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 1-11) in the reply filed on 9/8/2025 is acknowledged. Claim 12 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claims 1-11 are 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 1 recites the limitation "two end portions" in line 9. It is not clear whether it refers to “end portions” in line 8 or another limitation. For examination, it is interpreted as the limitation in line 8.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "a core" in line 4. It is not clear whether it refers to “a core” in line 1 or another limitation. For examination, it is interpreted as the limitation in line 1.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "an outer layer" in line 5. It is not clear whether it refers to “an outer layer” in line 2 or another limitation. For examination, it is interpreted as the limitation in line 2.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “an outer layer” in line 6. It is not clear whether it refers to “an outer layer” in line 5 of claim 1 or another limitation. For examination, it is interpreted as the limitation in claim 1.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “a core” in line 6. It is not clear whether it refers to “a core” in line 3 of claim 1, “an uncrosslinked core” in line 5 of claim 8 or another limitation. For examination, it is interpreted as the limitation in claim 1.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “an outer layer” in line 7. It is not clear whether it refers to “an outer layer” in line 4 of claim 1, “an uncrosslinked outer layer” in line 6 of claim 8, or another limitation. For examination, it is interpreted as the limitation in claim 1.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the uncrosslinked core” in line 7. It is not clear whether it refers to “an uncrosslinked outer layer” in line 4 of claim 1, “an uncrosslinked outer layer” in line 6 of claim 8, or another limitation. For examination, it is interpreted as the limitation in claim 8.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “an outer layer” in line 3. It is not clear whether it refers to “an outer layer” in line 4 of claim 1 or another limitation. For examination, it is interpreted as the limitation in claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-11 would be allowable if the above 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection is overcome.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: None of the references of record teach “hot press mold a portion other than end portions of the rope-like preform” in combination with remaining limitations in Claim 1.
Ballard et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0094462) which is considered the closest prior art teaches a method of manufacturing an annular seal material comprising a step of connecting two end portions of a rope-like preform using a small amount of uncured second elastomeric material of the outer layer 16 ([0033]). However, it does not teach the aforementioned allowable subject matter. Other references such as Sato (JP2013163266) and Watanabe (JP2003097715) also teach similar methods of making an O-ring, however, they also fail to teach the forementioned allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUN S YOO whose telephone number is (571)270-7141. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-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, SUNIL SINGH can be reached at (571) 272-3460. 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.
/JUN S YOO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726 11/14/2025