DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s reply, filed 29 June 2026 in response to the non-final Office action mailed 27 March 2026, has been fully considered. As per Applicant’s filed claim amendments claims 1-4, 6-7, 16-19 and 21 are pending under examination, wherein: claims 1, 3 and 17 have been amended, claims 2, 4, 6-7, 16 and 1819 are as previously presented, claim 21 is new, claim 5 has been cancelled, and claims 8-15 and 20 were withdrawn by prior restriction requirement.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 16, 18-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Amin-Sanayei et al. (US 9,068,071).
Regarding claims 1-2 and 21, Amin-Sanayei teaches aqueous fluoropolymer dispersions of fluoropolymers comprising about 70-99 mol% vinylidene fluoride (instant VDF from 60-82 mol%) and about 1-30 mol% trifluoroethylene (instant TrFE from 18-40 mol%) (col 3 ln 51 to col 4 ln 7), wherein the aqueous dispersion has a solids content of 15-70 wt% and particle sizes in the range of 50 to 500 nm (col 4 ln 63-67), determine using a sub-micron particle sizer single mode 35 mW laser diode with wavelength of 639 nm (col 7 ln 45-48)(instant laser scattering method).
Amin-Sanayei is silent as to the thermodynamic ordered structure having the relation between instant (i) and (ii) as claimed (claims 1 and 2). However, Amin-Sanayei teaches an aqueous fluoropolymer dispersion comprising the same monomer units, present in the same amounts, and obtained by a substantially similar method of polymerization i.e. fluoropolymer polymerization occurring in the presence of persulfate initiator (col 5 ln 25-27), at temperature of from about 30 to 140 ºC (col 5 ln 23-25), and at a pressure of about 20-50 atmospheres (col 5 ln 30-32). The instant specification states that a fluoropolymer having the claimed monomer units, in the claimed amounts, and made by the claimed method will result in a polymer dispersion with the polymer possessing the claimed thermodynamic ordered structure in the ferroelectric phase and having the claimed Xc(%) values (original specification, pages 3-6; see also examples). It is held that a chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (see In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655, (Fed. Cir. 1990); see also In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430, (CCPA 1977). “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.”; MPEP 2112.01)).
Regarding the claim 1 as-amended product-by-process recitation that the polymer (F) present in the claimed dispersion was obtained via polymerization in the absence of surfactant, it is noted that patentability of said claim is based on the recited product and does not depend on its method of production (see In re Marosi, 710 F2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983); see MPEP 2113).
Regarding claims 3 and 16, Amin-Sanayei teaches the dispersion as set forth in claim 1 above and further teaches less than 50 mol% total comonomers, wherein any readily copolymerizable monomer may optionally be included such as chlorotrifluoroethylene, hexafluoropropene, vinyl fluoride, pentafluoropropene, etc. (instant fluoromonomer other than VDF and TrFE)(col 3 ln 51-65).
Regarding claims 4 and 18, Amin-Sanayei teaches the dispersion as set forth in claim 1. As noted Amin-Sanayei teaches 70-99 mol% vinylidene fluoride (instant VDF: from 65-80 mol% (claim 4) and from 68-80 mol% (claim 18)) and about 1-30 mol% trifluoroethylene (instant TrFE: from 20-35 mol% (claim 4) and from 20-32 mol% (claim 18)) (col 3 ln 51 to col 4 ln 7). Amin-Sanayei further teaches less than 50 mol% total comonomers, wherein any readily copolymerizable monomer may optionally be included (instant optional units 0-5 mol% (claim 4)) (col 3 ln 51-65).
Regarding claim 19, Amin-Sanayei teaches the dispersion as set forth in claim 1 above. Amin-Sanayei is silent as to the melt flow index of 0.5 to 200 g/10min (claim 19). However, Amin-Sanayei teaches an aqueous fluoropolymer dispersion comprising the same monomer units, present in the same amounts, and obtained by a substantially similar method of polymerization i.e. fluoropolymer polymerization occurring in the presence of persulfate initiator (col 5 ln 25-27), at temperature of from about 30 to 140 ºC (col 5 ln 23-25), and at a pressure of about 20-50 atmospheres (col 5 ln 30-32). The instant specification states that a fluoropolymer having the claimed monomer units, in the claimed amounts, and made by the claimed method will result in a polymer dispersion with the polymer possessing the claimed melt flow index values (original specification, pages 18-21; see also examples). It is held that a chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (see In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655, (Fed. Cir. 1990); see also In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430, (CCPA 1977). “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.”; MPEP 2112.01)).
Regarding claim 6, Amin-Sanayei teaches the dispersion as set forth in claim 1 above and further teaches the dispersion is free of fluorinated surfactants (abstract; col 3 ln 1-12).
