DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-3 are currently pending. New claim 3 has been added. The amended claim 1 does not overcome the previously stated 103 rejection. Therefore, upon further consideration, claims 1-3 are rejected under the following 103 rejection.
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tadanai et al (JP 201509990 A) in view of Guichard et al (US 2023/0295428), and further in view of Hasegawa et al (US 2010/0280163).
Regarding claims 1-3, Tadanai et al discloses a battery pack “10” (storage battery) comprising: an exterior case “11” (container); a plurality of battery modules “13” (cells) housed in the exterior case; a heat sink “15” (heat insulating plate) that separates the battery modules from each other; and a member such as silicone resin which seals a gap between the exterior case and the heat sink ([0019]-[0021],[0046] and Fig. 8).
However, Tadanai et al does not expressly teach a storage battery sealing member comprising a vulcanized rubber composition, wherein the rubber composition contains a silicone rubber and a vulcanizing agent, a content of the silicone rubber in the rubber composition that is 50% by mass or more, the vulcanizing agent contains organic peroxide, a hardness Ha of the sealing member measured by a durometer type A at 23°C and a relative humidity of 50%, is 54 points or more and 74 points or less (claim 1).
Guichard et al discloses a crosslinkable silicone elastomer composition (rubber composition) that contains a polyorganosiloxane (silicone rubber) and a crosslinking catalyst C that is an organic peroxide that acts as a vulcanizing agent, wherein the silicone elastomer composition has a Hardness Shore A that is 55-59 points ([0054]-[0059]-[0039],[0145]-[0148] and Table 1, Ex. 1-6); wherein the crosslinkable silicone elastomer composition comprises 60 and 80 wt% of at least one polyorganosiloxane (silicone rubber) ([0159]). Examiner’s note: Guichard et al is analogous art because it solves the same problem of improving the heat resistance of the silicone elastomer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the Tadanai silicone resin member to include a vulcanized rubber composition, wherein the rubber composition contains a silicone rubber and a vulcanizing agent, a content of the silicone rubber in the rubber composition that is 60% to 80% by mass, the vulcanizing agent contains organic peroxide and a hardness Ha of the sealing member measured by a durometer type A at 23°C and a relative humidity of 50%, that is 55-59 points in order to make it possible to obtain a silicone elastomer having good mechanical properties and heat resistance, whose crosslinking kinetics is not slowed down ([0016]).
However, Tadanai et al as modified by Guichard et al does not expressly teach a compression set of the sealing member, measured after 25% compression followed by aging at 150°C for 70 hours in accordance with HS K6262, that is 80% or less, a hardness Hb of the sealing member measured by the durometer type A at 23°C and the relative humidity of 50% after heated at 400°C for 10 minutes that is 3-15 points smaller than the hardness Ha of the sealing member measured by the durometer type A at 23°C and the relative humidity of 50% (claim 1); a hardness Hb of the sealing member measured by the durometer type A at 23°C and the relative humidity of 50% after heated at 400°C for 10 minutes that is 3-12 points smaller than the hardness Ha of the sealing member measured by the durometer type A at 23°C and the relative humidity of 50% (claim 3).
Hasegawa et al discloses a silicone rubber composition having a change of hardness = hardness after ageing – hardness prior to ageing that is -2, and a compression set, measured after 25% compression at 180°C for 22 hours, that is 7% or 8% ([0046],[0047] and Tables 2 and 4, Practical Ex. 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the Tadanai/Guichard silicone resin member to include a compression set of the sealing member, measured after 25% compression followed by aging at 150°C for 70 hours in accordance with HS K6262, that is 80% or less, a hardness Hb of the sealing member measured by the durometer type A at 23°C and the relative humidity of 50% after heating that is 2 points smaller than the hardness Ha of the sealing member measured by the durometer type A at 23°C and the relative humidity of 50% in order to form molded silicone rubber products that demonstrate excellent resistance to heat, low compression set, and low deterioration after exposure to high temperatures that exceed 200°C ([0051]).
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the Tadanai/Guichard/Hasegawa silicone resin member to include a hardness Hb of the sealing member measured by the durometer type A at 23°C and the relative humidity of 50% after heated at 400°C for 10 minutes that is 3-15 or 3-12 points smaller than the hardness Ha of the sealing member measured by the durometer type A at 23°C and the relative humidity of 50% because even if the range of prior art and the claimed range do not overlap, obviousness may still exist if the ranges are close enough that one of ordinary skill in the art would not expect a difference in properties (In re Woodruff 16 USPQ 2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). There is no evidence of criticality of the claimed hardness difference of the sealing member before and after heating at 400°C for 10 minutes.
Further, the limitations “a mass of a residue after heating the sealing member at 800°C for 5 minutes, relative to the sealing member before heating, is 70 to 100% by mass” is an inherent characteristic of the Tadanai/Guichard/Hasegawa silicone elastomer composition based on a silicone rubber composition having the same content of the silicone rubber, the same vulcanizing agent, and the same hardness of the silicone elastomer as the present invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/14/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that “First, Table 2 of Hasegawa teaches that the change of hardness (= (hardness after aging) - (hardness prior to aging), see paragraph [0048] of Hasegawa) is +15, +13, +8. In contrast, claim 1 as amended recites the hardness Hb after heated at 400°C for 10 minutes is 3-15 points smaller than the hardness Ha before heating, i.e., the change of hardness is -15 to -3. Therefore, Hasegawa fails to cure the deficiencies of Tadanai as modified by Guichard”.
In response, the Office first points out that Practical Ex. 7 of Hasegawa shows a change of hardness of -2 (see Table 4). So, there is at least one example of hardness after heat treatment that is less than before heat treatment. The Office further points out that according to para. [0031] of Hasegawa, “A uniform mixture was prepared by mixing … silicone rubber base composition … with 2,5-dimethyl-2,5-di(t-butylperoxy)hexane”. This 2,5-dimethyl-2,5-di(t-butylperoxy)hexane is the same vulcanizing agent as in TC-8 of Example 7 of the present invention. This further provides evidence to show that the Hasegawa silicone rubber composition has the same heat-resistance properties as the present invention. Although Hasegawa does not teach the same heat treatment of 400°C for 10 minutes as the present invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that a silicone rubber composition using 2,5-dimethyl-2,5-di(t-butylperoxy)hexane as a vulcanizing agent would result in a hardness after heat treatment that is less than before heat treatment and provide the improved properties of excellent thermal stability during production and excellent heat resistance after curing (see Abstract). Lastly, there is no evidence of criticality of the claimed hardness Hb of the sealing member after heated at 400°C for 10 minutes that is 3-15 or 3-12 points smaller than the hardness Ha of the sealing member. Examples 1-7 of the present invention shows a hardness change ranging from -1 to -12 with one example having a hardness change of 5. In addition, para. [0026] of the specification of the present application states that “either the hardness Ha of the present sealing member before heating or the hardness Hb of the present sealing member after heating may be higher”. The Burning Test shown in Table 1 appears to an arbitrary test and is not based on a specific Hardness change that is a negative number.
The Applicant further argues that “As such, Comparative Example 1 in Table 1 in the originally filed application proves that the rubber composition having similarities in the composition of the silicone elastomer, the same vulcanizing agent, and the same hardness of the silicone elastomer does NOT necessarily have "a hardness Hb of the sealing member measured by the durometer type A at 23°C and the relative humidity of 50% after heated at 400°C for 10 minutes is 3-15 points smaller than the hardness Ha of the sealing member measured by the durometer type A at 23°C and the relative humidity of 50%, and a mass of a residue after heating the sealing member at 800°C for 5 minutes, relative to the sealing member before heating, is 70 to 100% by mass" as claimed”.
In response, as stated by the Applicant, Comparative Example 1 does not use the same vulcanizing agent as Guichard. Comparative Example 1 uses C-8: 2,5 dimethyl-2,5 bis(tert-butylperoxy)hexane, while Guichard uses 2,4-dichlorobenzoyl peroxide as the vulcanizing agent. So, Comparative Example 1 does not correspond to the teachings of Guichard. Guichard is relied upon for teaching a silicone rubber composition comprising a vulcanizing agent containing organic peroxide and having the same hardness Ha as measured by durometer type A that results in improved heat resistance properties such that the silicone elastomer is thermally stable above 200°C. Based upon the combination of Tadanai, Guichard, and Hasegawa, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the same properties of high flame retardancy and effective suppression of ignition spread.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 TONY S CHUO whose telephone number is (571)272-0717. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:30pm.
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, Jonathan Leong can be reached on 571-270-1292. 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.
/T.S.C/Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 6/24/2026
Prosecution Insights