DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Per preliminary amendment dated 9/1/22, claims 1-20 are currently pending in the application.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I invention (encompassing claims 1-14) in the reply filed on 7/8/25 is acknowledged. Claims 15-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Drawings
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because the drawings submitted on 9/1/22 are of poor print quality. Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-14 are objected to because of the following.
The preamble in claim 1 should be amended to recite “A process”, and those of claims 2-15 should be amended to recites “The process according to”.
Appropriate corrections and/or clarifications are required.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Igarashi et al. (US 2012/0208085 A1), or alternatively, over Igarashi et al. in view of Shinada et al. (US 2014/0128517 A1).
Regarding claims 1-3, 5, 9, 10, Igarashi teaches vinylidene fluoride polymer powder exhibiting excellent solubility in aprotic polar solvents, and a vinylidene fluoride polymer solution obtained from the powder and an aprotic polar solvent (Ab., ref. claims), wherein said polymer includes vinylidene fluoride (VDf) units and a comonomer units, such as those of ethylene, propylene, butylene, vinyl fluoride, trifluoroethylene (TrFE), tetrafluoroethylene (TFE), chlorotrifluoroethylene (CTFE), hexafluoropropylene (HFP) etc. (read on other monomer) [0049]-[0060].
Igarashi teaches dissolving the vinylidene fluoride polymer in an aprotic solvent, such as N-methyl 2-pyrrolidone, dimethylformamide and dimethylacetamide, by stirring the polymer in the solvent under high speed using a propeller blade stirrer at 35 to 130oC ([0085]-[0090], Example 8). It is noted that these solvents have a boiling point above 150oC at 1013 hPa.
Igarashi is silent on a method wherein the blade tip stirring speed is equal to or greater than 0.1m/s as in the claimed invention.
At the outset, it is noted that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Given the teaching in Igarashi on the method of preparing vinylidene fluoride polymer solution with high speed stirring, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to mix a vinylidene fluoride polymer in an aprotic solvent at 35 to 130oC with stirring under high-speed using a propeller blade stirrer for a duration, including at a blade tip stirring speed as claimed that is sufficient for optimal and efficient polymer dissolution and capable of providing for a homogeneous polymer solution, absent evidence of criticality for the claimed blade tip stirring speed.
In the alternative, Shinada teaches dissolving polymers in solvents by agitating at a specified temperature and at a speed of, preferably 700 rpm or more and 1800 rpm or less, using various mixing devices and dispers having blades [0075]-[0094], wherein the disclosed solvents encompass N,N-dimethyl acetamide and 4-methyl 2-pyrrolidone [0034]-[0038], [0049], and the disclosed polymers polyvinylidene fluoride resin [0127].
Given the generic teaching in Shinada on the method of dissolving polymers in solvents under prescribed agitation speed, the teaching in Igarashi on the method of preparing vinylidene fluoride polymer solution, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to prepare Igarashi’s solutions by using a propeller blade stirrer and stirring at 700 rpm or more and 1800 rpm or less, propeller blade stirrer for a duration, including at a blade tip stirring speed as claimed that is sufficient for optimal and efficient polymer dissolution and capable of providing for a homogeneous polymer solution, absent evidence of criticality for the claimed blade tip stirring speed.
Regarding claim 4, Igarashi teaches a vinylidene fluoride polymer having a weight average molecular weight of 200,000 to 4,000,000 [0033]. Given the teaching on a broad range of molecular weight, and given that the melt flow index is dependent on the molecular weight of a polymer, with a lower molecular weight polymer having a high flow index/rate and vice versa, a skilled artisan would reasonably expect Igarashi’s polymers to have a melt flow index within the claimed range, absent evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Igarashi teaches a range of 400 to 10000 parts by weight an aprotic polar solvent, with respect to 100 parts by weight of the vinylidene fluoride polymer powder, thereby obviating the claimed range.
Regarding claims 11-14, the disclosed dissolution times fall within the range recited in claim 11 (Table 2). Additionally, recognizing that the polymer dissolution in the solvent would depend on process variables such the speed of stirring, type/number of stirrer blades, stirring diameter relative to reactor diameter, single or multiple-step mixing etc., a skilled artisan would have found it obvious to optimize the various process variables, including those of the claimed invention, so as to provide optimal, efficient and a homogenous dissolution of the polymer in the solvent, absent evidence of criticality for the claimed conditions that is reasonably commensurate in scope with the claim langauage.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Igarashi et al. (US 2012/0208085 A1), in view of Tada et al. (US 20050245708 A1).
The discussion on Igarashi from paragraphs 7-10 as applied to claim 1 is incorporated herein by reference.
Although Igarashi is silent on a solvent as claimed, the secondary reference to Tada is in a related field of endeavor and teaches a polyvinylidene fluoride copolymer solution capable of forming a uniform film (Ab.), wherein the disclosed genus of solvents include dimethylformamide, dimethylacetamide, N-methylpyrrolidone, butyl lactone, triethyl phosphate etc. [0022], i.e., equivalence of polar aprotic high boiling solvents.
Given the teaching in Tada on solvents for dissolving polyvinylidene fluoride copolymer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute Igarashi’s dimethylformamide, dimethylacetamide or N-methylpyrrolidone with Tada’s butyl lactone or triethyl phosphate, based on the art recognized equivalence of polar aprotic high boiling solvents, absent evidence to the contrary.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure - Cheng et al. (US2013/0266723 A1 and US2015/0083025 A1). Chen ‘723 teaches solubilized fluoropolymers, such as vinylidene fluoride copolymers, comprising a solvent blend of dimethyl sulfoxide and a diester. Chen ‘025 teaches solubilized fluoropolymers, such as vinylidene fluoride copolymers, comprising a solvent blend of dimethyl sulfoxide and an amide-containing solvent.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to Satya Sastri at (571) 272 1112. The examiner can be reached Monday-Friday, 9AM-5.30PM (EST). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone
are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Mr. Robert Jones can be reached at (571)-270-
7733. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is
assigned is (571) 273 8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent
Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications
may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished
applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR
system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to
the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-
free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to
the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-
1000.
/Satya B Sastri/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762