DETAILED ACTION
For reasons consistent with that given by applicants in the response dated 8/7/26, claim 1 and the claims that depend thereon on allowed. The amendment has overcome the prior art rejection and 112(b) rejections for these claims. New claims 17 to 19 are rejected, as noted below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 17 to 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP ‘326 in view of JP ‘475.
Both of these documents and their English language translations were cited and
discussed in the previous office action. As applicants are aware both references teach an uncured fluororubber composition having comparable uses and are considered to be analogous art with each other and the instant claims.
‘326 teaches a composition that contains an uncrosslinked fluororubber and a powdered phenolic resin (para. 7, 16). This also contains an organic peroxide and a crosslinking agent (para. 17 to 22). In addition this composition also contains silica that is preferably hydrophobic dry silica (para. 24). This differs from claim 17 in that it does not include an ionic liquid.
‘475 teaches a composition that contains an uncrosslinked fluororubber, an organic peroxide and a crosslinking agent. This teaches the addition of an ionic liquid as a means of obtaining stable antistatic performance, i.e. to reduce static electricity. See paragraphs 8, 25 and 49.
As such one having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include an ionic fluid such as that found in ‘475 into the composition of ‘326 in an effort provide antistatic properties. Given this motivation one having ordinary skill in the art would have found the composition of claim 17 to have been obvious.
For claims 18 and 19, see paragraphs 4 and 35 which teach a seal and a method of making a seal.
Applicants have provided arguments as to why they believe claim 17 to be allow-able. This is not persuasive, particularly in view of the fact that the primary and second-ary references have been changed in this rejection (compared to the combination found in the previous office action). Applicants argue that the combination of ionic liquid, silica and phenol resin filler as claimed produces a synergistic effect. The examples relied upon in the specification do not confirm this. For instance, there are no comparative examples that use the phenol resin filler with silica but without ionic liquid that could be relied upon to establish a criticality in the combination of the three. Furthermore, from the specification it does not appear that the breadth of the claims are commensurate in scope with any allegedly unexpected results or beneficial properties. Paragraphs 17, 21, 22 and 29, among others, indicate that any improved or desired properties do not arise from the combination of these three components alone but include other factors such as amounts and particle size.
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 MARGARET MOORE whose telephone number is (571)272-1090. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday, 10 am to 5 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Heidi Kelly, can be reached at 571-270-1831.
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 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.
Mgm
9/23/26
/MARGARET G MOORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765
Prosecution Insights