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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of claims 10-18, addition of claims 21-31 and cancellation of claims 1-9 and 19-20 in the reply filed on 12/16/25 is acknowledged.
Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/16/25.
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 of this title, 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 nonobviousness.
Claims 10-18 and 21-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitchell et al (US 2022/0282079) in view of applicant’s recitation of well known art in the disclosure.
For claims 10-11, 21 and 30, Mitchell et al teach a sealing article, an O-ring, that can be used in the semiconductor industry ([0001]), wherein the sealing article comprises a fluoroelastomer formed by polymerizing a reaction mixture that comprises vinyl-functionalized silica cages ([0004], [0041]), tetrafluoroethylene, a perfluoroalkyl vinyl ether ([0053]), a curative ([0076]), and a polymerization initiator ([0073]).
Mitchell et al do not teach installing the sealing article within a plasma treatment chamber.
However, Applicant states that the following is well known in the art: integrated circuits are formed on a semiconductor wafer and plasma treatment is used for various applications in the integrated circuit production process ([0001]).
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 teachings of applicant’s recitation of well known art in the disclosure with those of Mitchell et al by installing the sealing article within a plasma treatment chamber of a plasma treatment system in order to effectively contain the plasma treatment.
For claims 12 and 23, Mitchell et al teach the vinyl-functionalized silica cages comprise up to 10 phr of the reaction mixture ([0096]).
For claims 13-14 and 24, Mitchell et al teach the curative comprises up to 5 phr of the reaction mixture and the curative is triallyl isocyanurate ([0076]).
For claims 15, 17-18, 25 and 27-28, Mitchell et al teach the reaction mixture further comprises at least one filler; the at least one filler includes a first filler and a second filler ([0078]-[0079]) and SiO₂ is a well known filler so it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the at least one filler comprise it to increase strength of the polymer matrix.
For claims 16 and 26, though the previous combination does not teach the reaction mixture contains up to 20 phr of the filler, Mitchell et al do teach use of 1-100 phr of filler ([0078]) and since the claimed ranges overlap ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Please see MPEP 2144.05 (I) and In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) for further details.
For claim 22, though the previous combination does not teach the vinyl-functionalized silica cages comprise up to 10 mole% of the fluoroelastomer; the tetrafluoroethylene comprises about 5 to about 95 mole% of the fluoroelastomer; and the perfluoroalkyl vinyl ether comprises about 5 to about 95 mole% of the fluoroelastomer, Mitchell et al do teach the vinyl-functionalized silica cages comprise up to 10 phr of the reaction mixture as discussed above and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the vinyl-functionalized silica cages comprise up to 10 mole% of the fluoroelastomer; the tetrafluoroethylene comprises about 5 to about 95 mole% of the fluoroelastomer; and the perfluoroalkyl vinyl ether comprises about 5 to about 95 mole% of the fluoroelastomer, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to perform routine experimentation for the purpose of optimizing the sealing article composition for desired performance characteristics. Please see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 for further details.
For claims 29 and 31, Mitchell et al teach the vinyl-functionalized silica cages are formed by condensation of at least one vinyl-functionalized silane; or by grafting of at least one vinyl-functionalized silane to a silica cage ([0044]-[0045]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES SANDERS whose telephone number is (571)270-7007. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 11-7.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Galen Hauth can be reached on 571-270-5516. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/JAMES SANDERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights