Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/659,182

METHOD FOR PRODUCING AQUEOUS DISPERSION OF POLYTETRAFLUOROETHYLENE

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Apr 14, 2022
Examiner
KOLB, KATARZYNA I
Art Unit
1767
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Agc Inc.
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
42%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 8m
To Grant
58%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 42% of resolved cases
42%
Career Allow Rate
77 granted / 181 resolved
-22.5% vs TC avg
Strong +16% interview lift
Without
With
+16.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 8m
Avg Prosecution
73 currently pending
Career history
254
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.6%
-39.4% vs TC avg
§103
48.7%
+8.7% vs TC avg
§102
23.7%
-16.3% vs TC avg
§112
14.7%
-25.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 181 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
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 In their response dates 10/13/2025 the applicants amended independent claim 1 to contain the content of non-fluorinates monomer to less than 100 ppm. The argument that accompanied the amendment is that that Durali while when using content of polyacrylic acid at 100 ppm without additional surfactant results in coagulation (example 4). The applicants summarized that with 100 ppm of polyacrylic acid presence of second surfactant is necessary. Response: The rejection of record is over Reinhardt, Durali and Zipplies. Reinhardt does not disclose use of surfactant in polymerization of the acrylic polymer. Examiner relied on Durali for the content of the acrylic monomer/polymer. Claim 1 of Durali discloses use of polyacrylics as the non-fluorinates surfactant, radical initiator and fluorinated monomer. Claim 5 of Durali clearly states that the content of the polyacrylic acid is in a range of 0.001-2.0, preferably 0.005-0.5 (claim 6). No other surfactants are claimed. Applicants reliance on example 4, fails to take into consideration the entirety of the Durali reference. Starting [0043] under subtopic Polymerization conditions, Durali teaches aspects of polymerizations that a person skilled in the art would readily understand as it is basic knowledge of the polymerization principles. Paragraphs [0043-0051] discloses various ways that the polymerization can be controlled: [0043] is specifically is directed to the temperatures and possibility of varying the temperature throughout the polymerization process. [0044] is directed to pressure during the polymerization which varies with capabilities of the equipment, initiator system and monomer selection. Relied upon example teaches polymerization of VDF not TFE. [0045] is directed to varying stirring conditions to optimize the process conditions during the course of polymerization. One of ordinary skill in the art would know that vigorous stirring of the aqueous polymerization medium keeps particles suspended and prevents coagulation or agglomeration. As such level of agitation or stirring has to be controlled in order to prevent settling but not to high to induct coagulation through excessive shear. [0046] is directed to additives which can help with preventing coagulation which include buffering agents or antifouling agents. Other methods that can be utilized is controlling the end groups and surface charge of the polyacrylic acid component. Basically methods of polymerization rely on balancing physical aspects and process control to maintain stable system or manage the resulting product without utilizing chemical emulsifiers. IT should be noted that all examples in Durali, especially examples 1-4 utilize the same pressure, the same temperature and the same agitation for all examples regardless of initiator system, type of fluorinated polymer and the content of polyacrylic acid. With changing content of polyacrylic acid and utilizing tetrafluoroethylene as monomer, these conditions will have to be adjusted. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that. When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem (such as eliminating surfactants) and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under §103."). “[A]nalysis [of whether the subject matter of claim would have been obvious] need no seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court to take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.“ KSR Int’l v. Teleflex, Inc. 127 S. Ct 1727, 1740-1741, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441, F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336-37 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). In summary, applicants arguments are not persuasive and the rejections of record are maintained. The rejections will be restated to reflect the amendment to the claims. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 2, which depends on claim 1 further defines the nature of the non-fluorinated monomer. Claim 1 states that the non-fluorinated monomer is polymerized in aqueous medium to obtain a solution containing polymer. Claim 2 defines the non-fluorinated monomer as ethylenically unsaturated monomer that can be ethylene in the situation when both R11 and R12 are hydrogens and L is a linking group. Ethylene is not water soluble and requires specialized initiator system. Ethylene would not form a solution because like will dissolve like. Ethylene is non-polar. With respect to nitrile group acrylonitrile may be dissolved in aqueous solution, the polymer is insoluble in water and it can be dissolved in specific aqueous solution such thiocyanates zinc chloride or nitric acid. Such possibilities are not reflected in instant specification. Consequently the not all non-fluorinated monomers disclosed in claim 2, will form solution required by instant claim 1. Applicants should amend instant claim 1 to remove monomers which will not form aqueous solution. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. 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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. Claims 1, 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reinhardt (US 3,407,247) in view of Durali (US 2009/0221776) and Zipplies (US 2012/0129982. With respect to claims 1 and 2, Reinhardt teaches process of polymerizing fluoropolymers in presence of pre-formed acrylate pre-polymer (col. 1). In a first stage, acrylic monomer is polymerized. The monomers include methacrylates, methacrylonitrile and methacrylamide. These monomers meet the formula of the instant claim 2. In second stage fluorinated monomers are added which include tetrafluoroethylene (col. 3) without adding surfactant. The polymer is then recovered and a dispersion is formed comprising fluoropolymer particles (examples). Reinhard does not teach the amount of the acrylate component that should be while polymerizing fluoromonomer. Durali teaches polymerization of fluoropolymers using non-fluorinated surfactants. According to claims 1 and 2 of Durali composition is in aqueous medium, it comprises surfactant, monomer and initiator, wherein monomer is fluoromonomer. Claims 4-6 of Durali disclose that the surfactant is polyacrylic acid or salt thereof, utilized in amount of 0.001-2%, preferably 0.005-0.5 % based on the amount of fluoromonomer. The surfactants of Durali as further described in his specification are polymers comprising non-fluorinated vinyl monomers [0029]. The monomers include acrylic acid and their esters such as alkyl meth(acrylate) wherein acrylate esters as well as many other monomers meet the requirements of instant formula (1) of instant claim 2. Durali’s claims clearly encompass content disclosed in the instant invention. For arguments directed to coagulation please refer to the section of this office action under Response to Applicant’s Arguments. Fluoropolymer is polymerized in presence of polymerized acrylate. Suitable monomers include TFE, VDF, and the like [0032]. In the light of the above discussion it would have been obvious to tone having ordinary skill in the art at the time instant invention was made to utilize the amount of acrylic component of Reinhardt in the amount taught by Durali, because acrylic component itself is a surfactant. Such amounts allow formation of dispersions or emulsions. Additionally one of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand that in order to form stabilized dispersion of Reinhard addition of non-ionic surfactant would have been obvious and is well established in the art. Reinhardt and Durali provide teach polymerization of fluorinated polymer in presence of pre-polymerized acrylate. The composition of Reinhardt and Durali can be utilized to form coatings, paints or films. With respect to claims 3 and 4, Reinhardt teaches composition suitable for coatings (col. 1, l. 25-26), however, Reinhardt does not disclose using surfactant in the final product. Zipplies discloses a dispersion which utilizes fluorinated polymers to form a coating composition. Dispersion of Zipplies comprises non-ionic surfactant [0064, 0084] and utilized in amounts of 1-12 wt.% [0108]. The polymer content of 9-60 % by weight of the dispersion [0080]. Fluoropolymer of Zipplies comprises tetrafluoroethylene just like that of Reinhardt, majority being TFE [0099]. As it is disclosed in Zipplies, use of non-ionic surfactants results in higher concentration of the fluoropolymer and increasing the stability of the dispersion [0056-0060]. Specific examples of non-ionic surfactant can be found in [0061] and include polyoxyalkylene such as polyethylene oxide. Use of non-fluorinated surfactants also eliminates toxic fluorinated surfactants. In the light of the above disclosure it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time instant invention was filed to utilize amounts of fluoropolymer as taught in Zipplies in the composition of Reinhardt and Durali and thereby obtain the claimed invention. The amounts disclosed in Zipplies are shown to make efficient coating composition. One of ordinary skill in the art would also understand that these amounts can be modified based on the intended use of the composition. Correspondence Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATARZYNA I KOLB whose telephone number is (571)272-1127. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Mark Eashoo can be reached at 5712701046. 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. /KATARZYNA I KOLB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767 October 30, 2025
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 14, 2022
Application Filed
Mar 17, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Jun 20, 2025
Response Filed
Jul 02, 2025
Final Rejection — §103, §112
Sep 25, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 13, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Oct 15, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 30, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12590202
ACETYL CITRATE-BASED PLASTICIZER COMPOSITION AND RESIN COMPOSITION COMPRISING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12584005
RESIN COMPOSITION FOR SLIDING MEMBER, AND SLIDING MEMBER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12583968
FLUORINE-CONTAINING ETHER COMPOUND AND PRODUCTION METHOD THEREFOR, COMPOUND AND PRODUCTION METHOD THEREFOR, FLUORINE-CONTAINING ETHER COMPOSITION, COATING LIQUID, AND ARTICLE AND PRODUCTION METHOD THEREFOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12577370
Non-Dust Blend
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12577410
RHEOLOGY CONTROL AGENTS FOR WATER-BASED RESINS AND WATER-BASED PAINT COMPOSITIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
42%
Grant Probability
58%
With Interview (+16.0%)
3y 8m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 181 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month