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 .
Response to Amendment
The new grounds of rejection set forth below are necessitated by applicant’s amendment filed on November 25, 2025. In particular, claim 1 which has been amended to further limit the type of fluororubber. This combination of limitations was not present at the time of the previous office action. Thus, the following action is properly made final.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komatsu et al (WO 2018/225789, please refer to US 2020/0115512 for English language equivalent) in view of Hata et al (US 2014/0221533) and Tsuji et al (US 2017/0152924) with evidence provided by Yano et al (US 2013/0217816).
Regarding claims 1 and 8, Komatsu teaches a crosslinked rubber material (Abstract) made from a fluororubber such as a vinylidene fluoride-based rubber ([0035]) such as GBL600S (Examples). GBL600S, as evidenced by Yano, is a copolymer of vinylidene fluoride, hexafluoropropylene and tetrafluoroethylene (Table 1). Komatsu teaches that carbon nanotubes can be added to the composition ([0038]) in the amount ranging from 0.4 to 10 parts by mass based on 100 parts by mass of the fluororubber ([0051]).
However, Komatsu fails to teach a) that the composition further incorporates carbon fiber and b) that the rubber composition is in the form of a transmission sealing member.
Regarding a) above, it is noted that Komatsu teaches that the rubber composition is open to additives ([0067]) and Hata teaches a fluororubber composition (Abstract) which incorporates carbon nanotubes and carbon fibers. The carbon fibers are present in the amount of 10 to 60 % by weight based on the entire composite material ([0077]). Given this teaching, the amount of the carbon fiber would overlap the recited claimed range. For example a composition with 100 parts of fluororubber, 4 parts by weight of carbon nanotubes and 15 parts by weight of carbon fiber would have 12% by weight of carbon fiber based on the entire composite material.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the rubber composition of Komatsu incorporate the carbon fibers of Hata. One would have been motivated to do so in order to receive the expected benefit of having a material with excellent uniformity, high thermal conductivity and acts as a thermal conductor (Hata, [0009]).
Regarding b) above, it is noted that Komatsu teaches that the composition is appropriate for use as a sealing member in a high temperature and high-pressure environment (Abstract).
Tsuji teaches a seal member in a continuously variable transmission vehicle pulley (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the seal material of Komatsu be the seal member in the vehicle pully of Tsuji. One would have been motivated to do so in order to receive the expected benefit of using a material which is a seal material and can withstand high temperature and pressures (Komatsu, Abstract).
Regarding claims 3 and 10, Komatsu teaches that the carbon nanotubes have an average diameter of 1 to 60 nm ([0041)], an average length of 1 to 600 microns ([0043]) and a BET surface area of 200-2,000 m2/g ([0045]).
Claim(s) 2, 9 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komatsu et al (WO 2018/225789, please refer to US 2020/0115512 for English language equivalent) in view of Hata et al (US 2014/0221533), Tsuji et al (US 2017/0152924) and Matsumura et al (JP 2000-103918, please see machine translation for English language and mapping) with evidence provided by Yano et al (US 2013/0217816).
The discussion regarding Komatsu, Hata, Tsuji and Yano in paragraph 3 above is incorporated here by reference.
Regarding claims 2, 9 and 11, modified Komatsu teaches that the carbon fiber has a diameter of 1 to 50 microns ([0074]) and a fiber length of 100 microns or more (Hata, [0076]).
However, it fails to teach that the carbon fiber has the recited Mohs hardness.
Matsumura teaches that conventionally used carbon fibers have a Mohs hardness of between 5 and 6 (page 3).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have the carbon fibers of modified Komatsu have the Mohs hardness as recited by Matsumura. It would have been nothing more than having a carbon fiber with a conventional Mohs hardness to achieve predictable results. KSR v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. _, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komatsu et al (WO 2018/225789, please refer to US 2020/0115512 for English language equivalent) in view of Hata et al (US 2014/0221533), Tsuji et al (US 2017/0152924) and Stevens (US 2011/0274861) with evidence provided by Yano et al (US 2013/0217816).
The discussion regarding Komatsu, Hata, Tsuji and Yano in paragraph 3 above is incorporated here by reference.
Regarding claim 4, modified Komatsu fails to teach the presence of PTFE.
Stevens teaches a sealing material ([0012]) comprising a cured (crosslinked) fluororubber component (Abstract) and 10-110 parts by weight of polytetrafluoroethylene (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the polytetrafluoroethylene of Stevens into the composition of modified Komatsu. One would have been motivated to do so in order to receive the expected benefit of improving the components resistance to harsh chemicals (Stevens, [0008]) and lowering fuel permeation (Stevens, Examples).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 25, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the reasons set forth below:
Applicant’s argument: Morikawa does not disclose or suggest that its composition should or could comprise the fluororubbers recited in claim 1.
Examiner’s response: Morikawa is no longer used in the above prior art rejection, Komatsu is now used to teach the recited fluororubbers.
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 DORIS L LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-3872. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am - 5 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, Arrie Lanee Reuther can be reached at 571-270-7026. 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.
DORIS L. LEE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1764
/DORIS L LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764