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.
Claims 1-3 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noguchi (US 2008/0287627 A1) in view of Sano (US 2011/0034639 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Noguchi teaches a crosslinked perfluoroelastomeric composition and molded articles formed therefrom (Abstract), wherein said compositions have a first curable perfluoropolymer and a second curable perfluoropolymer, both of which have contain perfluoroalkylvinyl ether monomers (Abstract).
Noguchi teaches the incorporation of optional fillers in amounts up to 30 parts per 100 parts of the curable perfluoropolymer resins ([0099]), curatives including organic peroxides ([0053]) in amounts ranging between 0.3 and 10 parts per 100 parts of perfluoropolymer resins ([0088]), and a crosslinking agent, which preferably comprises a material which is crosslinkable with the cure site groups present in the perfluoropolymers in the formulation ([0134]), in amounts ranging from 0.3 to 10 parts per 100 parts by weight of the elastomer ([0147]). In each case, the amounts taught by Noguchi overlap or are identical to the claimed amounts, establishing prima facie cases of obviousness.
Noguchi differs from claim 1 because it is silent with regard to the specific incorporation of 2,5-dimethyl2-,5-bis(tert-butylperoxy)hexane and/or triallyl isocyanurate.
In the same field of endeavor, Sano teaches a fluororubber sealing material (Abstract), containing an organic peroxide crosslinker ([0050]) and a polyfunctional monomer for crosslinking ([0056]-[0057]), wherein the organic peroxide may be of 2,5-dimethyl-2,5-bis(tert-butylperoxy)hexane ([0053]) and the polyfunctional monomer may be triallyl isocyanurate ([0058]). It is prima facie obvious to substitute equivalents known in the art as suitable for the same purpose (see MPEP 2144.06), and Noguchi and Sano are both directed to sealing materials (c.f. [0002] of Noguchi and Abstract of Sano). It therefore would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to utilize 2,5-dimethyl2-,5-bis(tert-butylperoxy)hexane and triallyl isocyanurate within the formulation of Noguchi, as taught by Sano, as Sano recognizes them, respectively, as suitable organic peroxide / crosslinking materials for fluororubber compositions for sealing applications.
Regarding claims 2-3, Noguchi is silent with regard to the claimed glass transition temperature range and peak shape. Nevertheless, Noguchi teaches a composition which is structurally identical to the claimed composition, having all of the same components. Products of identical chemical compositions cannot have mutually exclusive properties. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, a prima facie case of obviousness has been established. See MPEP 2112.01. The claimed glass transition temperature range and peak shape characteristics will therefore necessarily be present in Noguchi, as applied above.
Regarding claim 5, Noguchi is silent with regard to the claimed swollen volume percentage characteristics. Nevertheless, Noguchi teaches a composition which is structurally identical to the claimed composition, having all of the same components. Products of identical chemical compositions cannot have mutually exclusive properties. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, a prima facie case of obviousness has been established. See MPEP 2112.01. The swollen volume percentage characteristics will therefore necessarily be present in Noguchi, as applied above.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Noguchi teaches the molding and formation of sealing members, including O-rings, from cured versions of the inventive composition ([0044]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see applicant’s remarks, filed March 17, 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-7 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made under 35 USC 103 in view of Noguchi and Sano, as described above.
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 JOSHUA CALEB BLEDSOE whose telephone number is (703)756-5376. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. 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, Robert 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.
/JOSHUA CALEB BLEDSOE/Examiner, Art Unit 1762
/ROBERT S JONES JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1762
Prosecution Insights