DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s reply and request for continued examination (RCE), filed 26 April 2026 in response to the Final Office action mailed 5 January 2026 and the Advisory Action mailed 23 April 2026, is acknowledged. Applicant’s RCE submission contained no claim amendments and as such all pending claims are in the forms as presented previously. Applicant’s RCE submission contained no arguments/rebuttal and the Examiner’s positions remain as were set forth in both the Final and the Advisory actions.
Applicant’s RCE requests entering of an un-entered amendment (presumably the after final submission). It is noted that in the Advisory action, the after final submission of 6 April 2026 was entered. There is no “un-entered amendment” in the application.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 26 April 2026 was filed after the mailing date of the Final Office action on 5 January 2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gurevich et al. (US 9,365,712) in view of Wu (US 8,097,319).
Regarding claims 1-16, 18-19, 21-22, 24 and 42, Gurevich teaches curable fluorine-containing elastomer compositions comprising i) a first curable perfluoropolymer comprising tetrafluoroethylene, a first perfluoroalkylvinyl ether and at least two cure site monomers, each having at least one cure site, and ii) a second curable perfluoropolymer comprising tetrafluoroethylene, a second perfluoroalkylvinyl ether and at least one second cure site monomer having at least one cure site, wherein the second curable perfluoropolymer comprises fluoroplastic particles therein, and iii) at least two curatives (abstract; col 4 ln 45-63; col 8; col 12-15). Gurevich teaches the cure site monomers as halogenated monomers, preferably perfluorinated, comprising functional cure site groups (see col 13-14). Gurevich further teaches the inclusion of additives including fillers, organic fillers, pigmented fillers, inorganic fillers, etc. (col 26 ln 9-54), wherein total filler content is less than about 30 parts per 100 parts combined curable perfluoropolymers in the composition (col 26 ln 36-38) (instant amount ranges instant claims 12-14).
Gurevich invites fillers but does not specifically teach microdiamond particles having a particle size of greater than 0.10 micron to about 100 micron. However, Wu teaches fluoropolymer compositions, preferably crosslinked fluoropolymer compositions (col 5 ln 11-31), comprising a plurality of diamond particles for the purpose of improving thermal stability, mechanical robustness and/or electrical conductivity (col 4 ln 28 to col 5 ln 10; col 8 ln 5-10). Wu further teaches the diamond particles are nano-diamond particles in the range from about 1 micron or less (col 5 ln 65 to col 6 ln 7)(instant particle size ranges of instant claims 1-6), are substantially spherical, but may also be in the form of whiskers, rods, filaments, etc. (col 6 ln 8-28)(instant claim 7 particle shapes), and are formed from natural or synthetic diamond or combinations of both (col 6 ln 59 to col 7 ln 47), wherein synthetic diamond includes detonation diamond (instant aggregate) and milled polycrystalline diamond (instant agglomerate) (col 7 ln 4-37) (instant claims 8-11). Wu and Gurevich are analogous art and are combinable because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely filled crosslinked fluoropolymer compositions. At the time of filing a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include the diamond particles of Wu in the composition of Gurevich and would have been motivated to do so as Gurevich invites the inclusion of fillers, including carbon fillers, inorganic fillers, etc., and further as Wu teaches the inclusion of diamond fillers in fluoropolymer compositions results in controlled, i.e. enhanced, physical properties such as thermal/electrical conductivities, thermal stability, and mechanical robustness of the polymer matrices (see above).
Regarding the as-amended property recitation selecting from reduced particulation, increased plasma resistance and/or a compression set value that is reduced, in comparison to an article not including the microdiamond particles. Gurevich in view of Wu renders obvious the combination of the above curable fluoropolymers and microdiamond particles, in the claimed amounts, of the claimed sizes and chemical identities, and obtained by a substantially similar process. The instant specification states that the claimed combination will result in the claimed properties (instant original specification at least at: [0003], [0037], [0062]-[0070], [0140]-[0145], and examples). It is noted that a chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (see In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655, (Fed. Cir. 1990); see also In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430, (CCPA 1977). “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.”; MPEP 2112.01)).
Regarding claims 17, 20 and 23, Gurevich in view of Wu renders obvious the compositions a set forth above. Gurevich further teaches the at least one curatives (see above) may further include peroxide-based curatives and co-curatives (col 13 ln 5-8; col 25 ln 18-20; col 27 ln 25-28).
Regarding claims 25-28, Gurevich in view of Wu renders obvious the compositions a set forth above. Gurevich further teaches the blends of a first and second curable perfluoropolymer (see above), wherein the ratio of first to second perfluoropolymer is about 25:75 to about 75:25, preferably about 50:50 (col 4 ln 64 to col 5 ln 3; col 21 ln 9-15).
Regarding claims 29-32, Gurevich in view of Wu renders obvious the compositions a set forth above. Gurevich further teaches each of the at least two cure site monomers of the first curable perfluoropolymer and the at least one cure site monomer of the second curable perfluoropolymer is preferably present in an amount of about 0.01 to about 10 mol%, respectively (col 5 ln 4-13; col 9 ln 1-6; col 21 ln 16-34). Gurevich further teaches the cure sites are preferably nitrogen-containing cure sites, and may be selected from cyano, carboxyl, carbonyl, alkoxycarbony, and combinations thereof (col 5 ln 14-25; col 9 ln 12-16; col 21 ln 35-41), and teaches when two cure site monomers are present in the first curable perfluoropolymer it is preferred that a first cure site monomer comprises a primary cyano cure site and a second cure site monomer comprises a secondary cyano cure site (col 9 ln 5-16).
Regarding claims 33-35, Gurevich in view of Wu renders obvious the compositions a set forth above. Gurevich further teaches the at least two curatives are present in a total amount of about 0.01 to about 6 parts by weight per 100 parts perfluoropolymer resins in the composition (col 9 ln 17-20; col 21 ln 20-34), preferably a first curative in an amount of about 0.01 to about 6 parts per 100 parts perfluoropolymer resins and a second curative in an amount of about 0.1 to about 2 parts per 100 parts perfluoropolymer resins (col 9 ln 21-25; col 21 ln 30-34).
Regarding claims 36-38 and 40-41, Gurevich in view of Wu renders obvious the compositions a set forth above. Gurevich further teaches the first curative is a compound of structure (XII) (instant (XII)) and the second curative is a compound of structure (VIII) preferably structure (X) (instant (VIII), instant (X)) (col 9 ln 27 to col 10 ln 7). Gurevich teaches the at least two curatives are preferably selected from a compound of structure (XII), bisaminophenol, bisaminophenol AF and combinations thereof (col 10 ln 28-39; see also col 22-24).
Regarding claim 39, Gurevich in view of Wu renders obvious the compositions a set forth above. Gurevich further teaches the second curable fluoropolymer may comprise a cure site monomer having a cure site selected from halogen, nitrogen-containing groups, carboxyl, alkoxycarbonyl and combinations thereof (col 10 ln 20-28).
Regarding claim 43, Gurevich in view of Wu renders obvious the compositions a set forth above. Gurevich further teaches, in blends, the second perfluoropolymer may be the same or different from the first (col 15 ln 12-15).
Regarding claims 44-45, Gurevich in view of Wu renders obvious the compositions a set forth above. Gurevich further teaches curing to form a cured composition, wherein cured articles are formed by heating and molding/shaping (col 26 ln 55 to col 27 ln 12).
Claims 1-30 and 32-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gurevich et al. (US 9,018,309) in view of Wu (US 8,097,319).
Regarding claims 1-16, 18-19, 21-22, 24 and 42, Gurevich teaches curable fluorine-containing elastomer compositions comprising i) a first curable perfluoropolymer comprising tetrafluoroethylene, a first perfluoroalkylvinyl ether and at least one cure site monomer having at least one cure site, and ii) a second curable perfluoropolymer comprising tetrafluoroethylene, a second perfluoroalkylvinyl ether and at least one second cure site monomer having at least one cure site, wherein the second curable perfluoropolymer comprises fluoroplastic particles therein, and iii) at least one curative (abstract; col 4 ln 30-48). Gurevich teaches the cure site monomers as halogenated monomers, preferably perfluorinated, comprising functional cure site groups and teaches combinations of cure site monomers (see col 10-11). Gurevich further teaches the inclusion of additives including fillers, organic fillers, pigmented fillers, inorganic fillers, etc. (col 21 and ln 55 to col 22 ln 32), wherein total filler content is less than about 30 parts per 100 parts combined curable perfluoropolymers in the composition (col 22 ln 14-15) (instant amount ranges instant claims 12-14).
Gurevich invites fillers but does not specifically teach microdiamond particles having a particle size of greater than 0.10 micron to about 100 micron. However, Wu teaches fluoropolymer compositions, preferably crosslinked fluoropolymer compositions (col 5 ln 11-31), comprising a plurality of diamond particles for the purpose of improving thermal stability, mechanical robustness and/or electrical conductivity (col 4 ln 28 to col 5 ln 10; col 8 ln 5-10). Wu further teaches the diamond particles are nano-diamond particles in the range from about 1 micron or less (col 5 ln 65 to col 6 ln 7)(instant particle size ranges of instant claims 1-6), are substantially spherical, but may also be in the form of whiskers, rods, filaments, etc. (col 6 ln 8-28)(instant claim 7 particle shapes), and are formed from natural or synthetic diamond or combinations of both (col 6 ln 59 to col 7 ln 47), wherein synthetic diamond includes detonation diamond (instant aggregate) and milled polycrystalline diamond (instant agglomerate) (col 7 ln 4-37) (instant claims 8-11). Wu and Gurevich are analogous art and are combinable because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely filled crosslinked fluoropolymer compositions. At the time of filing a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include the diamond particles of Wu in the composition of Gurevich and would have been motivated to do so as Gurevich invites the inclusion of fillers, including carbon fillers, inorganic fillers, etc., and further as Wu teaches the inclusion of diamond fillers in fluoropolymer compositions results in controlled, i.e. enhanced, physical properties such as thermal/electrical conductivities, thermal stability, and mechanical robustness of the polymer matrices (see above).
