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 .
Claim Status
The Amendment filed on 30 October 2025 and Supplemental Amendment filed on 03 December 2025 have been entered; claims 1-3, 9, 11-13, 18-22, 25, and 28-30 remain pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 7-11 of the Remarks, filed 03 December 2025 and Pages 7-8 of the Remarks, filed 30 October 2025, with respect to the objection to claim 14 and the rejections of claims 1-4, 8-11, 28, and 29 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection to claim 14 and the rejections of claims 1-4, 8-11, 28, and 29 under 35 USC 103 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see Pages 8-10 of the Remarks filed 30 October 2025, with respect to independent composition claims 12 and 22 and their dependent claims have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues on Pages 8-10 of the Remarks regarding the rejection of claim 12 under 35 USC 103 that Hintzer does not teach polymer I; however, Hintzer teaches that the fluoropolymers have a molecular weight that is greater than about 5,000 g/mol (Paragraph [0037]), with one or more units comprising anionic groups, which are the “ion exchange groups”. Kaneko was disclosed to show a teaching of an example of anionic fluoropolymers having an ion exchange capacity ranging from 0.5 to 2.0 meq/g ton dry resin (Paragraphs [0123, 0149, 0217, 0218]); therefore fluoropolymers having a range in ion exchange capacity with anionic groups were known at the time of effective filing. That Kaneko is ultimately concerned with polymer membranes does not preclude the fact that the fluoropolymers of Kaneko are still manufactured, and fluoropolymers and byproducts thereof still need to be removed from polymerization mixtures containing them.
Applicant argues on Page 10 that Hintzer does not teach aluminum ion content; however, the aluminum salts are present at low concentrations (as low as 5ppm). As is very well known in the art, aluminum chloride dissolves well in water, having a solubility limit of 458 g/L (parts per thousand) at room temperature (see for example, the Wikipedia entry for polyaluminum chloride). One of ordinary skill in the art would have every expectation of concentration of aluminum salt disclosed by Hintzer to represent aluminum ions, as that concentration of aluminum chloride would dissolve in water.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 12, 13, 18-22, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hintzer et al. (U.S. Patent Publication # 2010/0179293) in view of Kaneko et al. (U.S. Patent Publication # 2018/0043344), hereinafter “Hintzer” and “Kaneko”.
With respect to claims 12, 13, 18-22, and 25, Hintzer discloses a composition comprising an aqueous phase (“water”), at least 5 ug/g of inorganic salts including iron and aluminum sulfates and chlorides (metal ion having a valency of 2 or more”) (Paragraphs [0021, 0023]), equivalent to at least 5 mg/L (assuming 1 g/mL as the density), overlapping “0.05 to 1,000 mg/L” and “0.05 to 5 mg/L, fluoropolymers with various functional groups in an amount of up to about 1% or up to about 10,000 ppm, overlapping “1 to 5,000 ppm”) (Paragraphs [0021-0025, 0029-0036]).
Hintzer teaches wherein the fluorinated polymers are collected from production of fluoropolymers from polymerization mixtures (Paragraph [0021]), wherein the fluoropolymers have various functional groups and include perfluorinated monomers (Paragraphs [0029-0036]; “the proportion of carbon atom-bonded hydrogen atoms replaced by fluorine atoms is 50% or more”); as such the Examiner submits that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that a fluoropolymer according to Formula I (see Fig 1 and the rejection of claim 1 above; Paragraphs [0030-0035]) and one or more fluoropolymers different than the fluoropolymer consistent with Formula I is/are present, including a homopolymer of TFE, or PTFE (polytetrafluoroethylene) (see Paragraphs [0030, 0032]), as Hintzer also discloses that the targeted fluoropolymers for removal comprise fluoropolymers with varying amounts of monomers comprising an anionic group, or no anionic end groups (Paragraphs [0030-0036]). As such, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan that a range of ion exchange rates are present.
Additionally, Kaneko teaches processes for producing fluoropolymers with anionic groups including sulfonate and carboxylate groups, having an ion exchange capacity ranging from 0.5 to 2.0 meq/g ton dry resin (Paragraphs [0123, 0149, 0217, 0218]); therefore fluoropolymers having a range in ion exchange capacity with anionic groups were known at the time of effective filing. Although ion exchange capacity in Kaneko is reported using different units, it has been held that where the claimed parameters/properties may be expressed differently and thus may be distinct from what is disclosed in the prior art, it is incumbent upon applicants to establish that such difference is unobvious. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to employ the particular parameters as claimed, since it is well-established that merely selecting proportions and ranges is not patentable absent a showing of criticality. In re Becket, 33 USPQ 33, and In re Russell, 169 USPQ 426.
Hintzer in view of Kaneko and the claims differ in that Hintzer does not teach the exact same proportions for the concentrations of metal ion and fluorine-containing polymer as recited in the instant claims; however, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range in amounts of metal ion (from the salts mentioned above) and fluoropolymers taught by Hintzer overlaps the instantly claimed proportions and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in Hintzer, particularly in view of the fact that; “The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages”, In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (CAFC 2003).
Regarding the limitation “water-soluble” in claim 13, Hintzer discloses that the fluorine-containing polymer comprises units of vinylidene fluoride (VDF), tetrafluoroethylene (TFE), and hexafluoropropylene (HFP) (Paragraphs [0030-0032]), as well as one or more units derived from fluorinated or partially fluorinated olefins containing one or more curable moieties including anionic groups embodied as COO- and SO3- (Paragraph [0034]), which are all consistent with the monomers described in Paragraph [0543] of the Specification, as well as Paragraphs [0561-0563] which describe the anionic group.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hintzer et al. (U.S. Patent Publication # 2010/0179293) in view of Kaneko et al. (U.S. Patent Publication # 2018/0043344) as applied to claim 12, and further in view of Ishikawa et al. (U.S. Patent Publication # 2009/0176942), hereinafter “Hintzer”, “Kaneko”, and “Ishikawa”.
With respect to claim 30, Hintzer teaches that the waste water obtained from fluoropolymer polymerization comprises multivalent metal salts including magnesium chloride, aluminum sulfate, and aluminum chloride (Paragraphs [0021, 0023, 0025]), and also that precipitation of the fluoropolymers can be aided by the addition of inorganic salts (Paragraph [0080]), but does not specifically teach an “inorganic flocculant”.
Ishikawa teaches addition of aluminum salts (Paragraph [0175]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to add aluminum salts as discussed by Ishikawa to the waste water obtained from fluoropolymer polymerization as taught by Hintzer because Hintzer teaches that aluminum salts are often already present from the coagulation of the polymer (and so are compatible for use with the polymerization wastewater) (Paragraphs [0021, 0023, 0025]) and that inorganic salts can be added to aid fluoropolymer polymerization (Paragraph [0080]), and because Ishikawa teaches that aluminum salts are added to remove fluoropolymers from wastewater generated from fluoropolymer polymerization coagulation (Paragraphs [0017, 0175]). The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
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 CLARE M PERRIN whose telephone number is (571)270-5952. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM EST M-F.
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, Bob Ramdhanie can be reached at (571) 270-3240. 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.
/CLARE M. PERRIN/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1779
/CLARE M PERRIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779 13 January 2026