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 .
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 6, 11, 14-18, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RU2100702 (RU’702).
Regarding claims 1-2, 4, 14-18, and 22, RU’702 teaches a process for converting halocarbons to inorganic salts comprising reacting a mixture of polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), a perfluorinated compound, or polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and an oxide or hydroxide of calcium, magnesium, and barium at 600°C (873 K) to produce inorganic salts including calcium fluoride (CaF2). See [0012] - [0015]. Fluorine and chlorine are both more electronegative than oxygen.
The process of RU’702 uses a single metal salt in each run of the process disclosed therein. See the Examples and Tables. RU’702 does not teach the claim feature requiring the metal salt is a mixture of metal oxides, a mixture of metal carbonates, a mixture of metal hydroxides, or a mixture of a metal oxide and a carbonate.
However, RU’702 teaches several different oxides and hydroxides including Ca(OH)2, CaO, Mg(OH)2, and MgO.
MPEP 2144.06 I states:
It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art." In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP 2144.05. […] (Claims directed to a method and material for treating cast iron using a mixture comprising calcium carbide and magnesium oxide were held unpatentable over prior art disclosures that the aforementioned components individually promote the formation of a nodular structure in cast iron.); Ex parte Quadranti, 25 USPQ2d 1071 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992)…
In the instant application, the prior art also discloses two components separately taught for a specific purpose (decomposing organic substances including halogens at relatively low temperature and binding produced toxic substances). Since no evidence has been provided showing an unexpected result from using all of the claimed combinations, the combination of salts as claimed is considered to be obvious from RU’702.
Regarding claim 3, RU’702 teaches in example 3, using an argon atmosphere. The footnote under Table 1 in the Russian language document translates to “in argon flow”.
Regarding claim 6, RU’702 is silent regarding the length of the reaction. However, determining the proper length of reaction would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. In chemical process design determination of reaction duration is a necessary step to ensure complete reaction. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the time into the claimed range in order to ensure completion of the reaction.
Regarding claim 11, RU’702 is silent regarding the byproducts, however RU’702 teaches heating the same components as the instant invention at the same temperature, thus the same products are expected as the process of the instant invention including the production of the byproducts claimed.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RU2100702 (RU’702) in view of EP0860183 (EP’183).
Regarding claims 8-9, RU’702 teaches crushing (grinding) the PTFE before mixing with the inorganic salt and not grinding the salt and PTFE together. RU’702 teaches mixing before reacting. See [0015]. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the components could also be combined and then crushed/ground in the case where the particle size of the inorganic salt provided is not sufficiently small to ensure contact with the PTFE. For instance, in a similar process of processing a treatable material (PVC, etc.) EP’183 teaches the inorganic salt and treatable material can be pulverized (ground), separately or together. See the abstract and page 18, lines 9-22. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the grinding together in order to increase the surface area of the PTFE and inorganic salt, to ensure contact of the two reactants, to reduce the number of steps, and to simultaneously mix the two reactants in order to ensure a complete and fast reaction upon heating.
The references are silent regarding the grinding time. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine and use a grinding time in the range claimed. The duration of a grinding step determines the extent of the grinding. Thus, depending on the particle size of the reactants, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the time of grinding in order to achieve particle sizes appropriate for the subsequent reaction to take place and run to completion.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RU2100702 (RU’702) in view of Ohkura et al. “Fluoropastics and Fluoroestastomers – Basic Chemistry and High-performance Applications” Fluorinated Polymers Volume 2: Applications (2017).
Regarding claim 19, RU’702 does not teach a coplolymer of tetrafluoroethylene and perfluoro methylvinyl ether (PFA). However, PFA is a well-known material used in the food, medical, chemical, architectural, aerospace, automotive, electrical and electronics industries. See Section 4.2.3 on pages 88-90 and Section 4.5 on page 103 of Ohkura. Given the disclosure of RU’702 specifies the applicability of the process thereof to perfluorocarbons and that PFA is a known and commonly used perfluorocarbon, generating waste, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use PFA in the process of RU’702 in order to make the waste less harmful and make useful products in lieu of disposing the waste in a landfill and contaminating the environment.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 24-25 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
No prior art reference of record, including the closest prior art RU2100702 (RU’702), teach or suggest the production of the inorganic salts claimed in claims 24-25. All of the compounds disclosed in RU’702 are alkaline earth compounds. The use of alkali metal compounds is also known. See [0002] of RU’702. However, the compounds claimed in claims 24-25 require at least one non-alkali or alkaline earth metal, and thus do not teach or suggest the production of the compounds claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments regarding claims 1-4, 6, 8-9, 11, 14-19, and 22 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues RU’702 does not teach or suggest the claim limitation in claim 1 requiring, “the metal salt is a mixture selected from a mixture of metal oxides, a mixture of metal carbonates, a mixture of metal hydroxides, or a mixture of a metal oxide and a metal carbonate”. However, this limitation is rendered obvious by RU’702 as explained in the 103 rejection above.
Applicant’s arguments (and corresponding amendment) regarding claims 24-25 were persuasive. The claims were indicated as containing allowable subject matter above.
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 ANTHONY J ZIMMER whose telephone number is (571)270-3591. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:30 AM - 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, Alexa Neckel can be reached at 571-272-2450. 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.
ANTHONY J. ZIMMER
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1736
/ANTHONY J ZIMMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1736
Prosecution Insights