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
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimoto et al. (JP 2002-220486) in view of Kobayashi et al. (US 2020/0048461).
Note: citations refer to the machine translation of JP ‘486 filed by Applicant on 9/21/2023.
Regarding claim 1:
Nishimoto discloses a laminate comprising a metal plate, a fluororubber layer, and a surface layer comprising silicone [abstract; 0001; 0009; 0036-0037]. The silicone layer is applied via a silicone emulsion [0039].
Nishimoto is silent with regard to the use of a water-soluble resin.
Such resins were known in the art to have utility. For example, Kobayashi discloses a silicon emulsion composition [abstract; 0001; 0018]. The reference teaches the use of aqueous solutions of cellulose derivatives to provide film strength [0019; 0046-0049].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add a water-soluble cellulose derivative to provide film strength as taught by Kobayashi.
Nishimoto teaches its emulsion comprises the silicone in amounts of 0.1-90% by volume [0040]. Kobayashi teaches 0.01-10 parts by weight relative to 100 parts by weight of silicone [0049]. Kobayashi further teaches water in amounts of 50-1000 parts by weight relative to 100 parts of silicone [0052]. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the relative amount of silicone, including over amounts falling within the scope of the present claim, to provide the properties desired for a given end use. Additionally, it is noted the present claim is drawn to a laminate comprising a cured film of the emulsion, and so water is not present in the final product.
Regarding claim 2:
Given that Nishimoto in view of Kobayashi discloses the same silicone emulsion as claimed, the examiner submits it inherently meets the claimed bloom requirements.
Alternatively, Nishimoto teaches the surface layer provides improved plasma resistance and non-adhesiveness [0008-0009]. Nishimoto teaches the amount of silicone in the emulsion can be varied as needed, including amounts of 0.1-90% by volume [0040].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the amount of silicone in the emulsion across 0.1-90% by volume, including over amounts that would result in an amount of bloom falling within the claimed range, to adjust the plasma resistance and/or non-adhesiveness as desired for a given end use, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 3:
Nishimoto teaches the silicone is reactive [0024-0026].
Regarding claim 4:
Nishimoto teaches steel [0036].
Regarding claim 5:
Nishimoto teaches the surface layer has a thickness of 1-500 µm [0039].
Regarding claim 6:
Nishimoto teaches the use of an adhesive between the metal and the fluororubber layer [0061].
Regarding claim 7:
Nishimoto teaches the laminate can be a sealing material (gasket) [0008; 0042].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/5/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Nishimoto does not disclose a water-soluble resin (p5).
While the examiner agrees Nishimoto is silent with regard to a water-soluble resin, the examiner submits the use of such materials was known to have utility as demonstrated by Kobayashi. As more fully explained above, the reference teaches such resins provide improved film strength, such that one skilled in the art would have been motivated to add such resins to the silicone emulsion of Nishimoto.
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 JOHN D FREEMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3469. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11-8PM 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, Callie Shosho can be reached at 571-272-1123. 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.
/JOHN D FREEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787