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 16 July 2026 has been entered; claims 1-3, 9, 11-13, 18-22, and 28-30 remain pending.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 16 July 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 7-8 of the Remarks, filed 16 July 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 12, 13, 18-22, 25, and 30 under 35 USC 103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 13 and 22 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.
With respect to claim 13, the limitations “wherein a proportion of carbon atom-bonded hydrogen atoms replaced by fluorine atoms is 50% or more” appear to only be supported for polymer (I) (see Paragraphs [0026-0029, 0155]), while removal of the polymer (I) limitations implies that this limitation could refer also to the fluorine-containing polymer, or to another polymer.
With respect to claim 22, the upper bound of “0.05 to 1 mg/L” appears to lack support in Applicant’s Specification, which discloses that the metal ion having a valency of 2 or more has a concentration of 0.05 mg/L or more and 5 mg/L or less (Paragraph [0513]). The Examiner cannot find clear support for “1 mg/L” as part of the recited composition in Example 1 either, as Example 1 teaches addition of 0.37 g of a 26.8% by mass aqueous aluminum sulfate solution, wherein 0.37g * 0.268 = 0.09916 g aluminum sulfate * 53.98g Al/342.15g Al2(SO4)3 = 0.01564 g Al or 15.64 mg Al added to 500 mL of model aqueous solution comprising Polymer A (Paragraph [0681]), wherein 15.64 mg Al/0.5L = 31.28 mg/L. Example 1 does teach 1 mg/L dissolved aluminum in the treated aqueous solution (Paragraph [0683]), but it is not clear if the treated aqueous solution, obtained after precipitation and filtration, would still contain the partially hydrolyzed polyacrylamide (added in Paragraph [0682]) or Polymer A (present in the model aqueous solution in Paragraph [0681]).
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.
Claim 13 is 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.
With respect to claim 13, the limitations “wherein a proportion of carbon atom-bonded hydrogen atoms replaced by fluorine atoms is 50% or more” render the claim indefinite, as it is unclear whether they refer to the fluorine-containing polymer, polymer (I), or both. For the purposes of examination, the Examiner will consider all aforementioned alternatives to meet the limitations of the claim.
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, and 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malvasi et al. (U.S. Patent # 7294276), hereinafter “Malvasi”.
PNG
media_image1.png
271
570
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claims 12 and 18, Malvasi teaches aqueous dispersion of fluoropolymers to which anionic polyelectrolytes are added (Abstract; Column 1, lines 7-14, “a composition”); wherein the dispersion (“composition”) comprises water, fluoropolymer (Column 1, lines 53-56, “fluorine-containing polymer excluding polymer (I)”) embodied as PTFE (Column 2, lines 34-50, “a fluorine containing polymer having an ion exchange rate of higher than 53” as PTFE meets the limitations of claim 18), and anionic polyelectrolyte (“polymer (I)”), wherein the anionic polyelectrolytes are water soluble and comprise units of
(Column 4, lines 22-35), wherein the above chemical structure meets the formula of Polymer (I) when X1 = X2 = H, -CO-A-CR2R3- in the above chemical structure meets recited linking group R, -CH2- in the above chemical structure = recited CZ1Z2 where Z1 = Z2 = H, and A0 = sulfate (“anionic group”) and have a molecular weight ranging from 500 to 1,000,000 (Column 3, lines 59-63), overlapping 1.0 x 104 g/mol.
Malvasi and the claims differ in that Malvasi does not teach the exact same proportions for the molecular weight of polymer (I)/anionic polyelectrolyte 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 molecular weight taught by Malvasi overlaps the instantly claimed proportions and therefore is 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 Malvasi, 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 limitations “up to about 250 ppm” regarding polymer (I), claim 15 of Malvasi teaches that 0.1 to 10% of the anionic polyelectrolyte can be added to the dispersion, with respect to the fluoropolymer weight, wherein fluoropolymers are typically present at from 800 to 200,000 ppm of the dispersion (see Column 2, lines 46-49]), wherein 0.1 % of 800 ppm is 0.8 ppm anionic polyelectrolyte up to 20,000 ppm anionic polyelectrolyte when dosed at 10% of fluoropolymer weight, which overlaps “up to 250 ppm”.
