thickness .04-.10mm; .10mm is a data point within the claimed range disclosing claim 7].
Regarding claim 8, ‘106 discloses: the first elastomeric material and the second elastomeric material are distinct [layers 100 and 202 are ‘distinct’ in various ways; par. 11 discloses 100 and 202 as having different, i.e. distinct, colors].
Regarding claim 13, ‘106 discloses: the reinforced portion has a higher tensile strength than the non-reinforced portion [the double glove configuration includes doubled/reinforced portions that inherently have higher tensile strength than single layer non-reinforced portions].
Regarding claim 14, ‘106 discloses: the reinforced portion has higher puncture resistance than the non-reinforced portion [the double glove configuration includes doubled/reinforced portions that inherently have higher tensile strength than single layer non-reinforced portions].
Regarding claim 15, ‘106 discloses: a breach of the reinforced section exposes a distinct colored pigment of the first layer or the second layer to facilitate detection of the breach [fig. 3 and par. 11 disclose a breach 210 where the different color pigment of one layer showing as it is different color than the other layer].
Regarding claim 16, ‘106 discloses: the elastomeric article is reversible [nothing precludes either of layers 100 of the doubled glove configuration from being ‘reversed’; in fact par. 64 discloses during manufacture the glove is inverted/reversed to and from an inside out to normal configuration].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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(s) 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 11666106 (Robert et al.).
Regarding claim 9, ‘106 does disclose element 100 which makes up both layers of the double glove construction as comprising acrylonitrile in par. 26, detailed description.
‘106 does not disclose: the first elastomeric material and the second elastomeric material comprise unequal content of acrylonitrile by weight.
However, ‘106 does teach, “Carboxylated nitrile, which is a terpolymer of butadiene, acrylonitrile, and organic acid monomers, has at least two properties that make it useful for manufacturing elastomeric articles. These two features are high strength and impermeability to certain hydrocarbon solvents and oils. Compounding and curing the rubber with other ingredients such as curing agents, accelerators, and activators is generally performed to optimize these properties. The level of each monomer in the polymer and the level of curing can affect the levels of strength and the chemical resistance in the finished article. Polymers with higher levels of acrylonitrile tend to have better resistance to aliphatic oils and solvents, but are also stiffer than polymers that have lower levels of acrylonitrile. While the chemical nature of the monomers from which the polymer is made offers some degree of chemical resistance, when the polymer molecules are chemically crosslinked, resistance to chemical swelling, permeation, and dissolution greatly increase.
The base polymer employed in the nitrile rubber can be a random terpolymer composition containing acrylonitrile, butadiene, and carboxylic acid components. It is believed that the particular advantageous properties of the present soft nitrile rubber materials can be due in part to the nature and interaction of a blend of acrylonitrile components in the composition. The blend can include two—a first and a second—acrylonitrile formulations in a compositional ratio ranging, respectively, from about 60:40 to 40:60. The orientation or placement of carboxyl groups on the nitrile polymer molecules—either outside or inside—can affect the reactivity of the carboxyl groups with zinc ions; hence, it is believed that some components exhibit softer, lower modulus properties and some components have good film forming properties.
The acrylonitrile content of the blended or combined terpolymer composition can range from about 17% by weight to about 45% by weight, such as from about 20% by weight to about 40% by weight, such as from about 20% by weight to about 35% by weight. In one embodiment, for instance, the acrylonitrile content can be between about 22% by weight and about 28% by weight, the methacrylic acid content can be less than about 10% by weight, and the remainder of the polymer can be butadiene. The methacrylic acid content should be less than about 15% by weight, preferably about 10% by weight, with butadiene making up the remainder balance of the polymer. The base terpolymer is made through a process of emulsion polymerization, and can be used while still in emulsion form to manufacture gloves or other elastomeric articles [pars. 25-27].”.
This teaching explicitly acknowledges that the prior art fully recognizes the amount of acrylonitrile in the composition as an optimizable variable. Specifically, the recitation, “Polymers with higher levels of acrylonitrile tend to have better resistance to aliphatic oils and solvents, but are also stiffer than polymers that have lower levels of acrylonitrile.”; and “It is believed that the particular advantageous properties of the present soft nitrile rubber materials can be due in part to the nature and interaction of a blend of acrylonitrile components in the composition. The blend can include two—a first and a second—acrylonitrile formulations in a compositional ratio ranging, respectively, from about 60:40 to 40:60. The orientation or placement of carboxyl groups on the nitrile polymer molecules—either outside or inside—can affect the reactivity of the carboxyl groups with zinc ions; hence, it is believed that some components exhibit softer, lower modulus properties and some components have good film forming properties.”; is clear that it is known in the art of polymer science that nitrile rubber compositions with higher levels of acrylonitrile have better resistance to aliphatic oils and solvents and are stiffer than compositions with lower levels of acrylonitrile.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing the invention to modify the polymer composition of nitrile rubber in each of the two glove layers to include specific/different amounts of acrylonitrile in each glove layer to provide the optimum amount of acrylonitrile in each of the two layers with a specific/different level of aliphatic oils/solvents resistance and stiffness, as desired, for the specific performance requirements of each of the two glove layers. For instance, an inner glove layer would not need the highest level of aliphatic oils/solvents resistance that would be desired for an outer glove layer, so they would be wholly expected to have different optimal levels of acrylonitrile in the polymer composition of the layers.
Regarding claim 10, ‘106 does ‘106 does disclose element 100 which makes up both layers of the double glove construction as comprising acrylonitrile in par. 26, detailed description.
‘106 does not disclose: the second elastomeric material comprises a higher acrylonitrile content by weight than the first elastomeric material.
However, ‘106 does teach, “Carboxylated nitrile, which is a terpolymer of butadiene, acrylonitrile, and organic acid monomers, has at least two properties that make it useful for manufacturing elastomeric articles. These two features are high strength and impermeability to certain hydrocarbon solvents and oils. Compounding and curing the rubber with other ingredients such as curing agents, accelerators, and activators is generally performed to optimize these properties. The level of each monomer in the polymer and the level of curing can affect the levels of strength and the chemical resistance in the finished article. Polymers with higher levels of acrylonitrile tend to have better resistance to aliphatic oils and solvents, but are also stiffer than polymers that have lower levels of acrylonitrile. While the chemical nature of the monomers from which the polymer is made offers some degree of chemical resistance, when the polymer molecules are chemically crosslinked, resistance to chemical swelling, permeation, and dissolution greatly increase.
The base polymer employed in the nitrile rubber can be a random terpolymer composition containing acrylonitrile, butadiene, and carboxylic acid components. It is believed that the particular advantageous properties of the present soft nitrile rubber materials can be due in part to the nature and interaction of a blend of acrylonitrile components in the composition. The blend can include two—a first and a second—acrylonitrile formulations in a compositional ratio ranging, respectively, from about 60:40 to 40:60. The orientation or placement of carboxyl groups on the nitrile polymer molecules—either outside or inside—can affect the reactivity of the carboxyl groups with zinc ions; hence, it is believed that some components exhibit softer, lower modulus properties and some components have good film forming properties.
The acrylonitrile content of the blended or combined terpolymer composition can range from about 17% by weight to about 45% by weight, such as from about 20% by weight to about 40% by weight, such as from about 20% by weight to about 35% by weight. In one embodiment, for instance, the acrylonitrile content can be between about 22% by weight and about 28% by weight, the methacrylic acid content can be less than about 10% by weight, and the remainder of the polymer can be butadiene. The methacrylic acid content should be less than about 15% by weight, preferably about 10% by weight, with butadiene making up the remainder balance of the polymer. The base terpolymer is made through a process of emulsion polymerization, and can be used while still in emulsion form to manufacture gloves or other elastomeric articles [pars. 25-27].”.
