DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action is in response to the claims filed on 02/06/2026.
Claims 1-6, 8-19, 25-26, 28, and 31-33 are currently pending. Claims 1-6, 8-16, and 18-19 have been examined below. Claims 7, 20-24, 27, 29-30, and 34-37 are cancelled.
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.
Claims 1-3, 8-12, 14-16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaye et al. (US 9616734) (hereinafter “Kaye”) in view of Ryan et al. (US 6600142) (hereinafter “Ryan”).
Claim 1
(Kaye discloses) A seal assembly (figure 4) adapted to be coupled to a flange (16) of a vehicle (figure 1), said seal assembly comprising:
a seal body (36) extruded from an elastomeric material (lines 27-29 of col. 5) and having a base, a first leg extending from said base, and a second leg extending from said base spaced from said first leg (the base, first leg, and second leg all shown in Annotated figure 4 below), with said base, said first leg, and said second leg collectively defining a mounting channel (62) for receiving the flange of the vehicle (figure 4);
at least one seal feature (44) co-extruded with said seal body with said seal feature extending from said seal body and spaced from said mounting channel (figure 4);
a molded component (40) coupled to said seal body and molded from a thermoplastic material (lines 18-20 of col. 6); and
an adhesive (150) disposed between said seal body and said molded component (figure 4); and .
wherein said molded component is directly mounted to said seal body through said adhesive without mechanical fastening between said molded component and said seal body (see figure 4 showing only the adhesive 150 and without any mechanical fastening between the molded component 40 and seal body 36).
Kaye fails to disclose:
(i) an electromagnetic adhesive, with said electromagnetic adhesive comprised of a resin and a susceptor configured to be energized upon exposure to electromagnetic energy such that said susceptor softens said resin;
(ii) such that said susceptor softens said resin to directly mount said molded component to said seal body.
(i) (However, Ryan teaches) an electromagnetic adhesive (susceptor composition; Excerpt 1 from cols. 3-4 below discusses the susceptor composition comprises an adhesive compound; additionally, the abstract discusses said compound to function as an adhesive), with said electromagnetic adhesive comprised of a resin (thermoset resin; Excerpt 1 below) and a susceptor (Excerpt 1 below) configured to be energized upon exposure to electromagnetic energy such that said susceptor softens said resin (Excerpt 1 below).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute the adhesive of Kaye with the electromagnetic adhesive of Ryan, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the known benefits of electromagnetic adhesive such as faster curing and low-heat process which can preserve and prevent damaging the rubber seals of the seal assembly. Additionally, the low-heat process of the electromagnetic adhesive promotes lesser carbon emissions.
(ii) (Kaye, as modified above, discloses) such that said susceptor softens said resin to directly mount said molded component to said seal body (this is taught in light of the substitution above).
Regarding figure 4 below, examiner previously set forth that the base, first leg, and second leg were all shown in Annotated figure 4 below, however the examiner unintentionally labeled “seal body” instead of “base” (see previous Annotated figure 4). Examiner has corrected Annotated figure 4 to show the base.
PNG
media_image1.png
623
692
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated figure 4
PNG
media_image2.png
258
487
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Excerpt 1
Claim 2
(Kaye, as modified above, discloses) The seal assembly of claim 1, wherein at least one of said base and said first leg has an outer surface (Annotated figure 4 above) spaced from said mounting channel and said seal feature, and wherein said electromagnetic adhesive is disposed on said outer surface (Annotated figure 4 above).
Claim 3
(Kaye, as modified above, discloses) The seal assembly of claim 2, wherein said molded component abuts at least one of said base and said first leg in addition to being directly mounted to said seal body by said electromagnetic adhesive (Annotated figure 4 above).
Claim 8
(Kaye, as modified above, discloses) The seal assembly of claim 1, wherein said electromagnetic energy is further defined as an alternating magnetic field (Excerpt 1 above discussing the electromagnetic adhesive being activated by RF energy and Excerpt 2 from col. 10 below discussing RF-energy is an alternating electromagnetic field).
PNG
media_image3.png
82
488
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Excerpt 2
Claim 9
(Kaye, as modified above, discloses) The seal assembly of claim 1, wherein said susceptor is further defined as a plurality of susceptor particles impregnated in said resin (Excerpt 1 above).
(Excerpt 1 above seems to teach the recitations of claim 9, however if applicant found it unreasonable, examiner directs the attention to the fact that Ryan teaches) wherein a susceptor (112; Ryan figure 1B) is further defined as a plurality of susceptor particles impregnated in a resin (114).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to impregnate the electromagnetic adhesive of modified Kaye with a plurality of susceptor particles in a resin as taught by Ryan, with a reasonable expectation of success, to evenly distribute the susceptor particles within the resin thus resulting to an even and stronger bonding.
Claim 10
(Kaye, as modified above, discloses) The seal assembly of claim 1, wherein said susceptor comprise a ferromagnetic material (Excerpt 3 from col. 2 below).
PNG
media_image4.png
141
499
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Excerpt 3
Claim 11
(Kaye, as modified above, discloses) The seal assembly of claim 10, wherein said ferromagnetic material comprises at least one chosen from iron, nickel, and magnetite (Excerpt 3 above discusses using iron oxide).
Claim 12
(Kaye, as modified above, discloses) The seal assembly of claim 1, wherein said seal body extends along an axis (Annotated figure 4 above), and wherein said electromagnetic adhesive is applied to said seal body continuously along said axis (Annotated figure 4 above).
Claim 14
(Kaye, as modified above, discloses) The seal assembly of claim 1, wherein said molded component is molded separate from said seal body (figure 4).
Claim 15
(Kaye, as modified above, discloses) The seal assembly of claim 1, wherein said molded component is a decorative cover (lines 61-64 of col. 4) having a first cover portion extending parallel to said first leg of said seal body (Annotated figure 4 above) and a second cover portion extending at an angle from said first cover portion (Annotated figure 4 above).
Claim 16
(Kaye, as modified above, discloses) The seal assembly of claim 15, wherein said electromagnetic adhesive is disposed between said first cover portion and said first leg (Annotated figure 4 above).
Claim 19
(Kaye, as modified above, discloses) The seal assembly of claim 1, wherein said seal body further includes an embedded reinforcing member (60; figure 4) for reinforcing said mounting channel (figure 4).
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaye in view of Ryan, as applied to claims 1-3, 8-12, 14-16, and 19 above, in further view of Clark et al. (US 9616734) (hereinafter “Clark”).
Claim 4
(Kaye, as modified above, discloses) The seal assembly of claim 2.
Modified Kaye fails to disclose wherein said outer surface defines a notch, and wherein said electromagnetic adhesive is disposed in said notch.
(However, Clark teaches) an outer surface defines a notch (both shown in Annotated figure 18 below), and wherein an adhesive (986) is disposed in said notch (Clark figure 18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the outer surface of modified Kaye with the notch similar to the teachings of Clark, with a reasonable expectation of success, to keep the adhesive flush with respect to the outer surface such that the molded component does not protrude too far from the seal body when mounted.
PNG
media_image5.png
608
572
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Annotated figure 18
Claim 5
(Kaye, as modified above, discloses) The seal assembly of claim 4, wherein said electromagnetic adhesive is shaped to conform to said notch when said molded component is mounted to said seal body (this is taught via the combination above; also see Annotated figure 18 above).
Claim 6
(Kaye, as modified above, discloses) The seal assembly of claim 5, wherein said electromagnetic adhesive conforms to a volume of said notch as a result of said susceptor softening said resin (this is taught via the combination above; also see Annotated figure 18 above).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaye in view of Ryan, as applied to claims 1-3, 8-12, 14-16, and 19 above, in further view of Goldberg et al. (US 6487819) (hereinafter “Goldberg”).
Claim 13
(Kaye, as modified above, discloses) The seal assembly of claim 1.
Modified Kaye is silent regarding said electromagnetic adhesive is coextruded with said seal body.
(However, Goldberg teaches) a magnetic adhesive (636; Goldberg figure 6) is coextruded with a seal body (632; lines 7-10 of col. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the electromagnetic adhesive of modified Kaye such that it is coextruded with said seal body as taught by Goldberg, with a reasonable expectation of success, for a cheaper manufacturing by not requiring a fastening or adhering element to attach the electromagnetic adhesive to the seal body and for improved attachability of the electromagnetic adhesive to the seal body by being integrally formed.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaye in view of Ryan, as applied to claims 1-3, 8-12, 14-16, and 19 above, in further view of Pasqualini (FR 2545145).
Claim 18
(Kaye, as modified above, discloses) The seal assembly of claim 15.
Modified Kaye fails to disclose wherein said electromagnetic adhesive is disposed between said second cover portion and said base.
(However Pasqualini teaches) a cover (8; Pasqualini figure 2) having a first cover portion extending parallel to a first leg (the first cover portion and first leg shown in Annotated figure 2 below) of a seal body (4) and a second cover portion extending at an angle from said first cover portion (Annotated figure 2 below),
wherein an adhesive (7) is disposed between said second cover portion and a base (Annotated figure 2 below).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the electromagnetic adhesive of modified Kaye such that it is disposed between the second cover portion and base as taught by Pasqualini, with a reasonable expectation of success, for significantly adding more surface area of adhesion between the seal body and molded component thus significantly reducing the chances of the molded component from detaching from the seal body.
PNG
media_image6.png
464
571
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Annotated figure 2
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments directed to the drawing objections were considered and the objections were withdrawn. The response below were directed to applicant’s arguments set forth on 02/06/2026.
Applicant's arguments filed 02/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding “The Kaye reference provides a sealing system with a plastic surround cap 40 that is always mechanically joined to a rubber seal 36…As such, in each instance of the illustrated sealing system of Kaye, the sealing system requires a mechanical fastening feature either as a primary means of joining the pieces together or employs the mechanical fastening feature in addition to the described adhesive 150. The specification of Kaye likewise discusses this required mechanical feature…The Applicant offers annotated figures from Kaye below, which each show the required mechanical fastening feature”, examiner notes that in the annotated figures of Kaye provided by the applicant (i.e., showing the mechanical fastening feature in figure 4) the mechanical fastening feature is not located between said molded component and said seal body as the claim required.
Lastly, par. 27 of applicant’s own disclosure below discloses that a mechanical fastening can even serve as the primary mounting mechanism as such examiner finds this argument unpersuasive.
PNG
media_image7.png
214
711
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Par. 27
Regarding “I. With regard to the same field of endeavor” and “These examples are very specific applications that are clearly not in a same field of endeavor as automotive seals. Section XI”, note that MPEP 2141.01(a) states:
“When determining whether a prior art reference meets the "same field of endeavor" test for the analogous art, the primary focus is on what the reference discloses. Airbus, 41 F.3d at 1380. The examiner must consider the disclosure of each reference "in view of the ‘the reality of the circumstances.’" Airbus, 41 F.3d at 1380 (quoting Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1326, 72 USPQ2d at 1212). These circumstances are to be weighed "from the vantage point of the common sense likely to be exerted by one of ordinary skill in the art in assessing the scope of the endeavor." Airbus, 41 F.3d at 1380. See also Donner Technology, LLC v. Pro Stage Gear, LLC, 979 F.3d 1353, 2020 USPQ2d 11335 (Fed. Cir. 2020); Sanofi-Aventis, 66 F.4th at 1378; and Netflix, Inc. v. DivX, LLC, 80 F.4th 1352, 1358-59, 2023 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 2023) ("The field of endeavor is ‘not limited to the specific point of novelty, the narrowest possible conception of the field, or the particular focus within a given field.’") (quoting Unwired Planet, LLC v. Google Inc., 841 F.3d 995, 1001, 120 USPQ2d 1593, 1597 (Fed. Cir. 2016))”
Ryan discloses a susceptor composition that can bond two or more layers or substrates to one another and Kaye discloses an adhesive for bonding two substrates to one another. Examiner emphasizes that MPEP 2141.01(a) states that the field of endeavor is not limited to a particular focus within a given field as such one of the ordinary skill in the art would consider other alternatives of an adhesive in order to solve the same issue of bonding two elements or substrates together.
Regarding the exemplary applications, lines 1-5 of col. 41 of Ryan below discussing that these examples are non-limiting examples as such applicant should not limit to the applications listed and deem that Ryan is not in the same field of endeavor merely because automotive sealings is not listed in the exemplary specific applications.
PNG
media_image8.png
121
435
media_image8.png
Greyscale
lines 1-5 of col. 41
Regarding “II. With regard to the reasonably pertinent basis” and “Further, general disclosures, that the adhesive may be used on metal, plastic, wood, or composite materials fails to provide the automotive engineer having ordinary skill in the art reasonable guidance or information that the Ryan susceptor composition would solve problems posed in an automotive seal application”, applicant’s invention is directed to providing an improved seal assembly where one that bonds elastomeric material and plastic material without the aid of mechanical fastening (par. 3 of applicant’s specification).
Ryan discloses similar problem where overheating the adhesive to activate the adhering properties of the adhesive can cause problems such as “thermal distortion or destruction of the adherands, as well as thermal degradation of the thermoplastic composition” (lines 65-67 of col. 29).
Ryan discloses an adhesive that is capable of being applied to different substrates (see col. 25 of Ryan below) and an adhesive where “The degree of heating and melting of the adhesive composition is controlled by the intensity and duration of the applied RF energy and the formulation of the adhesive composition. Such control is required to prevent undesired results stemming from under-heating or over-heating the adhesive composition” (lines 57-62 of col. 29).
Therefore, examiner concludes that an inventor seeking to bond two elements that are made of different materials would have looked to the reference of Ryan in an attempt to find a solution to the problem.
Lastly, col. 25 of Ryan below discloses that the susceptor adhesive can be applied to substrates such as metal, plastic, wood, or composite materials as such the argument that “fails to provide the automotive engineer having ordinary skill in the art reasonable guidance or information that the Ryan susceptor composition would solve problems posed in an automotive seal application” is not persuasive.
PNG
media_image9.png
321
551
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 PATRICK B PONCIANO whose telephone number is (571)272-9910. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30-4:00.
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, Daniel Cahn can be reached at (571) 270-5616. 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.
/PATRICK B. PONCIANO/Examiner, Art Unit 3634
/DANIEL J TROY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3637