DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
As previously set forth: The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Applicant has submitted an English translation of the foreign priority, claims 1-5, 7 have support therein and thus the effective date of: 9/28/20. The foreign priority only supports a ratio of 4-30, not the open ended range of “4 or more” thus claim 6 has an effective date of 9/9/21
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/13/26, 2/25/26 have been considered by the examiner.
Response to arguments/amendments
Applicant’s amendments are sufficient to overcome the art previously put forth. New grounds of rejection, and new references, are used below in light of the new amendments.
Applicant argues various unexpected results of the instant specification, however the arguments are drawn to comparing compositions comprising one vs. two fluoropolymers, or, compositions comprising two A2 polymers. The new references below are all blends of two polymers meeting the fluorine contents of the claims, thus the arguments drawn to unexpected results because of using 2 polymers instead of one, or, 2 different polymers of A2, are not commensurate with the new positions below. Applicant’s arguments are thusly not found persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Rejection over Claim(s) 1, 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hamakubo (JP 2012102272A, English translation provided) is overcome by amendment, Hamakubo does not meet the blend of the amended instant claims.
Rejection over Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park (US 2008/0157439) is overcome by amendment, Park does not meet the blend of the instant claims.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Hamakubo (JP2014114383A, English translation provided).
Hamakubo exemplifies Example 9 a blend of 60% G912 (the instant specification discloses this to have a fluorine content of 71%) [meeting A2] and 40% G801 (the instant specification discloses this to have a fluorine content of 66%) [meeting A1]. The composition further includes 25B, a peroxide compound [meeting the crosslinking agent], and TAIC (triallyl isocyanurate) [meeting the crosslinking aid].
The limitation “sealing material that is a radiation crosslinked body…” is deemed a future intended use limitation since the remaining claim comprises “crosslinkable” polymers (e.g. polymers that have not yet been crosslinked). A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Elements above thusly anticipate claim 1. Since a peroxide is used to crosslink the polymer must be a peroxide crosslinkable polymer, as required by claim 2. Albeit a different example, silica fillers are exemplified in 3 and 5 parts per 100 parts resin (Examples 8, 10), and, Example 7 exemplifies the use of 2p TAIC (crosslinking aid) and 0.5p 25B peroxide (crosslinking agent), converting to a ratio of 2/0.5 = 4, picking a different exemplified embodiment of silica filler content, or, crosslinking agent/aid being the only element picked from a list thus anticipating claims 4 and 6. The above 60/40 blend of A2/A1 anticipates claim 7.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Rejection over Claim(s) 4 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamakubo ‘272 is overcome for reasons set forth above.
Rejection over Claim(s) 3, 5 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamakubo ‘272 in view of Yasuda (WO 2019/054293 published 3/21/19 wherein US 2020/0277467 is used as an equivalent English document) is overcome for reasons set forth above.
Rejection over Claim(s) 3 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Yasuda is overcome for reasons set forth above.
Rejection over Claim(s) 1-5 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasuda (WO 2019/054293 published 3/21/19 wherein US 2020/0277467 is used as an equivalent English document) in view of Hamakubo (JP 2012102272A, English translation provided) is overcome for reasons set forth above, Hamakubo does not meet the amended blend of claim 1.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 6, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi (JPH02117945A, English translation provided).
Kobayashi discloses fluoroelastomer compositions (title) comprising 100 parts fluororesin (A) having a fluorine content 68-71% [meeting A2], and, 1-30 parts of a second fluororesin having a fluorine content from 64-67% (bottom of [0001]) [meeting A1]. The composition may further comprise a polyhydroxy compound [meeting the crosslinking aid] and 0.05-5p crosslinking accelerator [meeting the crosslinking agent].
The limitation “sealing material that is a radiation crosslinked body…” is deemed a future intended use limitation since the remaining claim comprises “crosslinkable” polymers (e.g. polymers that have not yet been crosslinked). A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
In light of the overlapping nature of the fluorine content of A and B with A1 and A2 of the claims, a prima facie case of obviousness exists over claim 1. The fluororesins are copolymers of vinylidene fluoride (VDF), hexafluoropropylene (HFP) and tetrafluoroethylene (TFE), the same monomers of those instantly exemplified, thus the polymer is implicitly peroxide-crosslinkable, as required by claim 2. Fillers are optional (bottom of page 2-a filler to be used if necessary), as required by claim 4. The above amounts of polyhydroxy and accelerator can convert to a ratio of 4 (e.g. 8p polyhydroxy/2p accelerator = 4), as required by claim 6. The use of 1-30p A1 per 100p A2 (see above) converts to 0.01-23% A1 based on A2 (e.g. 1/101 = 0.01, 30/130 = 23%), as required by claim 7.