This teaching explicitly acknowledges that the prior art fully recognizes the amount of acrylonitrile in the composition as an optimizable variable. Specifically, the recitation, “Polymers with higher levels of acrylonitrile tend to have better resistance to aliphatic oils and solvents, but are also stiffer than polymers that have lower levels of acrylonitrile.”; and “It is believed that the particular advantageous properties of the present soft nitrile rubber materials can be due in part to the nature and interaction of a blend of acrylonitrile components in the composition. The blend can include two—a first and a second—acrylonitrile formulations in a compositional ratio ranging, respectively, from about 60:40 to 40:60. The orientation or placement of carboxyl groups on the nitrile polymer molecules—either outside or inside—can affect the reactivity of the carboxyl groups with zinc ions; hence, it is believed that some components exhibit softer, lower modulus properties and some components have good film forming properties.”; is clear that it is known in the art of polymer science that nitrile rubber compositions with higher levels of acrylonitrile have better resistance to aliphatic oils and solvents and are stiffer than compositions with lower levels of acrylonitrile.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing the invention to modify the polymer composition of nitrile rubber in each of the two glove layers to include specific/different amounts of acrylonitrile in each glove layer to provide the optimum amount of acrylonitrile in each of the two layers with a specific/different level of aliphatic oils/solvents resistance and stiffness, as desired, for the specific performance requirements of each of the two glove layers. For instance, an inner glove layer would not need the highest level of aliphatic oils/solvents resistance that would be desired for an outer glove layer, so they would be wholly expected to have different optimal levels of acrylonitrile in the polymer composition of the layers.
Regarding claim 11, ‘106 does disclose element 100 which makes up both layers of the double glove construction as comprising acrylonitrile in par. 26, detailed description.
‘106 does not disclose: the acrylonitrile content of the second elastomeric material is in a range from about 30 wt. % to about 60 wt. %..
However, ‘106 does teach, “Carboxylated nitrile, which is a terpolymer of butadiene, acrylonitrile, and organic acid monomers, has at least two properties that make it useful for manufacturing elastomeric articles. These two features are high strength and impermeability to certain hydrocarbon solvents and oils. Compounding and curing the rubber with other ingredients such as curing agents, accelerators, and activators is generally performed to optimize these properties. The level of each monomer in the polymer and the level of curing can affect the levels of strength and the chemical resistance in the finished article. Polymers with higher levels of acrylonitrile tend to have better resistance to aliphatic oils and solvents, but are also stiffer than polymers that have lower levels of acrylonitrile. While the chemical nature of the monomers from which the polymer is made offers some degree of chemical resistance, when the polymer molecules are chemically crosslinked, resistance to chemical swelling, permeation, and dissolution greatly increase.
The base polymer employed in the nitrile rubber can be a random terpolymer composition containing acrylonitrile, butadiene, and carboxylic acid components. It is believed that the particular advantageous properties of the present soft nitrile rubber materials can be due in part to the nature and interaction of a blend of acrylonitrile components in the composition. The blend can include two—a first and a second—acrylonitrile formulations in a compositional ratio ranging, respectively, from about 60:40 to 40:60. The orientation or placement of carboxyl groups on the nitrile polymer molecules—either outside or inside—can affect the reactivity of the carboxyl groups with zinc ions; hence, it is believed that some components exhibit softer, lower modulus properties and some components have good film forming properties.
The acrylonitrile content of the blended or combined terpolymer composition can range from about 17% by weight to about 45% by weight, such as from about 20% by weight to about 40% by weight, such as from about 20% by weight to about 35% by weight. In one embodiment, for instance, the acrylonitrile content can be between about 22% by weight and about 28% by weight, the methacrylic acid content can be less than about 10% by weight, and the remainder of the polymer can be butadiene. The methacrylic acid content should be less than about 15% by weight, preferably about 10% by weight, with butadiene making up the remainder balance of the polymer. The base terpolymer is made through a process of emulsion polymerization, and can be used while still in emulsion form to manufacture gloves or other elastomeric articles [pars. 25-27].”.
