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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/6/2025, has been entered.
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 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.
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nobuhiko (JP2013060591, herein Nobuhiko, a machine translation is being used for citation purpose), in the view of Obanawa (US4732887, herein Obanawa).
Regarding Claims 1-3, Nobuhiko teaches aqueous fluoropolymer dispersion [0015] that is brought into contact with an anion exchange resin in the presence of a nonionic surfactant [0111]. Nobuhiko further teaches producing an aqueous fluoropolymer
dispersion, which comprises a step of polymerizing a fluoromonomer in the presence of hydrocarbon and fluorine-containing surfactant. [0008-0015], wherein, the fluorine-containing surfactant in an amount of 0.0001 to 2% by mass relative to the amount of water [0029], overlaps the range of the limitation of substantially in the absence of a fluorine-containing surfactant.
Nobuhiko teaches anion exchange resin, but does not teach the specific resin A, however, Obanawa teaches anion exchange resin having -CH2-N+R1R2R3X- [C9; L45] reads on the anion exchange resin A with formula (A1), matches the structural limitations, wherein, the X is counter ion; R1, R2, R3 are C1-C5 alkyl groups. Nobuhiko and Obanawa are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, that of the selection of anion exchange resins as absorbents. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nobuhiko by substituting the anion exchange resin having -CH2-N+R1R2R3X- of Obanawa [C9; L45] for the anion exchange resin of Nobuhiko. Doing so would further achieve the desired property as of exhibiting high separating and adsorbing capacities, including: adsorbent for surfactants, organic compounds, and polymers in water [C22; L5-16] as taught by Obanawa.
Regarding Claim 4, Nobuhiko and Obanawa teach the method as set forth in claim 1 above, including bringing the fluoropolymer aqueous dispersion, into contact with the specific anion exchange resin A, wherein, the claim 4 further limits the synthetic adsorbent of claim 1 but does not require its presence.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Nobuhiko (JP2013060591, herein Nobuhiko, a machine translation is being used for citation purpose), and Obanawa (US4732887, herein Obanawa) as applied to claim 1, in the view of Tsuda (US20070155891, herein Tsuda).
Regarding Claim 5, Nobuhiko and Obanawa collectively teach the method of claim 1 as shown above. Nobuhiko is silent on wherein the step (A) is performed twice or more times. However, Tsuda teaches “carrying out a concentration operation twice or more times, the pretreatment fluoropolymer aqueous dispersion may be one obtained by repeating the same concentration method” [0108] which indicates the multiple treatment of fluoropolymer aqueous dispersion. Nobuhiko and Tsuda are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor, that of fluoropolymer purification and application. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nobuhiko to add the teachings of Tsuda and provide wherein said “carrying out a concentration operation twice or more times, the pretreatment fluoropolymer aqueous dispersion may be one obtained by repeating the same concentration method” [0108] into purification process development. Doing so would further achieve the desired final product development toward “In view of the good efficiency in removing the fluorine-containing anionic surfactant” [0105].
Claims 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nobuhiko (JP2013060591, herein Nobuhiko, a machine translation is being used for citation purpose) and Obanawa (US4732887, herein Obanawa) as applied in claim 1 as set forth above, in the view of Sawauchi-1 (US20090312443, herein Sawauchi-1).
Regarding Claims 6-7, Nobuhiko and Obanawa collectively teach the method of claim 1 as shown above. Nobuhiko teaches anion exchange resin, but does not teach the specific resin B, however, Sawauchi-1 teaches anion exchange resin having —N+X—(CH3)3 groups (X representing Cl or OH) [0028] reads on the anion exchange resin A with formula (B1), matches the structural limitations, wherein, the X is counter ion. Nobuhiko and Sawauchi-1 are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor, that of anion exchange resin selection toward fluororesin application. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nobuhiko to substitute the teachings of Sawauchi-1 and provide wherein said anion exchange resin having —N+X—(CH3)3 groups (X representing Cl or OH) [0028] into the anion exchange resin selection and apply into the composition. Doing so would further achieve the favorably occurs as the aqueous fluoropolymer dispersion reduced in alkali metal, nonfluorinated organic acid and heavy metal contents, among others, as mentioned hereinabove [0059] as taught by Sawauchi-1.
Regarding Claim 8, Nobuhiko, Obanawa and Sawauchi-1 collectively teach treating the fluororesin dispersion steps (A) and (B). The order of step (A) in claim 1 and (B) in claim 6, changing the order of the steps, do not affect the effect of treating the fluoropolymer aqueous dispersion.
Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. App. 1959) (Prior art reference disclosing a process of making a laminated sheet wherein a base sheet is first coated with a metallic film and thereafter impregnated with a thermosetting material was held to render prima facie obvious claims directed to a process of making a laminated sheet by reversing the order of the prior art process steps.). See also In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results); In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930) (Selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious.). [See MPEP 2144.04 C]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have selected the claimed order of steps, and the motivation to do so would have been, it would be expected to provide increased purity of the purified fluoropolymer aqueous dispersion through two purification steps.
Regarding Claim 9, Nobuhiko teaches contacting an aqueous dispersion of the fluoropolymer of the present invention with an anion exchange resin in the presence of a nonionic surfactant [0111] reads on the step (C), wherein, the aqueous dispersion can also be stabilized and further concentrated by adding a nonionic surfactant [0063], which collectively indicates the nonionic surfactant further concentration.
