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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on December 16, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on December 16, 2025 have been entered. Claims 1-6 and 14-15 remain pending in the application.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hintzer et al (US 8404790 B2) in view of Murai et al (JP 2009/227754 A, using the machine translation for the citations below), Ishikawa et al (WO 2010/038902 A1), and Ono et al (WO 2020/105671 A1, using the machine translation for the citations below), as evidenced by Malvern Instruments Worldwide (Dynamic Light Scattering Common Terms Defined, 2011, p. 1-5).
Regarding Claims 1, 3, and 4: Hintzer discloses an aqueous dispersion comprising a fluoroolefin represented by the formula CF2=CF-O-(CF2)4-SO2F (col. 14, lines 39-44; MV4S) with a content of 20 to 40 mass% (col. 13, lines 3-11), which reads on the claimed formula (1) and the fluoroolefin a’, and water (col. 3, lines 57-58), wherein the droplet diameter is 500 to 2000 nm (col. 13, lines 21-24). Hintzer teaches that reported particle sizes are the Z-average diameter (col. 16, lines 30-38), which Malvern Instruments Worldwide teaches is equivalent to the cumulant mean (p.1, Z-Average Size, Cumulants analysis).
Hintzer is silent to the claimed surfactant.
Murai teaches an aqueous dispersion (para. 0002) comprising a surfactant with the formula CF3-CF2-CF2-O-CF(CF-3)-CF2-O-CF(CF3)-COONH4 (para. 0033), which matches the claimed formula (2) and the structure of claim 4. Murai further teaches that this surfactant imparts high mechanical stability to dispersions at low loadings (para. 0033). Murai and Hintzer are analogous art because they are directed toward the same field of endeavor, namely emulsion polymerization of fluoropolymers in aqueous media.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the surfactant disclosed by Murai in the dispersion disclosed by Hintzer in order to improve the mechanical stability of the dispersion.
Hintzer is also silent to the dispersion having a pH between 2.0 and 7.0.
Ishikawa teaches an aqueous dispersion with a pH less than 6 (para. 0070). This overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a dispersion with an overlapping pH and would have been motivated to do so since Ishikawa teaches this pH range produces a more stable colloid (para. 0070). Ishikawa and Hintzer are analogous art because they are directed toward the same field of endeavor, namely emulsion polymerization of fluoropolymers in aqueous media.
Hintzer is silent to the ratio of the volume average particle size to the number average particle size.
Ono teaches an aqueous fluoropolymer dispersion (para. 0042) comprising polymer particles obtained from emulsion polymerization (para. 0044) wherein the dispersion has a particle size distribution (volume average particle size divided by number average particle size) of 1.30 or less, which allows for a highly uniform coating film that effectively displays the properties imparted by fluorine (para. 0039-0040), such as water repellency and antifouling properties (para. 0006). Ono and Hintzer are analogous art because they are directed toward the same field of endeavor, namely fluoropolymer particle dispersions that may be used in coating applications (Hintzer col. 15, line 27).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the particle size distribution in the aqueous dispersion taught by Hintzer to 1.30 or less in order to use the dispersion to produce a uniform coating film with good water repellence and antifouling properties.
Regarding Claim 2: Hintzer does not explicitly disclose that the dispersion medium comprises compounds other than water. In the absence of compounds with a high global warming potential, the dispersion medium will have a GWP of less than 1,000.
Regarding Claim 5: Hintzer does not disclose a compound with the formula M1OOCCF2SO3M-2. Since the instant specification does not disclose a condition that would cause the claimed compound to be present in the dispersion, it is taken to mean that the composition of Hintzer does not contain the claimed compound.
Regarding Claim 6: Not disclosed is the amount of Fe2+, Fe3+, or dissolved oxygen in the dispersion. However, the references teach all of the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts made by a substantially similar process. The original specification identifies that a dispersion pH of 2.0 to 7.0 will result in the content of Fe2+ and Fe3+ being less than 1ppm (para. 0029) and that the emulsion taking place in an atmosphere substantially free of oxygen will result in an oxygen content of less than 1ppm (para. 0030). Ishikawa teaches the pH of a dispersion is less than 6, as set forth above. Hintzer teaches a process of deoxygenating the reaction vessel of the emulsion (col. 17, lines 20-25). Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. Fe2+, Fe3+, and dissolved oxygen levels of less than 1ppm, would naturally arise and be achieved by the composition as disclosed above. See MPEP § 2112.01.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and affidavit filed on December 16, 2025, with respect to the rejection of amended claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made, as set forth above.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAITLIN N ILLING whose telephone number is (571)270-1940. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-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, Mark Eashoo can be reached at (571)272-1197. 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.
/C.N.I./Examiner, Art Unit 1767
/MARK EASHOO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1767