DETAILED ACTION
Any rejections and/or objections made in the previous Office action and not repeated below are hereby withdrawn.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
The new grounds of rejection set forth below for claims 1, 3, 4, and 10 are necessitated by Applicant’s amendment filed on Apr. 23, 2026. In particular, independent claim 1 has been amended to contain a different range of amounts of monomeric units according to chemical formula (1). Therefore, claim 1 and claims 3, 4, and 10 which ultimately depend on amended claim 1 are now different in scope from what they were at the time of the preceding Office action. For this reason, the present action is properly made final.
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 .
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 102
Claims 1, 3, 4, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0015772 A1 (herein “Watanabe”).
As to claims 1 and 3: Watanabe describes a resin composition (see Comparative Example 1 in ¶¶ [0124]-[0129]) comprising a copolymer including 97.06 mol % of units of vinylidene fluoride, 2.70 mol % of units of hexafluoropropene, and 0.24 mol % of units of acryloyloxyethyl succinate (see ¶ [0112]), corresponding to about 93.15 wt % of units of vinylidene fluoride, 6.07 wt% of units of hexafluoropropene, and 0.78 mol % of units of acryloyloxyethyl succinate.
Watanabe does not disclose the intrinsic viscosity of the polymer. Because the polymer contains the same repeating units that are presently recited in amounts within the presently recited ranges, there is a reasonable basis to conclude that Watanabe’s polymer would have an intrinsic viscosity within the presently recited range for the same reason that the present polymers have such an intrinsic viscosity.
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(I).
As to claims 4 and 10: The cited copolymer is dissolved in the solvent dimethyl carbonate (see ¶¶ [0128] and [0117]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but they would be allowable if written in independent form.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed Apr. 23, 2026 (herein “Remarks”) have been fully considered and they are persuasive in part.
Applicant argues (bottom of p. 8 of Remarks) that Watanabe’s Working Example 1 does not include an amount of units of chemical formula (1) within the range of 0.3 to 1.0 mass% that is recited in amended claim 1.
In light of the amendment of claim 1 to recite a range of 0.3 to 1.0 mass%, the rejection over Watanabe has been recast above with a citation to a different example (Comparative Example 1) which includes 0.78 mol % of units of acryloyloxyethyl succinate (a unit according to present chemical formula (1)).
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 extension fee 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.
This action is a final rejection and is intended to close the prosecution of this application. Applicant's reply under 37 CFR § 1.113 to this action is limited either to an appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board or to an amendment complying with the requirements set forth below.
If applicant should desire to appeal any rejection made by the examiner, a Notice of Appeal must be filed within the period for reply identifying the rejected claim or claims appealed. The Notice of Appeal must be accompanied by the required appeal fee.
If applicant should desire to file an amendment, entry of a proposed amendment after final rejection cannot be made as a matter of right unless it merely cancels claims or complies with a formal requirement made earlier. Amendments touching the merits of the application which otherwise might not be proper may be admitted upon a showing of good and sufficient reasons why they are necessary and why they were not presented earlier.
A reply under 37 CFR § 1.113 to a final rejection must include the appeal from, or cancellation of, each rejected claim. The filing of an amendment after final rejection, whether or not it is entered, does not stop the running of the statutory period for reply to the final rejection unless the examiner holds the claims to be in condition for allowance. Accordingly, if a Notice of Appeal has not been filed properly within the period for reply, or any extension of this period obtained under either 37 CFR 1.136(a) or (b), the application will become abandoned.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD A. HUHN whose telephone number is (571)270-7345. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9 AM to 6 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, Arrie (Lanee) Reuther can be reached at (571) 270-7026. 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.
/RICHARD A. HUHN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights