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 1-18 are currently pending.
Claims 17 and 18 are withdrawn from consideration.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-16, in the reply filed on 01/20/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the cited prior art, Grootaert, does not teach all limitations required by claim 1, namely the heat treating and curing process steps. This is not found persuasive because the shared technical feature is the product claim required by claim 17 in which the process steps are treated as product-by-process in a product claim. That is, the process steps in the lack of unity restriction requirement are treated as product-by-process limitations and are not given patentable weight. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 17 and 18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 01/20/2026.
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) 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grootaert et al. (US 2004/0024134 A1) in view of Grootaert et al. (US 2004/0122163 A1; herein referred to as Grootaert163) and in further view of Usami (US 2015/0024216 A1).
Regarding claims 1-8 and 11-13,
Grootaert teaches a method of making a fluoroelastomers article comprising a curable fluoroelastomers composition comprising a coagulated and dried latex blend that is molded into shape (Grootaert: par. 0016 and 0089): (a) a perfluoro-elastomeric gum composed of: 32.2 mol% perfluoro(methyl vinyl ether) (PMVE, a perfluoroalkyl vinyl ether/perfluoroalkyl allyl ether within the claimed range 16 to 50 mol% of perfluoro vinyl ethers and the narrower range of 20 to 40 mole%); 66.6 mol% of tetrafluoroethylene (TFE, within the claimed range of 46 to 80 mol% of tetrafluoroethylene repeat units); 1.3 mol% of a fluorinated sulfinate (NVE, cure-site monomer within the claimed 0.5 to 4 mol% of a cure-site monomer) (Grootaert: abstract; Example 1). The total amount 66.6 mol% + 32.2 mol% is within the claimed range of 96 mol% or more of total moles of TFE and PMVE. The curable fluoroelastomers composition further comprising: (b) a perfluoroplastic with a melting point of 309°C (within the claimed range of at least 290°C and the narrower range of at least 300°C) composed of 96 wt% of TFE (tetrafluoroethylene repeat units) and 4 wt% (1.5 mol%) of PPVE (a perfluorovinyl ether/perfluoroalkyl allyl ether/perfluoro methyl allyl ether) (Grootaert: Example 1).
Grootaert is silent towards the method explicitly teaching curing below the melting point of the perfluoro plastic.
Grootaert163 teaches perfluoroplastic components having cure site monomers (Grootaert163: abstract). The method also teaches curing a coagulated and dried latex blend which is molded into a shape (Grootaert163: par. 0034-0039). The method further comprises curing the composition at a temperature of from 125 to 180°C, which is below the melting point of 309°C for the perfluoro plastic to allow molding into the desired shape (Grootaert: par. 0039).
Grootaert and Grootaert163 are in the corresponding fields of perfluoro polymer compositions which are cured and molded into articles. Therefore, it would be obvious to cure in the claimed temperature range, which is above the melting point of the perfluoro plastic, of Grootaert to allow for improved crosslinking while molding into the desired shape as taught by Grootaert163
Grootaert and Grootaert163 do not explicitly teach wherein the cured composition undergoes a heat-treatment at a temperature of at least 5°C above the melting point of the perfluoro plastic for at least 5 minutes to form the article.
Usami teaches hardening fluoropolymer compositions with a second heat treatment after curing to provide a molded article with non-tackiness and low or non-adhesion as well as high water repellency and oil repellency and low friction properties (Usami: par. 0102). The fluoropolymer composition is heat treated at a temperature above the melting point of a low melting point PTFE component (may correspond to the fluoroplastic component of Grootaert which utilizes PTFE) in which the temperature is preferably a temperature difference of preferably 5°C or more and 200°C or less (overlaps with the claimed 5°C or more and the narrower range of at least 20°C greater) at a time of approximately 1 hour (60 minuets which is within the claimed range of at least 5 minutes and the narrower range of no greater than 60 minutes) (Usami: par. 0099-0102). A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges overlap or are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Grootaert, Grootaert163, and Usami are in the corresponding field of molded articles composed of fluoropolymer compositions. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to heat treat the cured perfluoropolymer composition of Grootaert to form a molded article in the claimed time and temperature to provide improved properties such as non-tackiness, low/non-adhesion, high water and oil repellency, and low friction properties as taught by Usami.
Regarding claim 9,
Grootaert in view of Grootaert163 and Usami teaches the method required by claim 1. Grootaert further teaches the cure-site monomer comprises a nitrile cure-site group (Grootaert: abstract).
Regarding claim 10,
Grootaert in view of Grootaert163 and Usami teaches the method required by claim 1. Grootaert is silent towards broader ranges for the PPVE components in the fluoroplastic. However, Grootaert163 further teaches the PPVE (perfluoro ether repeat units may be present from 0.01 to 10 mol% (overlaps with the claimed 2 to 10 mole% of the perfluoro ether repeat units in the perfluoroplastic) to achieve the desired melting points (Grootaert163: par. 0010). A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges overlap or are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the claimed amounts for the PPVE component in the perfluoroplastic component of Grootaert to provide the desired melting point ranges as taught by Grootaert163.
Regarding claim 14,
Grootaert in view of Grootaert163 and Usami teaches the method required by claim 1. Grootaert does not appear to explicitly teach the perfluoroplastic component further comprises cure site monomer units. However, Grootaert134 further teaches the perfluoroplastic further comprises cure site monomer repeat units to aid in crosslinking (Grootaert: par. 0007 and 0014).
Therefore, it would be obvious to have additional cure site monomer repeat units in the fluoroplastic component to provide further crosslinking capabilities as taught by Grootaert124.
Regarding claim 15 and 16,
Grootaert in view of Grootaert163 and Usami teaches the method required by claim 1. Grootaert further teaches the perfluoroplastic may have a particle size of at least about 40 nm and below 250 nm, which are both within the claimed range of no greater than 300 nanometers and the narrower range of between 20 to 250 nanometers (Grootaert: par. 0049). Grootaert does not explicitly state the particles are measured according to “the Particle Size Method described in the present specification”. However, Grootaert teaches the particles are made of the claimed composition and have the claimed average particle size. Thus, it would be expected the particles would meet the claimed Z-average particle size when tested in the method detailed in the specification.
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 at 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