Nobuhiko does not teach the specific steps of (A), (C)’s sequence, however, Nobuhiko, Obanawa and Sawauchi-1 collectively teach all steps of the process for preparing the purified fluoropolymer aqueous dispersion as claimed in claim 1, including: Steps A, B and C, therefore, it will lead to the claimed product via the order of mixing. The selection of mixing order is prima facie obvious. [MPEP 2144.4C]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have selected the claimed order of steps, and the motivation to do so would have been, it would be expected to provide adding a nonionic surfactant to the fluoropolymer aqueous dispersion that has undergone the step (A) for concentration by phase separation to increase the purity of the purified fluoropolymer aqueous dispersion.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Nobuhiko (JP2013060591, herein Nobuhiko, a machine translation is being used for citation purpose), Obanawa (US4732887, herein Obanawa) and Sawauchi-1 (US20090312443, herein Sawauchi-1) as applied to claim 9, in the view of Tsuda (US20070155891, herein Tsuda).
Regarding Claim 10, Nobuhiko, Obanawa and Sawauchi-1 collectively teach the method of claim 9 as shown above. Nobuhiko is silent on wherein the step (C) is performed twice or more times. However, Tsuda teaches “carrying out a concentration operation twice or more times, the pretreatment fluoropolymer aqueous dispersion may be one obtained by repeating the same concentration method” [0108]; “the nonionic surfactant (B) may be added once or twice or more times” [0120] which indicates the multiple treatment of fluoropolymer aqueous dispersion. Nobuhiko and Tsuda are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor, that of fluoropolymer purification and application. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nobuhiko to add the teachings of Tsuda and provide wherein said “carrying out a concentration operation twice or more times, the pretreatment fluoropolymer aqueous dispersion may be one obtained by repeating the same concentration method” [0108]; “the nonionic surfactant (B) may be added once or twice or more times” [0120] into purification process development. Doing so would further achieve the desired final product development toward “In view of the good efficiency in removing the fluorine-containing anionic surfactant” [0105].
Claims 11, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Nobuhiko (JP2013060591, herein Nobuhiko, a machine translation is being used for citation purpose), Obanawa (US4732887, herein Obanawa) and Sawauchi-1 (US20090312443, herein Sawauchi-1) and Tsuda (US20070155891, herein Tsuda)
as applied to claim 10, and in the further view of Bossolo (US20200056064, herein Bossolo).
Regarding Claims 11, 12, Nobuhiko, Obanawa, Sawauchi-1 and Tsuda collectively teach the method of claim 10 as shown above.
Nobuhiko is silent on phase separation is performed by heating the fluoropolymer aqueous dispersion at a temperature 5° C. lower than the cloud point of the nonionic surfactant or higher and then allowing it to stand still to separate it into a supernatant phase and a concentrated phase. However, Bossolo teaches “polymer (A) comprising a fluoroelastomer (A)]” [0053]; “the fluoroelastomer (A) has advantageously a Tg below 5° C” [0055] which indicates the heating the fluoropolymer aqueous dispersion at a temperature 5° C. will lead phase separation via further heating treatment above the temperature 5° C. Nobuhiko and Bossolo are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor, that of fluoropolymer purification and application. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nobuhiko to add the teachings of Bossolo and provide wherein said “polymer (A) comprising a fluoroelastomer (A)]” [0053]; “the fluoroelastomer (A) has advantageously a Tg below 5° C” [0055]. Doing so would further achieve the desired final product development via altering the temperature based on the Tg via heating, which can further lead to the affection of the polymer (A), which composing the fluoroelastomer (A) and further lead to the desired viscosity as of “adequate for ensuring optimal properties in coating applications” [0052].
Claim 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukatani (EP3070764, herein Fukatani), in the view of Araki (US20060173117, herein Araki).
Regarding Claims 13-15, Fukatani teaches the dispersion containing the fluoropolymer and water [0147], the fluorinated surfactant is preferably 1000 ppb or less, lies in the claimed range. Fukatani does not explicitly teach the compound represented by General Formula (1). However, Araki teaches X(CF2)nCOOH (n is an integer of 6 to 20, X is F or H) [0019] matches the claimed formula (1), wherein, the X=H; m=6-20; P=1; M=H, encompasses the claimed range, and indicates the dispersion contains two or more kinds of fluorine-containing compounds encompassed by the general formula (1) due to the m values selections. Fukatani and Araki are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, that of the functional fluoropolymer dispersion preparation with fluorine-containing surfactant selection. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fukatani to substitute the X(CF2)nCOOH (n is an integer of 6 to 20, X is F or H) [0019] into the dispersion formation. Doing so would further achieve the desired property of the fluorine-containing surfactant used in the present invention is one or a mixture of compounds containing fluorine atoms in their structures and having surface activity [0019] which can further lead to the desired surface property of the fluoropolymer based dispersion.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 10/6/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 USC § 103 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 in view of Nobuhiko (JP2013060591, herein Nobuhiko, a machine translation is being used for citation purpose), and Obanawa (US4732887, herein Obanawa) as set forth above.
In this case, the newly added references_ Nobuhiko and Obanawa collectively teach the method of producing a purified fluoropolymer aqueous dispersion as shown above in new rejection.
Furthermore, the newly added reference_ Araki teaches X(CF2)nCOOH (n is an integer of 6 to 20, X is F or H) [0019] matches the claimed formula (1), wherein, the X=H; m=6-20; P=1; M=H, encompasses the claimed range as set forth the new rejection above.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Zhen Liu whose telephone number is (703)756-4782. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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 on (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.
/Z.L./
Examiner, Art Unit 1767
/MARK EASHOO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1767