DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s reply, filed 13 February 2026 in response to the restriction requirement mailed 15 December 2025, has been fully considered. As per Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1-7 and 16-19 are pending, and claims 8-15 and 20 are withdrawn (see below).
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-7 and 16-19, in the reply filed on 13 February 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 8-15 and 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 13 February 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3, 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 3, there is a lack of antecedent basis for the recitation of ‘recurring units derived from one or more than one non-fluorinated monomers’. While claim 1, from which claim 3 depends, optionally recites ‘one or more additional monomer different from VDF and TrFE’ (the recitation being linked to the optional but positively recited recurring units derived ‘fluoromonomers other than’ of claim 3), such does not establish proper antecedent basis for the optional alternative of recurring units derived from ‘non-fluorinated monomers’.
Regarding claim 7, the recitation that the dispersion is “free from added surfactants” is indefinite as the recitation of ‘added’ is unclear. It is not clear if the claim is attempting to recite a negative limitation excluding all surfactants from being present in the dispersion or is only attempting to exclude only surfactants added to the dispersion after the dispersion is obtained/produced.
Regarding claim 17, there is a lack of proper antecedent basis for “the recurring units derived from one or more than one non-fluorinated monomers”. Claim 1 from which claim 17 depends does not provide antecedent basis for the recurring units which are non-fluorinated monomers. Claim 1 recites only ‘monomers different from VDF and TrFE’ and does not establish non-fluorinated as recited. It is not clear if claim 17 was intended to depend from claim 3.
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 1-7, 16 and 18-19 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, 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 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 claims 5 and 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 500 g/10min (claim 5) or 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]).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-5 and 18-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,629,249 in view of Amin-Sanayei (US 9,068,071). The claims of the instant application and the granted patent are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of both the instant application and the granted patent are directed to substantially similar aqueous dispersions of fluoropolymers comprising substantially the same monomers, in similar amounts, and having substantially the same thermodynamic ordered structure in the ferroelectric phase properties, as well as substantially the same melt flow index values. The claims of the granted patent differ from the instant claims in that they are silent as to particle size of the dispersion particles. However, Amin-Sanayei teaches similar aqueous dispersions of fluoropolymers comprising similar (co)monomers and teaches stabile dispersions having particle sizes in a range from 50 to 500 nm (col 3 ln 16-27; col 4 ln 63-67) are advantageous for many direct applications of the latex form fluoropolymer (col 6 ln 49-57). Amin-Sanayei and the granted patent are analogous art and are combinable because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely aqueous dispersions comprising particles of a fluoropolymer of substantially similar type. At the time of filing a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select the particle sizes of Amin-Sanayei as the particle sizes of the granted patent and would have been motivated to do so as the granted patent requires particles of the polymer in a dispersion and further as Amin-Sanayei teaches such particle sizes allow for stable dispersions and are advantageous for direct application.
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