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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Species A.) polymeric hydrocarbon in the reply filed on 12/16/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claim 20 is withdrawn from further consideration as directed to a non-elected species.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4, 11-12, 14-18, and 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by RU2100702 (RU’702, of record).
Regarding claims 1-2, 4, 12, 14-18, and 22-25, 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.
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.
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RU2100702 (RU’702).
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.
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RU2100702 (RU’702) in view of JP2007-246681 (JP’681, of record).
Regarding claim 3, RU’702 teaches heating in air for destruction of the halogenated and perfluorocarbons, and other solid polymers, but does not teach an inert atmosphere. See [0001] and [0015] of RU’702. However, it is known in the art from JP’681 to heat halocarbons in flowing inert gas such as nitrogen or helium or in a vacuum. JP’681 teaches collecting the produced gas for use as a fuel gas. See the abstract and [0012] of JP’681. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use an atmosphere of nitrogen or helium (or a vacuum) in the process of RU’702 with the motivation of producing a useful fuel and preventing environmental contamination.
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.
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