This teaching explicitly acknowledges that the prior art fully recognizes the amount of acrylonitrile in the composition as an optimizable variable. Specifically, the recitation, “Polymers with higher levels of acrylonitrile tend to have better resistance to aliphatic oils and solvents, but are also stiffer than polymers that have lower levels of acrylonitrile.”; and “It is believed that the particular advantageous properties of the present soft nitrile rubber materials can be due in part to the nature and interaction of a blend of acrylonitrile components in the composition. The blend can include two—a first and a second—acrylonitrile formulations in a compositional ratio ranging, respectively, from about 60:40 to 40:60. The orientation or placement of carboxyl groups on the nitrile polymer molecules—either outside or inside—can affect the reactivity of the carboxyl groups with zinc ions; hence, it is believed that some components exhibit softer, lower modulus properties and some components have good film forming properties.”; is clear that it is known in the art of polymer science that nitrile rubber compositions with higher levels of acrylonitrile have better resistance to aliphatic oils and solvents and are stiffer than compositions with lower levels of acrylonitrile.
Further, the explicit disclosed range of acrylonitrile in the recitation above is “from about 17% by weight to about 45% by weight”. The datapoint “about 45% by weight” is a datapoint within the claimed range disclosing the range and at the very least providing clear prima facie obviousness as MPEP 2144.05 is explicitly clear:
“In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In reWertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In reWoodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of “50 to 100 Angstroms” considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that “for suitable protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms].” The court stated that “by stating that ‘suitable protection’ is provided if the protective layer is ‘about’ 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a thickness within [applicant’s] claimed range.”). See also In re Bergen, 120 F.2d 329, 332, 49 USPQ 749, 751-52 (CCPA 1941) (The court found that the overlapping endpoint of the prior art and claimed range was sufficient to support an obviousness rejection, particularly when there was no showing of criticality of the claimed range).”.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing the invention to modify the polymer composition of nitrile rubber in any of the glove layers to include specific amounts of acrylonitrile in each glove layer to provide the optimum amount of acrylonitrile in either of the layers with a specific/different level of aliphatic oils/solvents resistance and stiffness, as desired, for the specific performance requirements of either of the layers.
Regarding claim 12, ‘106 does not disclose the second material having a higher modulus of elasticity than the first material.
However, ‘106 does teach, “Further, the nitrile rubber formulation that can be used in one or more layers of the elastomeric glove of the present invention can be chemically crosslinked to enhance the elasticity, strength, and chemical resistance of the nitrile rubber formulation. Crosslinking can be accomplished in at least two ways: the butadiene subunits can be covalently crosslinked with sulfur and accelerators, while the carboxylated (organic acid) sites can be ionically crosslinked with metal oxides or salts. Ionic crosslinks, resulting from, for example, the addition of a metal oxide, such as zinc oxide, to the nitrile rubber formulation, can result in a nitrile rubber formulation having high tensile strength, puncture resistance, and abrasion resistance, as well as high elastic modulus (a measure of the force required to stretch a film of the rubber), but poor oil and chemical resistance, which is why a sulfur crosslinking agent can be added to the nitrile rubber formulation, as discussed in more detail below [par. 36, description].”.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing the invention to modify one of the layers of the double glove construction of ‘106 to have crosslinked internal chemical structure to provide the modified layer to have a higher elastic modulus to enhance the elasticity of the layer as desired.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20100229282 A1; US 20180312671 A1; US 20200170320 A1; US 6031042 A; US 10479874 B1; US 4851266 A; US 20080190322 A1; are the most similar relevant prior art in the attached PTO-892. They all disclose elastomeric gloves formed with nitrile rubber polymer layers. The applicant is urged to use teachings and readings from these and other attached references, as well as, from any other sources to attempt to form claim amendments and/or arguments that move the prosecution of this application to patentability rather than just to overcome the cited rejections above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT H MUROMOTO JR whose telephone number is (571)272-4991. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 730-1730.
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, Alissa Tompkins can be reached at 571-272-3425. 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.
/ROBERT H MUROMOTO JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights