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 .
Response to Amendment
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The new grounds of rejection set forth below are necessitated by applicant’s amendment filed on 7/13/2026. In particular, claim 12 has been amended to further recite the amounts of the components and the identity of fluoropolymer D. This presents the claims in a manner with a scope not previously examined. Thus, the following action is properly made FINAL.
Double Patenting
Claims 1-12, 16-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,024,575 in view of Arcella (CA 2068754).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because US ‘575 claims a co-cured elastomreric blend comprising 25-75 parts fluoropolymer A and 25-75 parts fluoropolymer C where fluoropolymer A and C are crosslinked with a peroxide initiator and triazine crosslining agent and where fluoropolymer A comprises a copolymer of TFE, PP, and cure site monomer, and where fluoropolymer C comprises a copolymer of VDF, TFE, and PMVE. US ‘575 recites the peroxide includes di-t-butylperoxyisopropyl benzene in 1-5 pbw (claim 5). US ‘575 recites the CSM includes iodine or bromine atoms (claim 8).
US ‘575 does not explicitly recite a pentapolymer comprising monomer units of VDF, HFP, TFE, PMVE and PE.
However, Arcella teaches fluoroelastomeric copolymers derived from VDF, HFP, TFE, PMVE and PE (abstract, Table 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the pentapolymers of Arcella because they provide fluoroelastomeric copolymer having high resistance to bases and alcohols, including amine containing oils, high mechanical properties and low temperature resistance (pg. 1, 4). Alterantively, Arcell teaches the pentapolymers have improved chemical resistance compared to VDF/TFE/PMVE copolymers (Tables 1 and 2). As Terada desires chemical resistance (see pg. 31 of Terada), it would have been obvious to use the pentapolymers of Arcella because they provide fluoroelastomeric copolymer having high resistance to bases and alcohols, including amine containing oils, high mechanical properties and low temperature resistance (pg. 1, 4, Tables 1-2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-12, 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terada (JP 2017-008166) in view of Arcella (CA 2068754).
Terada teaches a fluorine containing composition (abstract) and gives an example where 50 pbw of a copolymer of VDF/TFE/PMVE (polymer b2) is blended with 50 pbw of a copolymer of TFE/Pr (polymer b4) are blended with 20 phr carbon black, 4 phr triallyl isocyanurate, and 2 phr 2,5-dimethyl-2,5-dibutylperoxyhexane (Table 5). Triallyl isocyanurate is a triazine crosslinking agent. The TFE/Pr (polymer b4) corresponds to claimed fluoropolymer A and the copolymer of VDF/TFE/PMVE (polymer b2) corresponds to claimed fluoropolymer D.
A 50 pbw of the copolymer corresponds to about 47 parts polymer per 100 parts co-cured (vulcanized) blend which meets the amounts of claims 13-14. Blending these components results in a co-cured elastomeric blend.
Terada does not explicitly recite that the copolymers have a cure site monomer.
However, Terada teaches the copolymer (b) includes a crosslinkable group such as an iodine atom, a bromine atom or a cyano group (pg. 14-17) which corresponds to the claimed cure site monomer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the crosslinkable groups (cure site monomers) described in Terada because Terada teaches using the crosslinkable groups (pg. 14-17) and because “a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art…” Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See MPEP 2123.
Terada teaches copolymer (b) is preferably a fluororubber (pg. 12) indicating a fluoroelastomeric composition. Terada teaches suitable crosslinkers include 2,5-dimethyl-2,5-dibutylperoxyhexane and bis(2-butylperoxyide-oxy-diisopropylbenene (pg. 19). Terada teaches crosslinking aids include triallyl isocyanurate (pg. 19).
Terada does not explicitly recite a pentapolymer comprising monomer units of VDF, HFP, TFE, PMVE and PE.
However, Arcella teaches fluoroelastomeric copolymers derived from VDF, HFP, TFE, PMVE and PE (abstract, Table 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the pentapolymers of Arcella because they provide fluoroelastomeric copolymer having high resistance to bases and alcohols, including amine containing oils, high mechanical properties and low temperature resistance (pg. 1, 4). Alterantively, Arcell teaches the pentapolymers have improved chemical resistance compared to VDF/TFE/PMVE copolymers (Tables 1 and 2). As Terada desires chemical resistance (see pg. 31 of Terada), it would have been obvious to use the pentapolymers of Arcella because they provide fluoroelastomeric copolymer having high resistance to bases and alcohols, including amine containing oils, high mechanical properties and low temperature resistance (pg. 1, 4, Tables 1-2).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the double patenting rejection, Applicant argues that Arcella does not teach a co-cured blend of the pentapolymer with a FEPM. This is not persuasive because the copending claims indicate a co-cured blend and Arcella shows that pentapolymers and their benefits were known at the time of invention.
Regarding the rejection over Terada and Arcella, Applicant argues that the claimed invention exhibits unexpected synergistic results that rebut an obviousness position.
Specifically, Applicant argues that the co-cured blends exhibit compression set (32%) lower than either pure component (37% and 49%).
Applicant argues that the co-cured blends exhibit lower solvent swelling (17.8% and 15.5%) that is lower than the pure components (25.6% and 19%).
Regarding the compression set, the instant specification provides evidence that a blend of copolymers gives a lower compression set than pure polymers. Attention is directed to Table 5A showing the compression set of a blend of fluoropolymers A and B where polymer A is a TFE/PP/CSM copolymer and polymer B is a VDF/HFP/TFE copolymer. Table 5A shows the blend has compression sets (24-30%) that are lower than the pure polymers (37% and 31%). This provides evidence that the improved results of a blend compared to the pure components are not unexpected.
Regarding the swelling, the instant specification provides evidence that a blend of copolymers gives a lower swelling set than pure polymers. Attention is directed to Tables 7A and 7B showing the swelling of a blend of fluoropolymers A and B (Table 7A) and fluoropolymers A and C (Table 7B). Table 7A shows that a swelling of 14.8% for a blend while the pure components are 25.6% and 15.3%. Table 7B shows a swelling of 15.7% for a blend while the pure components are 25.6% and 16.9%. This provides evidence that the improved results of a blend compared to the pure components are not unexpected.
MPEP 716.02(e) states that any alleged unexpected results must be compared with the closest prior art. In this case, the closest prior art is not the pure components, but a blend as the prior art teaches a blend. Additionally, as shown by the data described above, improved swelling and compression set compared to the pure components is not unexpected based on the comparative examples in the instant specification.
For these reasons, the allegations of unexpected results are not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
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 ROBERT C BOYLE whose telephone number is (571)270-7347. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 10am-4pm.
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, Arrie (Lanee) Reuther can be reached at (571)270-7026. 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.
/ROBERT C BOYLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights