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 .
Final rejection issued on 1/15/2026 is withdrawn and a new ground of rejection is set forth below.
Response to Amendment
The amendment of claims 1, 3 are supported by the specification.
Any rejections and/or objections made in the previous Office action and not repeated below are hereby withdrawn.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The new grounds of rejection set forth below are necessitated by applicant's amendment filed on 12/10/2025. Thus, the following action is properly made final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-3, 8-9 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “a cured thermoplastic elastomer composition… comprising one or more brominated isobutylene paramethyl-styrene terpolymers, …… wherein the thermoplastic elastomer composition is cured using…”. It is noted that terpolymer and cured terpolymer are in an intermediate-final product relationship. If the uncured composition comprises terpolymer then cured composition should comprise cured terpolymer. Clarification is required. For purposes of expediting prosecution, the claim is interpreted as “a cured …composition obtained by curing terpolymer, polypropylene and a curing system.”
Claim 1 recites “a cured thermoplastic elastomer composition comprising one or more brominated isobutylene paramethyl-styrene terpolymers, …… wherein the thermoplastic elastomer composition is cured using…”. It is unclear if the thermoplastic elastomer composition refers to cured composition or uncured composition. Clarification is required. For purposes of expediting prosecution, the claim is interpreted as “a cured …composition obtained by curing terpolymer, polypropylene and a curing system.”
Claim 1 recites “obtained by curing a terpolymer……one or more brominated isobutylene paramethyl-styrene terpolymer”, it is unclear whether they refer to the same ingredient. For purposes of expediting prosecution, they are interpreted as the same.
Claim 1 recites “obtained by curing a terpolymer, a polypropylene……a polypropylene homopolymer”, it is unclear whether they refer to the same ingredient. For purposes of expediting prosecution, they are interpreted as the same.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-3, 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takacs et al (US 2020/0347209) in view of Yu et al (US 5,051,477).
Takacs teaches an at least partially cured thermoplastic vulcanizate composition comprising a brominated isobutylene paramethyl styrene terpolymer, and 10-200 phr of a polypropylene homopolymer, 10-150 phr of process oil such as isobutylene copolymer Indopol [0025-0028, 0044-0050, 0065-0066, 0081, 0084, 0092 tables 2-3]. The composition is cured by a curative such as phenolic resin, metal oxide, stearic, hydrosilylation, peroxide in an amount of 0.5-15phr [0050-0057]. Case law holds 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). A specific gravity of 0.93-0.95 and a Shore A hardness of 85.3 are desired for the composition (table 5).
Takacs does not teach the curative is an amine compound.
However, Yu discloses a brominated isobutylene paramethyl styrene terpolymer composition and teaches conventional curing agent zinc oxide and peroxide may cause the degradation of some components, while conventional curing agent hexamethylene diamine carbamate is a better choice (7:16-45). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize hexamethylene diamine carbamate as the curing agent for the composition of Takacs because the results of a simple substitution of one known element for another would have been predictable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WENWEN CAI whose telephone number is (571)270-3590. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9am-6pm.
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, Joseph Del Sole can be reached on (571)272-1130. 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.
/WENWEN CAI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763