Malvasi and the claims differ in that Malvasi does not teach the exact same proportions for the concentration of polymer (I) 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 polymer (I) concentration taught by Malvasi overlaps the instantly claimed proportions and therefore is 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 Malvasi, 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).
With respect to claim 13, PTFE has all or 100% (“50% or more”) of carbon-bonded hydrogen is replaced by fluorine atoms.
With respect to claim 19, Malvasi teaches that the fluoropolymers are present at from 800 to 200,000 ppm (see Column 2, lines 46-49), overlapping the range 1 to 5,000 ppm.
Malvasi and the claims differ in that Malvasi does not teach the exact same proportions for the concentration of fluoropolymer (“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 fluoropolymer concentration taught by Malvasi overlaps the instantly claimed proportions and therefore is 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 Malvasi, 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).
With respect to claim 20, Malvasi teaches that alkaline earth metal salts of the anionic polyelectrolytes can be added, wherein alkaline earth metals have a valency of 2 (see Column 4, lines 7-35).
With respect to claim 21, the amount of alkaline earth metal content as discussed above in the rejection of claim 20 would predictably dependent on the amount of negative charge on the anionic polyelectrolyte; one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that if the anionic polyelectrolyte based on the chemical structure discussed in the rejection of claim 12 is used, approximately half the amount of alkaline earth metal ions would be required to balance the charge and would dissociate into the aqueous dispersion.
From the above rejection of claim 12, 0.8 ppm anionic polyelectrolyte up to 20,000 ppm anionic polyelectrolyte is added to the dispersion. If we consider the chemical structure discussed in the rejection of claim 12 as the anionic polyelectrolyte, than an alkaline earth metal content would be half of these values, and would range from 0.4 to 10,000 ppm alkaline earth metal ion, which overlaps the recited range “0.05 to 1,000 mg/L”.
Malvasi and the claims differ in that Malvasi does not teach the exact same proportions for the concentration of alkaline earth metal ions (having a valency of 2 or more) 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 alkaline earth metal ion concentration taught by Malvasi overlaps the instantly claimed proportions and therefore is 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 Malvasi, 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).
With respect to claim 22, Malvasi renders obvious the corresponding limitations of claims 12 and 20, as discussed above (and incorporated herein), and additionally teaches that 0.8 ppm anionic polyelectrolyte up to 20,000 ppm anionic polyelectrolyte is added to the dispersion (see the rejection of claims 12, 20, and 21 above). If we consider the chemical structure discussed in the rejection of claim 12 as the anionic polyelectrolyte, than an alkaline earth metal content would be half of these values, and would range from 0.4 to 10,000 ppm alkaline earth metal ion, which overlaps the recited range “0.05 to 1 mg/L”.
Malvasi and the claims differ in that Malvasi does not teach the exact same proportions for the concentration of alkaline earth metal ions (having a valency of 2 or more) 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 alkaline earth metal ion concentration taught by Malvasi overlaps the instantly claimed proportions and therefore is 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 Malvasi, 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).
The Examiner additionally notes that the Specification teaches a concentration of metal ions having a valency of 2 or more can range up to 1000 mg/L (see Paragraph [0513]). There is no evidence indicating such metal ion concentrations are critical. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malvasi et al. (U.S. Patent # 7294276) as applied to claim 12, and further in view of Ishikawa et al. (U.S. Patent Publication # 2009/0176942), hereinafter “Malvasi” and “Ishikawa”.
With respect to claim 30, Malvasi 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 Malvasi because Ishikawa teaches that aluminum salts are added to remove fluoropolymers from wastewater generated from fluoropolymer polymerization coagulation (Paragraphs [0017, 0175]), which is the same wastewater treated by the method of Malvasi.
Conclusion
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 21 July 2026
Prosecution Insights