Regarding the as-amended property recitation selecting from reduced particulation, increased plasma resistance and/or a compression set value that is reduced, in comparison to an article not including the microdiamond particles. Gurevich in view of Wu renders obvious the combination of the above curable fluoropolymers and microdiamond particles, in the claimed amounts, of the claimed sizes and chemical identities, and obtained by a substantially similar process. The instant specification states that the claimed combination will result in the claimed properties (instant original specification at least at: [0003], [0037], [0062]-[0070], [0140]-[0145], and examples). It is noted that a chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (see In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655, (Fed. Cir. 1990); see also In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430, (CCPA 1977). “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.”; MPEP 2112.01)).
Regarding claims 17, 20 and 23, Gurevich in view of Wu renders obvious the compositions a set forth above. Gurevich further teaches the at least one curatives (see above) may further include peroxide-based curatives and co-curatives (col 10 ln 5-9; col 20 ln 65-66).
Regarding claims 25-28, Gurevich in view of Wu renders obvious the compositions a set forth above. Gurevich further teaches the blends of a first and second curable perfluoropolymer (see above), wherein the ratio of first to second perfluoropolymer is about 25:75 to about 75:25, preferably about 50:50 (col 4 ln 49-54; col 17 ln 52-57).
Regarding claims 29-30 and 32, Gurevich in view of Wu renders obvious the compositions a set forth above. Gurevich further teaches each cure site monomer is present from about 0.01 to about 10 mol% in each of the first and second curable perfluoropolymers (col 4 ln 55-58; col 17 ln 58-62). Gurevich further teaches the cure sites are preferably nitrogen-containing cure sites, and may be selected from cyano, carboxyl, carbonyl, alkoxycarbony, and combinations thereof (col 5 ln 10-15; col 10-11; col 18 ln 1-8).
Regarding claims 33-35, Gurevich in view of Wu renders obvious the compositions a set forth above. Gurevich further teaches the at least one curative is present in a total amount of about 0.01 to about 5 parts by weight per 100 parts perfluoropolymer resins in the composition (col 4 ln 58-60; col 17 ln 62-67). Gurevich further teaches an embodiment comprising at least two curatives (col 6 ln 40-65; Table 1 examples) wherein one curative is present at 1 part and one curative is present at 0.5 parts (ex 1; see also amounts of examples 7-10).
Regarding claims 36-38 and 40-41, Gurevich in view of Wu renders obvious the compositions a set forth above. Gurevich further teaches the at least one curative is selected from a compound of structure (XI) and (XII) (instant (XII), (X), (IX), (VIII)) and the teaches a curative of (XI) which may further comprise a curative of (XII) second curative is a compound of structure (VIII) preferably structure (X) (instant (VIII), instant (X)) (col 6; Table 1, Ex 6; col 19-20). Gurevich also teaches combinations of curatives selected from (XI), (XII), bisaminophenol, and bisaminophenol AF (ibid; Table 1 Ex 1).
Regarding claim 39, Gurevich in view of Wu renders obvious the compositions a set forth above. Gurevich further teaches the second curable fluoropolymer may comprise a cure site monomer having a cure site selected from halogen, nitrogen-containing groups, carboxyl, alkoxycarbonyl and combinations thereof (col 5 ln 10-14).
Regarding claim 43, Gurevich in view of Wu renders obvious the compositions a set forth above. Gurevich further teaches, in blends, the second perfluoropolymer may be the same or different from the first (col 11 ln 60-63).
Regarding claims 44-45, Gurevich in view of Wu renders obvious the compositions a set forth above. Gurevich further teaches curing to form a cured composition, wherein cured articles are formed by heating and molding/shaping (col 22 ln 33-57).
Response to Arguments/Amendments
It is noted that the objections set forth in the Final rejection of 5 January 2026 were withdrawn in the Advisory action of 23 April 2026.
It is noted that the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections set forth in the Final rejection of 5 January 2026 were withdrawn in the Advisory action of 23 April 2026.
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 1-45 as unpatentable over Gurevich (US 9,365,712) in view of Wu (US 8,097,319) and of claims 1-30 and 32-45 as unpatentable over Gurevich (US 9,081,309) in view of Wu (US 8,097,319) are maintained (see above). Applicant has provided no arguments/remarks in the RCE submission. Further, the Examiner responded to the arguments/remarks set forth in the After Final submission of 6 April 2026 in the Advisory Action of 23 April 2026 wherein said after final submission was entered.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JANE L STANLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-3870. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM to 3:30 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.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mark Eashoo can be reached at 571-272-1197. 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.
/JANE L STANLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767
Prosecution Insights