Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/034,977

FLUORINE RESIN FILM, MOLDED RUBBER BODY, AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING MOLDED RUBBER BODY

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
May 02, 2023
Examiner
FIGG, TRAVIS M
Art Unit
1783
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Daikyo Seiko Ltd.
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
61%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 2m
To Grant
78%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 61% of resolved cases
61%
Career Allow Rate
246 granted / 401 resolved
-3.7% vs TC avg
Strong +17% interview lift
Without
With
+17.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
35 currently pending
Career history
436
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
57.9%
+17.9% vs TC avg
§102
15.4%
-24.6% vs TC avg
§112
20.0%
-20.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 401 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION 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 . Status of the Claims Claims 1-6, 8-12, and 17-18 are currently pending. Claim 7 is canceled. Claims 13-15 are withdrawn from consideration. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/06/2026 has been entered. Response to Amendments Applicant’s amendments filed 03/06/2026 have been entered. Claim 1 has been amended. Claim 7 has been canceled. Claim 18 has been newly added. The Section 103 rejections have been withdrawn. New Section 103 rejections have been implemented upon further search and consideration of the amended claims. 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 1-5, 8-12, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aida et al. (JP 2004/305307 A; machine translation). Regarding claims 1-5, 8, and 16-17, Aida teaches a fluorine resin film comprising a fluorine resin which is an ethylene-tetrafluoroethylene copolymer (ETFE) (Aida: pg. 2). The film having a surface subjected to surface modification (Aida: pg. 3). Example 1 details the ETFE film has a thickness of 50 µm, which is within the claimed range of from 10 to 300 µm and may be formed of a tradename LM-720, which is the same tradename utilized in Applicant’s specification (Aida: pg. 4). Aida is silent towards the fluorine resin film has an average value of 1300% or more and 1800% or less of a tensile elongation at break in a first direction and tensile elongation at break in a second direction under a 180°C atmosphere, the first direction and the second direction being in-plane directions and orthogonal to each other, a tensile strength of 7.0 MPa or more in the first direction and/or the second direction under 180°C atmosphere, a tensile strength of 20.0 MPa or less in the first direction and/or the second direction under the 180°C atmosphere, a melting point of 250°C or less evaluated by differential scanning calorimetry (DSC), or a melt flow rate of 7 g/10 min or more. However, as Aida teaches the same fluororesin film made of the claimed and disclosed composition (ETFE with the same tradename) and the same structure (the same thickness), it would be expected to exhibit the same properties when tested in the claimed manner. When the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the prior art products necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed Regarding claims 9 and 10, Aida teaches the fluorine resin film required by claim 1. Aida further teaches the fluorine resin film (1) may be a film laminated on the surface of a laminated rubber plug composed of an elastomer (2, a rubber-containing substrate) (Aida: Fig. 2-6; pg. 1-3). The limitation requiring the fluorine resin film to be “coated” or a “coating” is a product-by-process limitation as structurally a coating and a film are both layers composed of the claimed fluorine resin film, the claim is satisfied. Regarding claims 11-12 and 18, Aida teaches the molded rubber body required by claim 10. Aida further teaches the surface of the laminated plug (the molded rubber body) having leg portions, a protrusion protruding from a base portion of the rubber-containing substrate, and the leg portions (protrusion) have a depth (H) of 20 mm, which is within the claimed height range of 10 mm or more as the depth may be considered a height depending on how the plug is viewed (Aida: Figs. 1-5; pg. 3-4). The resin film is on the top plate and the leg protrusion portion from a top portion of the protrusion in a height direction of the protrusion and may be structurally the same as “coating” in the claimed manner. Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aida in view of Koshidaka et al. (US 2010/0206836 A1). Regarding claims 5 and 6, Aida teaches the fluorine resin film required by claim 1. Aida does not explicitly teach wherein the surface of the fluorine resin film is subjected to a modification treatment resulting in the surface having an adhesiveness of 4.0 N/19 mm or more expressed as peel strength evaluated at 180°C peel test that is performed by attaching the fluorine resin film to an adhesive tape with the claimed composition and testing conditions. Koshidaka teaches a laminated rubber stopper/plug comprising a fluorine resin film coating the rubber stopper/plug (Koshidaka: abstract; par. 0036). The surface of the fluorine resin film is treated with sputter etching, a surface treatment utilized in Applicant’s specification, to provide improved adhesion between the fluorine resin film and the rubber plug (Koshidaka: par. 0072). Aida and Koshidaka are in the corresponding field of fluorine resin films for use in laminated rubber-plugs. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to subject the fluorine resin film of Aida to a modification treatment, such as sputter etching, to provide improved adhesion of the fluorine resin film and the rubber plug as taught by Koshidaka. The combination of Taguchi and Koshidaka are silent towards the claimed surface adhesiveness properties required by claim 6. However, Aida in view of Koshidaka teaches the fluorine resin film having the claimed composition, ETFE, having the claimed properties such as the claimed average value of tensile elongation break and melting temperature and having the claimed film structure, such as the film thickness and the disclosed surface modification utilized in Applicant’s specification. Therefore, the film of Aida and Koshidaka would necessarily have the claimed properties, such as the claimed adhesiveness when tested under the claimed conditions. When the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the prior art products necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. See MPEP 2112.01. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments filed 03/12/2026 are moot as they do not pertain to the updated prior art rejection of record. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Travis M Figg whose telephone number is (571)272-9849. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm. 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, Maria Veronica D. Ewald can be reached on 571-272-8519. 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. /TRAVIS M FIGG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 02, 2023
Application Filed
May 31, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Sep 03, 2025
Response Filed
Dec 04, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Mar 06, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Mar 10, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 21, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600159
REUSABLE COMPOSITE STENCIL FOR SPRAY PROCESSES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600839
COMPOSITION, FILM OR COATINGH COMPRISING MICROFIBRILLATED CELLULOSE AND EXTRACTIVE FROM WOOD BARK OR CORK WOOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594742
METAL-RESIN COMPOSITE AND METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR MANUFACTURING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12590194
ANISOTROPIC CONDUCTIVE FILM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12576617
MEMBER FOR DISPLAY DEVICE, OPTICAL STACKED BODY, AND DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
61%
Grant Probability
78%
With Interview (+17.0%)
3y 2m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 401 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month