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 .
REJECTIONS WITHDRAWN
All previous rejections have been withdrawn.
REJECTIONS REPEATED
There are no repeated rejections.
NEW REJECTIONS
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 and 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP0472908.
EP0472908 discloses a resin pellet having and evaporation residue, wherein the resin pellet has been washed with a fluorine-containing cleaning agent comprising at least one selected from tetrafluoroethylene homopolymers or copolymers, wherein an evaporation residue after evaporating and drying the extract obtained by dissolving and extracting the fluorine-containing substance contained in or adhering to the resin pellet, wherein the tetrafluoroethylene (TFE) copolymer is at least one of a TFE/hexafluoropropylene (HFP) copolymer (FEP), a TFE/perfluoro(alkyl vinyl ether) (PAVE) copolymer (PFA), an ethylene/TFE copolymer (ETFE), a TFE/HFP/PAVE copolymer, a TFE/HFP/vinylidene fluoride copolymer (THV), a TFE/ethylene/perfluorodimethyldioxole copolymer, a TFE/CF2=CFOCF2CF(CF3)OCF2CF2SO2F copolymer, or a mixture of any of these copolymers, wherein the fluorine-containing extractant is decafluoropentane (since the fluorine containing solvent can be compounds having 1 to 5 carbon atoms comprising at least one fluorine atom, page 3, lines 10-24) (page 2, line 45 through page 3, line 56, Example 1, claims 1-5).
EP0472908 does not specifically disclose wherein the evaporation residue after evaporating and drying the extract obtained by dissolving and extracting the fluorine-containing substance contained in or adhering to the resin pellet in a fluorine- containing extractant is in a range from 0 to 1.0 x 10-6 mg/mm2. EP0472908 discloses that when the amount of removed impurities increases, the properties, such as moldability, cleanness and mechanical properties, of the copolymer pellet are improved (abstract, page 3, lines 50-56). In other words, as the purity of the copolymer increases, said properties improve. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided applicant’s recited evaporation residue to improve the purity of said copolymer either by extracting more impurities or by using starting materials of increased purity thus resulting in less extracted materials in order to improve moldability, cleanness and mechanical properties as taught or suggested by EP0472908.
The limitation “and filtering the extract through a polypropylene filter
membrane having a pore size of 0.2 µm” is method of treating the extract which is not germane to the patentability of the resin pellet since the claimed invention is drawn to the resin pellet not the extract.
ANSWERS TO APPLICANT’S ARGUMENTS
Applicant’s arguments of 1/5/26 have been carefully considered but are deemed unpersuasive.
Applicant argues, “As explained in the application, it was discovered that use of particular fluorine-containing cleaning agents may achieve such levels of cleanliness in the resin pellets. In particular, by using as the fluorine-containing solvent a (unsaturated) perfluoroolefin or alkoxyperfluoroalkene having a double bond and a boiling point difference of 10°C or more from the boiling point of the fluorine-containing substance contained in or attached to the pellets, the pellets can be washed at a high washing temperature. It is also clear from the comparison of Examples 2 and 3 of the present specification that the evaporation residue of the obtained pellet is reduced by washing at a high temperature.
In contrast, the fluorine-based solvent used in EP '908 is a saturated fluorine-based solvent having no double bond and has improved detergency by containing chlorine or the like. The cited reference provides no disclosure of selecting of a fluorine-based cleaning agent based on the boiling point. That is, the prior art provides no recognition that the fluorine-based solvent used in the present invention would achieve cleaning to the intended level. Additionally, the amount of low molecular weight components contained in the fluororesin itself, which is the object of cleaning in EP
'908, is also significantly different from that of the resin pellet at the time of filing of the present application, and it is considered that a large amount of impurities are contained.”
However, applicant does not recite an unsaturated fluorine. Moreover, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided applicant’s recited evaporation residue to improve the purity of said copolymer either by extracting more impurities or by using starting materials of increased purity thus resulting in less extracted materials in order to improve moldability, cleanness and mechanical properties as taught or suggested by EP0472908.
Applicant argues, “In summary, it would not be obvious one of skill in the art to arrive at the claimed invention based on the prior art. The claimed invention requires that the evaporation residue after evaporating and drying the extract obtained by dissolving and extracting the fluorine-containing substance from the resin pellet is 0 to 1.0 X 10⁻⁶ mg/mm², whereas EP '908 neither describes nor suggests this feature. Further, it is clear that the resin pellets of the cited reference could not be cleaned to such low levels of evaporation residue, nor would it be obvious how to achieve such levels, because EP '908 fails to disclose or suggest the use of a fluorine-containing solvent comprising a (unsaturated) perfluoroolefin or alkoxyperfluoroalkene having a double bond and a boiling point difference of 10°C or more from the boiling point of the fluorine-containing substance contained in or attached to the pellets, such that the pellets can be washed at a high washing temperature. Such characteristics enable high-temperature washing necessary to achieve the claimed level of cleanliness suitable for
semiconductor manufacturing, which EP '908 does not teach or suggest.”
However, applicant does not recite an unsaturated fluorine. Moreover, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided applicant’s recited evaporation residue to improve the purity of said copolymer either by extracting more impurities or by using starting materials of increased purity thus resulting in less extracted materials in order to improve moldability, cleanness and mechanical properties as taught or suggested by EP0472908.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL C MIGGINS whose telephone number is (571)272-1494. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 1-9 pm EST.
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, Aaron Austin can be reached at 571-272-8935. 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.
/MICHAEL C MIGGINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782
MCM
March 10, 2026