Regarding claim 7, Amin-Sanayei teaches the dispersion as set forth in claim 1 above and further teaches the dispersion is free of fluorinated surfactants (abstract; col 3 ln 1-12). Amin-Sanayei teaches the polymerization proceeds in the presence of non-fluorinated, non-ionic emulsifiers instead (ibid; col 4 ln 16-48; col 5 ln 16-22). As the emulsifiers of Amin-Sanayei are present during the polymerization steps and are not added to the dispersion after the fact, the instant recitation of ‘free from added surfactants’ is deemed met.
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.
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.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amin-Sanayei et al (US 9,068,071) in view of Carella et al. (WO 2018/011244 A1).
Amin-Sanayei teaches the dispersion as set forth in claims 1 and 3 above. Amin-Sanayei teaches the optional inclusion of any comonomer that readily polymerizes with vinylidene fluoride (col 3 ln 51-62) but does not specifically teach a monomer unit derived from a hydrophilic (meth)acrylic monomer as claimed. However, Carella teaches similar aqueous dispersions of VDF copolymers (abstract) and further teaches it is advantageous to include in the polymerization monomer units derived from hydrophilic (meth)acrylic monomers (MA) ([0016]; [0030]-[0038]), in amounts of at most 5 mol% ([0039]), in order to obtain a dispersion possessing sufficient stability against coagulation ([0018]). Carella and Amin-Sanayei are analogous art and are combinable because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely aqueous dispersions of VDF copolymers with are free from fluorinated surfactants. At the time of filing a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include the hydrophilic (meth)acrylic monomers of Carella in the polymerization of Amin-Sanayei and would have been motivated to do so as Amin-Sanayei invites additional comonomers and further as Carella teaches inclusion of hydrophilic (meth)acrylic monomers allows for dispersions with possess sufficient stability against coagulates, have adequate shelf-life and adequate processability ([0018]).
Response to Arguments/Amendments
The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 3, 7 and 17 are withdrawn as a result of Applicant’s filed claim amendments.
The 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection of claims 1-7, 16 and 18-19 as anticipated by Amin-Sanayei (US 9,068,071) is maintained. Applicant’s arguments (Remarks, pages 8-9) have been fully considered but were not found persuasive.
Applicant argues that Amin-Sanayei requires a non-ionic surfactant be present during polymerization and therefore cannot anticipate. The Examiner notes that the as-amended product-by-process limitation of obtaining the polymer (F), a component present in the claimed dispersion, via ‘polymerization in the absence of surfactant’ does not render the claim patentable as patentability is based on the recited product and not on how it is made (MPEP 2113). Further there is no demonstration that the non-fluorinated, non-ionic emulsifiers of Amin-Sanayei would result in polymer particles (F) that do not meet the claimed inequality.
Applicant argues that claim 7 cannot be met by Amin-Sanayei. This is not found persuasive. Amin-Sanayei teaches the presence of the emulsifier during polymerization and does not teach the inclusion of added surfactants i.e. does not teach further adding of surfactants to the aqueous dispersion. Again, the claim 1 recitation is a product-by-process recitation and does not serve to require the absence of surfactants ‘before, during or after’ polymerization.
Applicant argues new claim 21 (see Remarks, page 11) is patentable via the use of the transitional phrase “consisting essentially of”. This is not found persuasive as ‘consisting essentially of’ is taken as comprising absent a clear indication by the specification that basic and novel characteristics would be materially affected (MPEP 2111.03). The instant specification while preferring no surfactant be present does in fact allow for a surfactant to be present ([0028]; [0047]). Furthermore there is no showing that the basic and novel characteristics would be materially affected by the presence of the non-fluorinate emulsifier taught by the prior art of Amin-Sanayei. It is noted the specification does not demonstrate or teach i) that the presence of such an emulsifier (non-fluorinated) during the polymerization would result in the inequality not being met, or ii) that the presence of such an emulsifier in the dispersion which contains the particles of (F) would be materially affected.
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 17 as unpatentable over Amin-Sanayei (US 9,068,071) in view of Carella (WO 2018/011244 A1) is maintained. Applicant’s arguments (Remarks, page 10) have been fully considered but were not found persuasive. Applicant’s argument is substantially directed to the primary rejection of Amin-Sanayei, such being responded to by the Examiner, as noted above.
The obviousness-type nonstatutory double patenting rejection of the instant claims over those of U.S. Patent No. 11,629,249 in view of Amin-Sanayei (US 9,068,071) is withdrawn.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JANE L STANLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-3870. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM to 3:30 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 at 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.
/JANE L STANLEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767
Prosecution Insights