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 .
Priority
The foreign priority documents are not in English, the claims are given an effective date of that of the PCT: 11/16/21
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 4/15/26, 9/30/24, 12/19/23, 10/18/23 have been considered by the examiner.
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, 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimizu (US 4783289) in view of Jang (US 2003/0134987) and Weiber (Calculating the temperature and degree of crosslinking for liquid silicone rubber processing in injection molding, Journal of advanced manufacturing and processing, 2021, 3:e10072, first published 11/2/2020).
Shimizu discloses processes for molding silicon rubber compositions [meeting the rubber of claim 1] comprising extruding the silicon rubber at temperatures from -60C to 5C into water that is maintained at a temperature of at least 25C to cure the composition (abstract) [meeting wherein uncrosslinked rubber is heated in a liquid to produce a crosslinked rubber, and, wherein the temperature does not exceed saturated vapor pressure]. The method creates bubble free products having low shrinkage ratios (abstract). The temperature is thusly controlled to a set value, and, likewise the pressure exerted by the fluid is controlled by the atmosphere/liquid system.
Shimuzu includes elements as set forth above but does not disclose monitoring the crosslinking degree at intervals and determining/stopping at a required crosslinking degree. Weiber discloses calculating temperature and degree of crosslinking for silicone rubbers (abstract). Therein, it is disclosed to be known to use temperature and crosslinking simulation, and, to verify the calculations experimentally with precise temperature readings during the crosslinking process. One can see in the DSC measurements discussion on page 4 therein that when lower heating rates are used, the peak crosslinking temperature shifts lower whereas for faster heating rates the peak temperature shifts to a higher temperature, further the graph on page 7 shows the different data points taken at different times to determine crosslinking/exothermic output.
Jang discloses methods for determining optimal degree of vulcanization (crosslinking) in real time (title) wherein the crosslink degree is evaluated in real time to determine the optimal crosslink time (abstract). Jang discloses that the properties of the end product depend greatly on the end crosslink density [0005], one of ordinary skill would recognize that the greater the crosslink density the greater the tensile strength/mechanical properties and the lower the crosslink density to softer and more flexible a material may be.
Jang and Weiber are thusly evidence that it is known to determine the crosslink value at different times of a reaction, and, one would pick a crosslink density/degree depending on the end properties desired.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include in Shimizu the use of pre-determining the crosslinking degree of the material at different temperatures/times/rates of temperature changes, and, determining the crosslinking density desired to achieve the desired flexibility/strength or soft/hardness of the end product. It would have been obvious to use any formula [rendering the use of the claimed formula prima facie obvious] known to determine the equivalent crosslink density as a function of time/temperature, since determining crosslinking amount at different times is a known method in the art in order to achieve the desired crosslinking and desired physical properties of a polymer. See MPEP 2143 A, E,G wherein it is obvious to combine prior art elements (the known use of predetermining crosslinking density vs. time/temperature) to yield the predictable results of a crosslinked product having desired end properties, and/or obvious to try know predictable solutions (the known use of predetermining crosslink density vs. time/temperature) in order to obtain an end product with desired properties (mechanical/physical properties) with a reasonable expectation of success
Elements above render claim 1 prima facie obvious. Elements above also meet claim 3.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2, 4 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: preheating the fabricated object of uncrosslinked rubber at or below the boiling point of the curing liquid under pressure of 1.1 MPa or more before curing is not suggested or disclosed. While Shimuzu heats the curable liquid prior to extrusion, there is no suggestion or disclosure to do such under pressure of 1.1 Mpa or more.
Other close prior art includes McGlothlin US 20180333902 that discloses dip coating in a liquid bath to cure a rubber, but the use of pressure of 1.1 MPa or more is not suggested or disclosed
US 5595695 that is similar to Shimizu above but monitors/controls humidity. No pressure control is suggested or disclosed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALICIA BLAND whose telephone number is (571)272-2451. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00 am -3:00 pm 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, Curt Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/ALICIA BLAND/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights