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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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, 3-4, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura (GB 2524621 A, attached) in view of McGinniss (US 4607082).
Regarding claims 1, 3-4, and 6, Nakamura teaches a composition having 100 parts by mass of ethylene-based polymer, which may be EPDM and/or EPM (p. 5), and may further be crosslinked with organic peroxide (p. 6).
However, Nakamura is silent as to the reducing agent and amount of organic peroxide that may be used. In the same field of endeavor, McGinniss teaches a combination of peroxide, an activator, and a reducing agent which is preferably ascorbic acid (Abstract; col. 3, lines 55-66). The system can be used to cure ethylenically unsaturated polymers that are peroxide-curable, including polybutadiene-based materials (col. 9, lines 62-68). The peroxide may be present in amounts ranging from 0.1-5% by weight of the composition (col. 11, lines 8-10). The ascorbic acid may be present in amounts ranging from 0.1-5% by weight of the composition (col. 5, lines 55-61). Ascorbic acid corresponds to the claimed formula (1) where all R groups independently represent hydrogen. These prior art ranges overlap the claimed ranges. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the prior art range overlaps the claimed range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the composition of Nakamura with the peroxide and reducing agent of McGinniss, in the amounts taught by McGinniss, to arrive at the claimed invention, and to enhance the performance and properties of the composition, as taught by McGinniss (col. 2, line 62).
Claims 2, 5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura in view of McGinniss as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Odagawa (US 7232862 B2).
Regarding claims 2 and 5, Nakamura in view of McGinniss remains as applied to claim 1 above. Nakamura and Quanzhou are silent as to use of a vulcanization accelerator. In the same field of endeavor, Odagawa teaches use of a vulcanization agent, which may be dialkyl peroxide, alongside a vulcanization accelerator (col. 7, lines 28-29, 38; col. 8, lines 47-48). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the composition of Nakamura in view of McGinniss with the dialkyl peroxide and vulcanization accelerator of Odagawa to arrive at the claimed invention, and to achieve a composition with good vulcanizing density and oil resistance without sacrificing fatigue resistance, as taught by Odagawa (col. 8, lines 3-6).
Regarding claim 7, Nakamura in view of McGinniss remains as applied to claim 1 above. Nakamura further teaches preparation of the crosslinked composition in saturated vapor at about 200*C (p. 13). However, Nakamura and McGinniss are silent as to heating of the composition under air. In the same field of endeavor, Odagawa teaches that vapor heating and hot-air heating may be used interchangeably for rubber vulcanization (crosslinking with dialkyl peroxide) (col. 9, lines 10-13). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to select the hot-air heating of Odagawa for use in the method of Nakamura in view of McGinniss to arrive at the claimed invention, and because of the art-recognized suitability for the intended purpose. See MPEP 2144.07.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH K AMATO whose telephone number is (571)270-0341. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 am - 4:30 pm M-F.
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, Rob Jones can be reached at (571) 270-7733. 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.
ELIZABETH K. AMATO
Examiner
Art Unit 1762
/ROBERT S JONES JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1762
Prosecution Insights