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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed January 20, 2026, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of the previous office action dated October 8, 2025 has been withdrawn. However, upon further search and consideration, new grounds of rejection are set forth below. This action has been made non-final because the new grounds are not directly and only necessitated by applicant's amendments.
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.
Claim(s) 1-10 and 14-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kishine et al (EP 2 039 706).
Regarding claims 1-5, Kishine teaches a method for producing a fluoro elastomer (Abstract) comprising carrying out an emulsion polymerization ([0007]) for a fluorine containing monomer in the aqueous medium (Abstract) in the presence of two compounds ([0011]):
PNG
media_image1.png
38
120
media_image1.png
Greyscale
([0013]) where the Y group is SO3M or COOM (anion containing group) which reads on the recited compound (A) as well as sodium dioctyl sulfosuccinate (anion containing group) which is a hydrocarbon surfactant which reads on the recited compound (B). The aqueous medium consists of water (Examples).
Kishine fails to specifically exemplify the exact recited method. However, it discloses each of the components of the method, and teaches that they are all suitable for use in the method of producing a fluorine-containing elastomer. It is within the ordinary level of skill in the art to make any of the methods suggested by a reference, including selecting materials from a list in a reference. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to prepare any of the components suggested by Kishine, including the claimed invention. In view of this, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the present invention to use the teachings of Kishine to arrive at the presently claimed invention. It would have been nothing more than using known compounds in a typical method to achieve predictable results. KSR v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 418, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 6, Kishine also teaches the following option for compound (A)
PNG
media_image2.png
28
148
media_image2.png
Greyscale
([0015]) which reads on the recited formula (6).
Regarding claim 7, Kishine also teaches the following option for compound (A)
PNG
media_image3.png
30
256
media_image3.png
Greyscale
([0016]) which reads on the recited formula (5d).
Regarding claims 8-10, Kishine teach that the hydrocarbon surfactant can be sodium dioctyl sulfosuccinate – this has both the SO3M structure as well as a hydrocarbon group with a carbonyl group.
Regarding claims 14-15, Kishine teaches that the amount of compound (A) and compound (B) together is within the range of 1 to 200 ppm ([0020]).
Regarding claims 16, 18 and 20, Kishine teaches that the compound (A) and compound (B) are present in the aqueous medium before causing the entirety of the polymerization initiator used in the polymerization to be present (Examples).
Regarding claims 17 and 19, Kishine teaches that the fluorine compound (A) and the surfactant (B) is present in the aqueous medium is in the aqueous medium prior to any elastomer being formed and thus, is present in the when the solid concentration of the elastomer is zero.
Regarding claim 21, Kishine teaches that the emulsion polymerization is carried out in the presence of a polymerization initiator and that the polymerization initiator is a water-soluble initiator ([0044]).
Regarding claim 22, Kishine teaches that the fluorine containing elastomer contains -CH2- in a main chain ([0031]).
Regarding claim 23, Kishine teaches that the fluorine containing elastomer contains a vinylidene fluoride unit ([0031]).
Regarding claim 24, Kishine teaches that the elastomer can be VDP/TFE/HFP in a ratio of 52/22/26 ([0066]).
Regarding claim 25, Kishine teaches that the emulsion polymerization is carried out in the presence of a redox initiator ([0044]).
Regarding claim 26, Kishine teaches that the temperature of the polymerization is carried out between 10 to 120 C ([0047]).
Regarding claim 27, Kishine teaches that the emulsion polymerization is an iodine transfer polymerization (Examples).
Claim(s) 8-9, 11-13, and 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kishine et al (EP 2 039 706) in view of Bradley et al (US 2003/0039919).
The discussion regarding Kishine in paragraph 4 above is incorporated here by reference.
Regarding claims 8-9, 11-13, and 33, Kishine teaches that the hydrocarbon surfactant is a sodium dioctyl sulfosuccinate ([0019]), however fails to teach that the hydrocarbon surfactant is lauryl sulfate.
Bradley teaches an emulsion polymerization ([0069]) of fluorine containing polymers ([0004]) which incorporates hydrocarbon surfactants such as sodium lauryl sulfate or sodium dioctyl sulfosuccinate ([0070]).
In view of Bradley's recognition that sodium dioctyl sulfosuccinate and sodium lauryl sulfate are equivalent and interchangeable, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute one with the other and thereby arrive at the present invention. Case law holds that the mere substitution of an equivalent (something equal in value or meaning, as taught by analogous prior art) is not an act of invention; where equivalency is known to the prior art, the substitution of one equivalent for another is not patentable. See In re Ruff 118 USPQ 343 (CCPA 1958).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DORIS L LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-3872. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am - 5 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, Arrie Lanee Reuther can be reached at 571-270-7026. 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.
DORIS L. LEE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1764
/DORIS L LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764