DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/10/2026 has been entered.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20180208742 to Yamada et al. in view of US2017/0226255 to Shimizu et al. (as found on the IDS dated 1/31/2023).
Regarding Claims 1, 4, 7, Yamada teaches a composition containing a fluoroelastomer and a method for producing a crosslinked product of a fluoroelastomer [abstract] (reading on a rubber composition comprising a crosslinking reactive fluorine-containing rubber) wherein the fluoroelastomer has no hydrogen atom bonded to a carbon atom and at most 0.1 mass % hydrogen [0019] (reasonably reading on a fluorine-containing oligomer containing no hydrogen atoms). The limitation of oligomer is met as instant application defines the fluorene containing oligomer to have repeating parts m and n wherein , n>m≥0 and is therefore unrestricted as to how many monomer units are required for an oligomer. Yamada further teaches a crosslinking aid [0072] that is preferably trially isocyanurate [0077] (reading on (c) and claim 7).
Yamada does not particularly teach the formula (b-1).
However, Shimizu teaches a crosslinking agent in an amount of 0.5-30 mmol [Shimizu, 0057] as seen in the a preferably compound of formula (4) [0030] (also shown below):
PNG
media_image1.png
125
629
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein A is a single bond, -O-, -S-, a heteroatom containing group, a linear or a branched alkylene group, a cycloalkylene group, or an arylene group that is optionally fluorinated partially or completely [Shimizu, 0038]; wherein R1, R2, R3, [Shimizu, 0041] are independently a hydrogen atom, a fluorine atom, an alkyl group, a fluoroalkyl group, or a substituted or unsubstituted aryl group, a plurality of R1 are identical to or different from each other, a plurality of R2 are identical to or different from each other, a plurality of R3 are identical to or different from each other, provided that at least one of R1, R2, R3, is a hydrogen atom, and at least one of R1, R2, R3, is a fluorine atom or a fluorine atom-containing group [0017], n is 1 [0042] reading on m and n; and each hydrogen on the benzene rings on formula (4) may may be independently substituted with a substituent including a fluorine atom, an alkyl group, a fluoroalkyl group, a cycloalkyl group, a fluorocycloalkyl group, a substituted or unsubstituted aryl group, and the like [0053] reading on R4 and thereby reading on all limitations of (b-1) in claim 1. Yamada and Shimizu are analogous art as they are from the same field of endeavor, namely crosslinking fluorine-containing compounds.
Before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to add Shimizu’s crosslinker with Yamada, thereby arriving at the claimed invention. The motivation would have been that although various triallyl isocyanurate crosslinking agents have been known [0004], the addition of a novel crosslinking agent that can further improve the heat resistance and the vapor resistance of a crosslinked fluoroelastomer is desired [Shimizu , 0005], specifically in power plants to improve power generation efficiency [Shimizu , 0003].
Regarding Claim 2, Yamada in view of Shimizu teach the rubber composition according to claim 1, comprising a crosslinking agent that is preferably a organic peroxide [0067].
Regarding Claim 5, Yamada in view of Shimizu teach the rubber composition according to claim 1, comprising triallyl isocyanurate [0027] preferably at 0.1 to 12 parts by mass per 100 parts of the fluoroelastomer [0028]. A range of 0.1-12 parts triallyl isocyanurate corresponds to 0.1 – 12 grams, therefore using the molar mass of triallyl isocyanurate of 249.27 g/mol the amount is reasonably calculated to 0.00401 – 0.04011 moles and reduced to 0.4 – 48.1 mmol thereby reading on 2-30 mmol of component (C) based on 100 g of component (a).
Regarding Claim 6, Yamada in view of Shimizu teach the rubber composition according to claim 1, comprising crosslinking agent (b) in an amount of 0.5-30 mmol [Shimizu, 0057] and 0.4 – 48.12 mmol as reasonably calculated as set forth in claim 5, therefore the composition comprises a total of 0.9-78.1 mmol thereby reading on 7-40 mmol total of components (b) and (c).
Regarding Claim 8, Yamada in view of Shimizu teach the rubber composition according to claim 1, wherein the products are made from a crosslinked product of a fluoroelastomer [abstract] therefore reading on fluorine containing elastomer.
Regarding Claim 9, Yamada in view of Shimizu teach the rubber composition according to claim 1, wherein the rubber product made is a sealing material [0003].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, Examiner notes the updated rejection is now over Yamada in view of Shimizu. Nevertheless, given the secondary reference is the same, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, he motivation would have been that although various triallyl isocyanurate crosslinking agents have been known [0004], the addition of a novel crosslinking agent that can further improve the heat resistance and the vapor resistance of a crosslinked fluoroelastomer is desired [Shimizu , 0005], specifically in power plants to improve power generation efficiency [Shimizu , 0003].
Applicant states that the cited references do not disclose merely alternative crosslinking, but rather distinct components having different technical roles within the rubber composition.
In response, it is noted that Yamada teaches triallyl isocyanurate [0077] as the crosslinking aid and further mentions the crosslinking aid may be used alone or in combination of two or more [0078]. As such it would be obvious to add a second crosslinker as Shimizu teaches triallyl isocyanurate as a widely known crosslinker [0004] and mentions a further crosslinker can improve properties such as heat resistance, vapor resistance of a crosslinked fluoroelastomer [Shimizu, 0005]
Applicant states that the law does not require applicant to demonstrate unexpected results for every species falling within the scope of the claimed genus.
In response, attention is drawn to the following sections
MPEP 716.02d wherein whether the unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the "objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support." In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range.
MPEP 716.02d IITo establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960).
MPEP 716.02(b) BURDEN ON APPLICANT TO ESTABLISH RESULTS ARE UNEXPECTED AND SIGNIFICANT wherein the evidence relied upon should establish "that the differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and of both statistical and practical significance.”
Applicant states Nothing in Yasuda suggests employing such a fluorine-containing oligomer in place of its disclosed hydrogen site protecting agent.
In response, attention is drawn to the updated rejection of claim 1 over Yamado in view of Shimizu.
For these reasons, Applicant's arguments are not persuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVIN MITCHELL DARLING whose telephone number is (703)756-5411. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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.
/DEVIN MITCHELL DARLING/Examiner, Art Unit 1764
/ARRIE L REUTHER/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights