DETAILED ACTION
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-6, 8 and 10-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muramatsu (US-5879809) in view of Sano (US-2017/0321022).
Claim 1: Muramatsu teaches a molded article comprising a polymeric body and
an oil-bleeding silicon rubber adhering to the body (abstract). The polymeric body
comprises additive such as reinforcing fillers, stabilizers and/or mold release agents
(Muramatsu, col. 6, lines 34-38). The molded article can be used in electric, electronic,
automotive applications (Muramatsu, col. 1, lines 7-12); therefore, it would have been
obvious to the POSITA that the molded article is suitable in making electrical
connectors. However, Muramatsu does not teach a primer to enhance bonding
between the polymeric body and the silicone rubber. Sano teaches a primer adhesive
comprising a free-radical initiator, which is a crosslinking agent such as an organic
peroxide (Sano, para. 0023). The primer allows enhanced bonding between oil-
bleeding silicon rubber to various substrates (Sano, para. 0001). Therefore, the
POSITA would be motivated to utilize the composition of Sano as the primer to enhance
bonding between a polymeric body and the oil-bleeding silicone rubber of the molded article of Muramatsu, and additionally, bonding between a substrate of materials other than polymers and oil-bleeding silicon rubber. Moreover, Sano also suggests the use of the composition in "wire connector seals" in contact with engineering plastics (para. 0011). Therefore, it would have been obvious to utilize the wire connector having an engineering plastic housing, the composition of Sano as primer to join the housing with oil-bleeding silicone rubber. With regards to the claim feature that the acidic surface being caused by the additive, Muramatsu teaches additives including flame retardants such as cerium oxide and carbon black (Muramatsu, col.14, lines 7-10), which would have caused the polymeric body to have an acidic surface because cerium oxide and carbon black are typically having a pH level below 6, which is in the acidic range. See pamphlet by Goodyear, “Sulfur and pH of carbon black in rubber compounds” and US Pat. No. US-6,239,205, Page 5, Reference Examples 1 and 2.
Claim 2: Sano does not report the thickness of the primer; however, absence of
showing criticality of the thickness, it would have been obvious to the POSITA through
routine experimentation to arrive at the optimal thickness for the primer.
Claim 3: Sano does not disclose the proportion of the free-radical initiator, but,
absence of showing criticality, it would have been obvious to arrive at the proper
proportion for the initiator through routine experimentations
Claim 4: Because the primer is utilized as bond enhancer, the improved
adhesive between the primer and the oil-bleeding silicon would naturally occur at the
interface.
Claim 5: The free radical initiator is an organic peroxide (Sano, para. 0023).
Claim 6: The primer has a base of reactive siloxane and silane in an organic
solvent (Sano, para. 0007-0009 and 0016-0018).
Claims 8: Muramatsu teaches additives including flame retardants such as
cerium oxide and carbon black (Muramatsu, col. 14, lines 7-10).
Claim 10: Because of the presence of heat resistance and flame retardance
modifiers (Muramatsu, col. 14, lines 7-10), the polymeric body of the electrical
connector is expected to have UL 94 V-O grade rating.
Claim 11: For materials of the housing, the primer and the oil-bleeding silicone
rubber, see claim 1 above. Sano teaches crosslinking the silicone to the primer to
adhere the oil-bleeding silicone to the polymeric body (Sano, para. 0021-0023)
Claim 12: . The method as recited in claim 11, further comprising cleaning a
surface of the housing prior to applying the primer to the surface.
Claim 13: Sano teaches allowing the primer to dry (i.e. aging) before applying to
the housing (Sano, para. 0016).
Claim 14. Sano teaches allowing the oil-bleeding liquid silicone to dry after being
applied to the primer (Sano, para. 0023).
Claim 15. Sano does not report the thickness of the primer; however, absence of
showing criticality of the thickness, it would have been obvious to the POSITA through
routine experimentation to arrive at the optimal thickness for the primer.
Claim 16: Sano does not disclose the proportion of the free-radical initiator, but,
absence of showing criticality, it would have been obvious to arrive at the proper
proportion for the initiator through routine experimentations
Claims 17-18: Because the primer is utilized as bond enhancer, the improved
adhesive between the primer and the oil-bleeding silicon would naturally occur at the
interface and the lubrication properties of the oil-bleeding silicone are not affected by
the interface.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muramatsu and Sano as applied to claims 1-6, 8 and 10-18 above, and further in view off AL-MOSAWI (“Flame retardants: a review”, J. of Silicate Based and Composite Mat., vol. 74, No.1 (2021))
Muramatsu and Sano teach the claimed molded article comprising a polymeric body and an oil-bleeding silicone rubber and including flame retarding additives that would cause an acidic surface as discussed above. However, the flame retardant additives are inorganic flame retardants (e.g. cesium oxide or carbon black as taught by Muramatsu at col.14, lines 7-10) that do not include phosphorus. Al-Mosawi teaches known effective flame retardants including inorganic flame retardants of the type taught in Muramatsu at and phosphorous-containing flame retardants including phosphonate-based flame retardants (i.e. phosphate esters and phosphoric acids) as equivalent flame retardants (Al-Mosawi, page 3, sections 2.1 and 2.2). Therefore, it would have been obvious as a matter of choice to select either the inorganic flame retardants or the phosphorus-containing flame retardants in the molded body of Muramatsu. Applicant does not state whether the phosphonate-based flame retardants would yield unexpected results or solve any particular problem that could not have been done with the inorganic flame retardants taught by Muramatsu.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that it would not have been obvious to further include the primer taught by Sano in the molded body of Muramatsu because Muramatsu already teaches materials that would have facilitated adhesion between the parts of the molded body. The adhesion taught by Muramatsu is adhesion between an oil-bleeding silicone rubber component to a polymeric component, while the adhesion taught by Sano provides adhesion to other materials including metals. Therefore, by including the primer, the silicone rubber of Muramatsu can be used in various and additional applications such as bonding the molded body of Muramatsu to a metal substrate or any non-polymeric substrate or bonding the silicon rubber component to any non-polymeric component. Thus, the combination or modification of Muramatsu with the teaching of Sano is proper and obvious.
Applicant's arguments filed October 14, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the reasons discussed above.
Claim 9 was not properly addressed in the last office action. Therefore, the rejection is issued as a non-final rejection.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to HOA (Holly) LE whose telephone number is (571)272-
1511. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 10:00 am to 7:00 pm.
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.
/HOA (Holly) LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788