DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
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.
Claims 1-7, 10, 11, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grootaert et al. (US 2008/0116603, “Grootaert”) in view of Saito et al. (JP H06306236 A, “Saito” a machine translation of which has been provided and is used as the citation copy), further in view of Washino et al. (US 2011/0263795, “Washino”).
Regarding claims 1 and 7, Grootaert teaches a fluoropolymer (e.g., [0014]) comprising nitrile groups (e.g., [0013]), various phosphorous compounds (e.g., [0025] – [0029]), and a crosslinking agent (e.g., [0018], [0019]). Grootaert fails to specifically teach that the phosphorous compound has a melting point of 60C or lower, however, in the same field of endeavor of fluoropolymers (e.g., p. 1), Saito teaches to use an organophosphorous compound as a crosslinking agent in order to improve vulcanization for such a fluoropolymer (vulcanizing more easily and at lower cost, e.g., [0004], p. 3 components D, including trioctylphosphine, triethylphosphine). Saito additionally teaches that the phosphine compound may be, for example, a trialkylphosphine such as trioctylphosphine (Saito, p. 3 components D, including trioctylphosphine). Such a compound is known to have a melting point of less than 35C (see present specification at [0042], showing trioctylphosphine being a liquid at 20C). It therefore would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have included such a compound in the fluoropolymer of Grootaert in order to improve vulcanization for such a fluoropolymer (vulcanizing more easily and at lower cost, e.g., [0004], p.3). While Grootaert teaches to include a crosslinking agent and to induce crosslinking ([0018], [0019]), Grootaert fails to specifically teach that the crosslinking agent is one of those presently claimed. However, such crosslinking compounds are well known in the art, including in the art of fluropolymeric compositions. For example, in the same field of endeavor of fluoropolymers (fluorinated copolymers, e.g., [0005], [0006], [0011]), Washino teaches that a suitable crosslinking agent is 2,2-bis(3-amino-4-hydroxyphenyl)hexafluoropropane and that such a compound improves long-term heat resistance and provides especially satisfactory crosslinking reactivity ([0044]). It therefore would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of filing to have used the 2,2-bis(3-amino-4-hydroxyphenyl)hexafluoropropane crosslinking agent of Washino as an effective crosslinker in the composition of Grootaert in order to provide long-term heat resistance and especially satisfactory crosslinking reactivity to the composition (Washino, [0044]). Additionally, the simple substitution of one known element or compound for another that would provide predictable results (in this case, effective crosslinking) would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of filing and thus the substitution of a well-known diamine crosslinking agent of Washino for that of Grootaert would have been obvious (please see MPEP 2143).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Grootaert additionally teaches that the fluorinated copolymer may have a unit based on a perfluoro (alkyl vinyl ether) or tetrafluoroethylene ([0041]).
Regarding claim 4, Grootaert additionally teaches that the fluorinated copolymer may have a unit based on a monomer having a nitrile group ([0013]).
Regarding claim 5, Grootaert additionally teaches that the monomer having a nitrile group may read on presently claimed formula 1 (see, e.g., formulas in [0013]).
Regarding claim 6, Grootaert additionally teaches that the fluorinated copolymer may be a perfluoropolymer (e.g., [0041], [0001] – [0004]).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, modified Grootaert (Saito) additionally teaches that the phosphine compound may be included in an amount of from 0.05 to 5 parts by weight, reading on the claimed ranges of from 0.2 to 100 or 5 parts by mass or lower to 100 parts by mass of the fluorinated copolymer (Saito, p. 3 components D, including trioctylphosphine, trioctylphosphine oxide included in an amount of from 0.05 to 5 parts by mass).
Regarding claim 13, Grootaert additionally teaches generally that a catalyst, crosslinker, or co-agent (or additives) may be included in an amount on the range of from 1 to 5 parts per hundred ([0035], [0022]). The Examiner notes that 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 re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Please see MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 14, Grootaert additionally teaches that the copolymer of claim 1 may form a shaped rubber article (see, e.g., [0004], [0041]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 4/14/26 are considered moot in light of the new grounds of rejection, which were necessitated by Applicant’s amendments. Arguments that are relevant to the current rejections are addressed below.
Applicant argues that the crosslinking system presently claimed is not sufficiently described by the prior art such that it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill at the time of filing of the present application. Applicant appears to argue that because Grootaert fails to teach the claimed phosphorous compound having a melting point of 60C or lower, and that the phosphorous compound that is included in Grootaert is a different type of crosslinking system than that described by Saito, there would be no good reason to include the crosslinkers described by Saito. First, as Applicant notes, Grootaert specifically notes that the manner of cross-linking is not limited ([0018]). Therefore, Grootaert cannot be considered to teach against an alternative type of crosslinking mechanism. Further, Saito teaches to use an organophosphorous compound as a crosslinking agent in order to improve vulcanization for such a fluoropolymer (vulcanizing more easily and at lower cost, e.g., [0004], p. 3 components D, including trioctylphosphine, triethylphosphine). Such an improvement would be evidently desirable and therefore the Examiner maintains that this teaching is sufficient to motivate the ordinarily skilled artisan to include such a crosslinker in the composition of Grootaert.
Therefore, claims 1-7, 10, 11, 13, and 14 are rejected as described above.
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 ANTHONY J FROST whose telephone number is (571)270-5618. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday, 8:00am to 4:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Aaron Austin, can be reached on 571-272-8935. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANTHONY J FROST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights