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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-6, in the reply filed on 10/13/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that all groups of claims are sufficiently related and a serious burden would not be placed upon the Examiner by maintaining all groups.
This is not found persuasive because the method of claim 1 could be used to make a number of products other than the seal body of claim 7. Further, the claim groups require a different search strategy and classifications, and the scope of the claim groups could diverge even more significantly after further amendments.
A method of manufacturing a seal body and a specific seal body made by that method are separate inventions, and two or more independent and related (but distinct) inventions should be restricted within a single application (See MPEP 802, 802.01(II)).
A special technical feature was properly identified between the groups, and was discovered to be taught by prior art.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 7-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 10/13/2025.
Examiner’s Comment
In claim 6, the phrase “in the atmosphere” is understood to mean ‘at atmospheric pressure’ (within the 100°C oven). This is supported by the instant specification [0073].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites “the rotational speed of the roll of the roll kneader”. The recitation is indefinite, since claim 3 previously recites a plurality of rolls associated with the roll kneading step, and it is unclear which of the plurality of rolls are being referenced.
For the sake of compact prosecution, the Examiner will interpret that the phrase “rotational speed of the roll” should be changed to “rotational speed of the plurality of rollers” to match the claim element of claim 3.
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 non-obviousness.
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 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US20130337218A1), in view of Kambe (US20220363793A1). Claim elements are presented in italics.
1. A method for manufacturing a seal body whose main raw material is a compound containing a halogen group-containing monomer as a constitutional unit, the method comprises a belt-like body forming step of adding a crosslinking agent to the compound to form a belt-like body from the obtained mixture, and a press-fixing step of press-fixing one end and the other end of the belt-like body obtained by the belt-like body forming step to form an endless seal body.
With respect to claim 1, the prior art of Liu teaches a method for manufacturing a seal body comprises a belt-like body forming step to form a rectangular, or belt-like body [0025], from an obtained cross-linkable rubber mixture (Fig. 2, item 200; [0023]), and a press-fixing step of press-fixing one end and the other end of the belt-like body obtained by the belt-like body forming step to form an endless seal body (Fig. 3, all steps; Fig. 6, item 600; [0024]).
Liu is silent on the seal body main raw material comprising a compound containing a halogen group-containing monomer as a constitutional unit, and step of adding a crosslinking agent to the compound to form the belt-like body from the obtained mixture.
However, in the same field of art, the prior art of Kambe teaches a method for manufacturing a seal body [0065, 0068] whose main raw material is a compound containing a halogen group-containing monomer as a constitutional unit [0029-0030], and step of adding a crosslinking agent [0029-0030, 0046-0048] to the compound to press-melt the seal body from the obtained mixture [0080].
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to substitute the seal chemistry of Liu with the Kambe seal chemistry comprising the main raw material compound containing a halogen group-containing monomer as a constitutional unit [0029-0030] with the step of adding a crosslinking agent, to obtain the predictable result of a press-fixed rectangular profile endless seal body comprising a halogen group-containing monomer and a crosslinking agent.
2. The method for manufacturing a seal body according to claim 1, wherein, in the belt-like body forming step, the crosslinking agent is added so that the molar equivalent of the crosslinking agent with respect to a halogen group of the halogen group-containing monomer contained in the compound is in the range of 0.2 to 4.0.
With respect to claim 2, Kambe teaches the crosslinking agent is added so that the molar equivalent of the crosslinking agent is more preferably 0.3 – 1% by mass of the rubber composition [0052].
Kambe teaches the halogen-containing group [0030] of the cross-linking monomer [0033] is more preferably 1.5 – 3% of the mass of the alkyl acrylate unit [0033]; while the alkyl acrylate unit content in the acrylic rubber is more preferably 93 – 95% mass [0028]. After conversion, the halogen-containing group of the cross-linking monomer ranges between 1.395 – 2.85% mass.
From these teachings, the range of MASS ratio of the crosslinking agent with respect to a halogen group of the halogen group-containing monomer contained in the compound is in the range of 0.105 - 0.716.
Converting this example to a molar ratio using guanidine (59.072g/mol) as the cross-linking monomer [0047-0048, 0050] and 2-chloroethyl acrylate (134.56 g/mol) as the halogen group-containing monomer [0029-0030], the molar equivalent of the crosslinking agent with respect to a halogen group of the halogen group-containing monomer contained in the compound is in the range of {(0.105 to 0.716)*( 134.56/59.072)} = {0.239 - 1.631}.
Therefore, Kambe teaches the claimed molar equivalent range, as the Kambe range of 0.239 – 1.631 can lie fully within the claim 2 range of 0.2 to 4.0.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US20130337218A1), in view of Kambe (US20220363793A1), as set forth above in the rejection of claim 1, and further in view of Ono (US20010000788A1) and Masuda (EP2508779A1).
3. The method for manufacturing a seal body according to claim 1, wherein the belt-like body forming step comprises two stages of kneading step comprising: a mill kneading step using a mill kneader which kneads the mixture using a rotor blade, and a roll kneading step using a roll kneader which kneads a mill kneaded material obtained by the mill kneading step between a plurality of rolls.
With respect to claim 3, Kambe teaches the composition is “kneaded with an 8-inch open roll to obtain a cross-linkable rubber composition [0099].”
Liu, in view of Kambe, is silent on a mill-type kneading step followed by a plurality of rollers in a roll kneading step to obtain a cross-linkable rubber composition.
However, in the same field of art, the prior art of Ono teaches manufacturing a rubber seal product [0010], wherein the composition is prepared in a series of kneading steps [Claim 27]. Ono teaches the composition was mixed in a 3L kneader, (which is commonly known to a person of ordinary skill within the art to be a mill-type kneader), followed by further kneading on a heating roll [0068].
The prior art of Masuda teaches a roll kneader can comprise a plurality of rollers [Col. 3, line 55 – Col. 4, line 6].
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to use the known technique of a mill kneader followed by a roll kneader, taught by Ono and Masuda, by improving the process of Liu, in view of Kambe, by providing a second means for kneading to properly prepare the composition for curing.
4. The method for manufacturing a seal body according to claim 3, wherein the kneading conditions for the kneading step are as follows: the rotational speed of the rotor blade of the mill kneader performing the mill kneading step is in the range of 5rpm to 20rpm, the kneading temperature is in the range of 30°C to 70°C, and the kneading time is in the range of 30 minutes to 60 minutes, and the rotational speed of the roll of the roll kneader performing the roll kneading step is in the range of 7rpm to 20rpm, the kneading temperature is in the range of 30°C to 80°C, and the kneading time is in the range of 10 minutes to 30 minutes.
With respect to claim 4, as set forth in the rejection of claim 3, Ono teaches a mill kneading and a roller kneading step [0010, Claim 27], while Masuda teaches the roll kneader can comprise a plurality of rollers [Col. 3, line 55 – Col. 4, line 6].
Ono teaches roll kneader operates at a temperature at 80°C [0080]. Masuda is silent on operating details for the roll kneader.
A prima facie case of obviousness exists that Ono teaches the claim 4 roll kneader temperature, as Ono teaches a roll kneader temperature at 80°C, which overlaps the claimed range of 30°C to 80°C at an endpoint. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Liu, in view of Kambe, Ono, and Masuda, is silent on the other kneading parameters of cited in claim 4, including the mill kneader rotational speed of 5 - 20rpm, temperature of 30 - 70°C, with a kneading time of 30 - 60 minutes; and the roll kneader rotational speed from 7 - 20rpm, with a kneading time of 10 - 30 minutes.
However, these kneading parameter ranges are understood by the Examiner to be routine and conventional settings for a crosslinkable rubber kneading process, and it would have been prima facie obvious to try parameter settings to operate within these wide ranges from a finite number of predictable choices to prepare a rubber composition for a subsequent curing and vulcanization process.
The instant specification does not disclose information that the kneading process is novel, or that the operating parameters differ from common practice values in this field of art.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US20130337218A1), in view of Kambe (US20220363793A1), as set forth above in the rejection of claim 1, and further in view of Ono (US20010000788A1).
5. The method for manufacturing a seal body according to claim 1, wherein the belt-like body forming step comprises a pressurizing step of pressurizing using a press machine, and the pressurizing conditions of the pressurizing step are such that the pressurizing pressure of the press machine is in the range of 95 to 105kgf/cm2, the pressing temperature is 150°C, the pressing time is 1 hour, and the thickness of the pressurized body after pressurizing is adjusted to the thickness of 2mm.
With respect to claim 5, Liu teaches heat-curing the crosslinkable rubber composition to form a seal part.
Liu, in view of Kambe, is silent on the pressing step, and the claimed temperature range for the body forming step.
However, Ono teaches the belt-like body forming step comprises a pressurizing step of pressurizing using a press molding process [0028], wherein the pressurizing pressure of the press machine is in the range of 100 to 1500 Kgf/cm2, at about 150 to 220°C, pressed for 1 to 20 minutes [0028].
A prima facie case of obviousness exists that Ono teaches the claim 5 pressurize and temperature elements, as the Ono ranges of 100 to 1500 Kgf/cm2, at about 150 to 220°C, partially overlap the claimed ranges of 95 to 105kgf/cm2 at 150°C.
Ono teaches a pressing time of 1 to 20 minutes. While this does not teach the claimed pressing time of 1 hour, it would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing that curing time is a result-effective-variable inversely dependent on heating temperature.
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to reduce the heating time from 1 hour to 1 - 20 minutes, to reach the same level of cross-linking or curing by increasing the temperature to accelerate cross-linking. The amount of temperature increase would be limited to a temperature that would cause damage to the material worked upon. As Ono teaches a heating range of 150-220°C, which would reduce curing time when above the claimed range of 150°C.
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to apply the known heating/pressing process taught by Ono, to predictably improve the process of Liu, in view of Kambe, to result in a known temperature, pressure and time to cure the rubber seal product.
Motivations for reducing heating time by increasing heating temperature would be to reduce production time and to increase product output. Experimentation would lead to optimization of the heating/curing process based on desired results, and a longer heating time at lower temperature such as the claimed temperature could be determined to produce best results.
Liu, in view of Kambe, are silent on dimensions of cured rubber seal products.
However, Ono teaches a seal with one section of the sealing product at 1mm thickness and another part with a thickness of 12mm. This product range of Ono prima facie obviously teaches the claimed thickness range of 2mm, as thicknesses of sections of the Ono products are larger and smaller than the claimed value, and the desired product thickness would vary on the desired value set by the manufacturer.
6. The method for manufacturing a seal body according to claim 1, wherein the press-fixing step further comprises a press-fixing/heating step of press-fixing the one end and the other end of the belt-like body and then heating the belt-like body at 100°C for 24 hours in the atmosphere.
With respect to claim 6, Liu, in view of Kambe, are silent on a secondary cure step.
However, Ono teaches the press-fixing step further comprises a press-fixing/heating step of press-fixing the one end and the other end of the belt-like body and then heating the belt-like body at ‘about 180 to 230°C for about 1 to 24 hours’ [0028]. Ono prima facie obviously teaches the claimed secondary cure temperature as the Ono range overlaps at an endpoint. While Ono does not teach the claimed secondary cure temperature of 100°C, it would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing that heating temperature is a result-effective-variable inversely dependent on curing time.
This secondary cure process of Ono is understood by the Examiner to be at atmospheric pressure, as an oven is used [0028], with Ono silent on any pressure applied.
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to extend the heating time to 24 hours, to reach the same level of curing by decreasing the temperature to decelerate cross-linking. The amount of temperature decrease would be limited to a temperature that could still provide a proper cure level to the material worked upon in an acceptable amount of time.
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to apply the known secondary cure process taught by Ono, to predictably improve the process of Liu, in view of Kambe and Ono, to define a secondary cure process, that could meet the claimed cure process and properly cure the product.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the Applicant' s disclosure – Yanagiguchi (US20140346707A1) - teaches a method for producing a halogen group-containing [0101] acrylic rubber seal product [0026], including a square ring [0128]. Yanagiguchi teaches the body-forming step comprises “the co-coagulated composition and the cross-linking agent are mixed using an open roll mill for a period of time and temperature enough to sufficiently mix them [0156]”. It is understood by the Examiner that the ‘open roll mill’ would comprise a mill-kneading step and a roll-kneading step, which would meet both elements of claim 3.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY C GROSSO whose telephone number is (571)270-1363. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8AM - 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, Abbas Rashid can be reached on 571-270-7457. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
GREGORY C. GROSSO
Examiner
Art Unit 1748
/GREGORY C. GROSSO/Examiner, Art Unit 1748
/Abbas Rashid/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748