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasuda (WO 2019/054293, wherein US 2020/0277467 is used as an equivalent English document) in view of Kobayashi.
Yasuda discloses rubber compositions (title) used for Orings (meeting the claimed sealing member) [0014] comprising a hydrogen containing fluororubber having monomers selected from vinylidene fluoride (VDF), hexafluoropropylene (HFP) and tetrafluoroethylene (TFE) among others [0016]. The composition comprises a crosslinking agent such as a peroxide [0017]. It may further include a crosslinking aid such as triallyl isocyanurate [0027]. Hydrogen site protection agents having a perfluoro skeleton group and an alkenyl (unsaturated bond) may be included [0020] (meeting the component B of claim 3). The composition is irradiated to crosslink [0038].
Yasuda includes elements as set forth above but does not disclose a mix wherein the fluorine content of one component is 69% or more, and, the other component is 55-68% fluorine.
Kobayashi includes elements as set forth above. Kobayashi discloses wherein blends of fluorine resins are used to form Orings and other seal pad materials (top of [0001]), thus akin to Yasuda. The blends use a first fluororesin having fluorine content 68-71%, herein if the fluorine content is less than 68% the solvent resistance is not sufficient and if it exceeds 71% the elasticity declines, with 1-30 parts of a second fluororesin having a fluorine content 64-67%, herein if it exceeds 67% the content of HFP increases and polymerization decreases, and, if the fluorine content is less than 64% the composition has insufficient elasticity (top of page 2 of Kobayashi translation). One can see that you can tailor the fluorine within the blend of each component to get your ideal properties.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill the art before the effective filing date to include in Yasuda the use of a blend of a 68-71% [A2] fluorine containing fluororesin with a 1-30 parts 64-67% [A1] fluorine containing fluororesin, as taught by Kobayashi, in order to improve the mechanical and physical properties of the resin.
Elements above meet claims 1-5, 7 wherein fillers, if used, are used in 5 parts or less in Yasuda [0029], and, claim 7 is as calculated in Kobayashi. Regarding claim 6: the ratio of the crosslinking aid to crosslinking agent is preferably 1 or more to 4 or less [0028-Yasuda], meeting claim 6.
Claim(s) 3, 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamakubo in view of Yasuda.
Hamakubo includes elements as set forth above. Hamakubo uses the compositions for Orings (see examples, last page of translation), and discloses the composition to be used to protect panel display substrates from exposure/etching (first paragraph of translation). Hamakubo crosslinks the fluororesin with a peroxide, but does not disclose using radiation to do such. Further, the compounds of claim 3 are not disclosed by Hamakubo.
Yasuda discloses uncrosslinked rubber compositions comprising a hydrogen-containing fluororubber, a crosslinking agent and a hydrogen site protective agent (abstract), thus akin to the composition of Hamakubo. The compositions are used for Oring type sealant compositions used during/in plasma CVD etching systems [0014]. The crosslinking agent may be those peroxides of [0017]. The agent crosslinks the fluororubber, thus the fluororubber is peroxide-crosslinkable. The composition may include a crosslinking aid, such as triallyl cyanurate [0026], and, the hydrogen site protection agent may a compound having a siloxane skeleton and a alkenyl group (unsaturated bond). The fluororubber may be any of those generically disclosed in [0016] including copolymers of vinylidene fluoride (VDF) and hexafluoropropylene (HPF) optionally with tetrafluoroethylene (TFE), the same fluororubbers as Hamakubo. Yasuda discloses curing via radiation (see examples).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include in Hamakubo the use of radiation as a curing mechanism, as taught by Yasuda, since it is recognized in the art as another suitably known way to cure a peroxide-curable fluororubber. See Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), wherein the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination. See also MPEP 2143A and E [meeting claim 5]
The hydrogen site protection agent is disclosed to bond with carbon radicals resulting from breakage of carbon-hydrogen bonds in the fluororubber when occurs during radiation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include in Hamakubo the use of the hydrogen site protection agent, as taught by Yasuda, in order to bond with radicals formed during radiation, thus improving the final product. [meeting claim 3]
Double Patenting
Rejection over Claims 1-5 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 5-7 of copending Application No. 18246695 (reference application) is withdrawn, upon further consideration ‘695 does not disclose a crosslinking agent and crosslinking aid in the claims.
Rejection over Claims 1-5 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 5-7 of copending Application No. 18246698 (reference application) is withdraw, upon further consideration ‘698 does not disclose a crosslinking agent and crosslinking aid in the claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ALICIA BLAND whose telephone number is (571)272-2451. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00 am -3:00 pm EST.
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, Curt Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/ALICIA BLAND/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights