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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/11/2026 have been fully considered as follows.
Applicant’s arguments are believed to be factually correct.
However, with respect to claim 1 the Examiner believes that Applicant’s assertion that the claim term “elastomer ring” is synonymous with “ring polymer” and thus exclusive of Toy’s linear polymer formulation is an overly narrow interpretation. The Examiner does not dispute that “ring polymer” is an art term; however, the term “elastomer ring” is not. The most likely interpretation for the “elastomer ring” of the claims appears to be a standard “o-ring” as the Specification states that “the elastomer seal” is “(e.g., an O-ring).”
With respect to claims 10 and 18 there is no requirement for an “elastomer ring” or “ring polymer” and as such the linear polymer of Toy would appear sufficient to meet the claim language.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because “in an additional embodiment” as stated in the first sentence appears to be grammatically incorrect as there is no prior embodiment to add anything “additional” to. Further, the second sentence states that “a semiconductor processing tool is provided” such that it appears redundant. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because: The lines of Fig. 1 are not sufficiently dark and dense as to allow for suitable reproduction. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 5, 17 and the optional embodiment of claim 19 related to polydifluoroacetylene are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 09/17/2025.
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, 3-4 and 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “New Flourine-Containing Elastomers For Space-Propulsion Applications” Nasa Technical Report MDC-Q0018 to Toy. Claim 4 is rejected with evidence provided by “Propadiene Wiki”. Claim 9 is rejected with evidence provided by “energy scales”.
Regarding claims 1-3
Toy teaches an elastomer comprising a polymer with carbon chains (see chemical formula below) wherein an average number of bonds between carbons in the carbon chains is two bonds with a connecting single bond (with reference to “double bonds” and chemical structure seen in page 6 for the butadiene polymer has the two double bonds and one single bond averaging to 1.67 bonds) thus the average number is necessarily higher than 1.5 (claim 1) or 1.66 (claim 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
208
631
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Toy does not explicitly teach that the elastomer is formed into an elastomer ring, however as stated on page 1 of Toy the purpose of investigating these polymers is for “O-rings in contact with strong oxidizers”. As such it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to form the polymer of Toy into an O-ring seal as Toy has suggested this is the intended use of the polymer and that such a polymer serves the purpose of providing a material suitable for sealing in highly oxidative environments.
Regarding claim 4
Toy teaches all of the limitations as discussed above, but does not specifically teach an o-ring arrangement made of polytetrafluoropropadiene. However, in discussing the solution relating to polytetrafluorobutadiene Toy discusses that Polytetrafluropropadiene (Toy uses the chemical term “Polytetrafluoroallene”, allene and propadiene being chemical synonyms) is a material that has already been considered and investigated for use in such applications (Toy, page 5). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use Polytetrafluoroallene (“Polytetrafluoropropadiene”) as the polymer in the o-ring as this was a known suitable polymer for use in high-stress environments. It is noted that the selection of a known material for a known function supports a finding of prima facie obviousness (see MPEP §2117).
The Examiner cites as evidence Propadiene Wiki which states that Propadiene and Allene are chemical synonyms (Propadiene is the organic compound with the formula H2C=C=CH2. It is the simplest allene or compound with two adjacent C=C double bonds, and can also be identified as allene.[1] As a constituent of MAPP gas, it has been used as a fuel for specialized welding.)
Regarding claims 6-8
The claim terms “wherein a polymerization process to form the polymer is a high temperature polymerization/300 C or higher” and “wherein a polymerization process to form the polymer includes the use of a catalyst” are interpreted under MPEP §2113 as product-by-process limitations and thus only require the resultant structure of the process be met by the prior art. Since the resultant structure is a polymer having the bond structure recited by Applicant there is no distinguishing structural difference between the product created by the processes of claims 6-8 and the underlying polymer of Toy.
Regarding claim 9
Wherein an average bond energy of bonds between carbons in the carbon chains is greater than 3eV. Double bonds as taught by Toy have an approximate bond strength of 6.6 eV as shown by “energy tables” below and thus Toy inherently meets this limitation (13.2/3 = 4.3; thus even if the bond strength of the single bond is not considered Toy meets the limitation).
PNG
media_image2.png
781
1892
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 10, 11, 13-16 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0093220 to Hong in view of “New Flourine-Containing Elastomers for Space-Propulsion Applications” Nasa Technical Report MDC-Q0018 to Toy. Claims 16 and 18 rely on Propadiene Wiki as evidence
Regarding claim 10, 11, 13, 15, 18 and 19
Hong teaches a remote plasma source (abstract; Fig. 2) semiconductor processing tool (Fig. 2) comprising:
A chamber (interior of device in Fig. 2); and a lid sealing the chamber (210) with an elastomer seal (212) between the chamber and the lid (Fig. 2). The lid being transparent to UV light (Fig. 2, see UV rays).
Hong does not teach wherein the elastomer seal comprises a polymer with carbon chains, wherein an average number of bonds between carbons in the carbon chains is greater than 1.00, 1.55 or 1.66 and wherein the carbon chains are terminated with fluorine.
Toy teaches an elastomer comprising a polymer with carbon chains (see chemical formula below) wherein an average number of bonds between carbons in the carbon chains is two bonds with a connecting single bond (with reference to “double bonds” and chemical structure seen in page 6; butadiene has the two double bonds and one single bond per instance averaging to 1.67 bonds) thus the average number is necessarily higher than 1.5 (claim 10) or 1.66 (claim 15). Toy further teaches that these materials are for “O-rings in contact with strong oxidizers”. Toy also teaches that the carbon chains are terminated with Flourine (i.e. “F” from the chemical formula).
PNG
media_image1.png
208
631
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As such it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to make the o-ring of Hong out of the elastomer as claimed – and as taught by Toy – as Toy has directly suggested that these are materials suited for o-rings in highly oxidative environments.
Regarding claims 16 and 19
The modified Hong teaches all of the limitations as discussed above, but does not specifically teach the o-ring elastomer made of polytetrafluoropropadiene. However, in discussing the solution relating to polytetrafluorobutadiene Toy discusses that Polytetrafluropropadiene (Toy uses the chemical term “Polytetrafluoroallene”, allene and propadiene being chemical synonyms) is a material that has already been considered and investigated for use in such applications (Toy, page 5). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use Polytetrafluoroallene (“Polytetrafluoropropadiene”) as the polymer in the o-ring as this was a known suitable polymer for use in high-stress environments. It is noted that the selection of a known material for a known function supports a finding of prima facie obviousness (see MPEP §2117).
The Examiner cites as evidence Propadiene Wiki which states that Propadiene and Allene are chemical synonyms (Propadiene is the organic compound with the formula H2C=C=CH2. It is the simplest allene or compound with two adjacent C=C double bonds, and can also be identified as allene.[1] As a constituent of MAPP gas, it has been used as a fuel for specialized welding.)
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong in view of Toy and in further view of US 5831443 to Quarre et al.
Hong as modified teaches all of the limitations as discussed above, but fails to teach that the UV transmissible lid is made of Saphire.
Quarre teaches making an optical window from saphire (claim 8).
As such it would have been an obvious matter to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to make the optical lid of the modified Hong out of Saphire as this is a known material suitable for optical windows and it has been held that when the difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is merely the use of a material known to be suitable for a function a finding of prima facie obviousness is appropriate (see MPEP §2117).
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 WOODY A LEE JR whose telephone number is (571)272-1051. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 0800-1630.
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, Edward "Ned" Landrum can be reached at 571-272-5567. 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.
/WOODY A LEE JR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights