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 without traverse of Group I (claims 1-2) in the reply filed on 12/29/2025 is acknowledged.
Groups II-VII (claims 3-14) are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/29/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
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(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada et al (US 20220066335 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yamada teaches a method for producing a fluorine-containing resin [abstract], which comprises emulsion polymerizing fluoroolefins including a copolymer of two or more monomers which are at least one fluoroolefin monomer and a non-fluorine-based monomer [0078]. The fluoroolefin monomers include tetrafluoroethylene (TFE), chlorotrifluoroethylene (CTFE), and vinylidene fluoride (VdF) [0079]. The emulsion polymerization is carried out in a dispersion medium (water) [0084, 0371].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to produce a fluorine-containing resin homopolymer or copolymer comprising CTFE and/or VdF, with less than 99 mass% of TFE, as these are expressly disclosed as being suitable in this capacity. It has been established that selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obvious (Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)). See MPEP 2144.07.
The water medium for emulsion polymerization reads on the claimed aqueous medium.
Yamada teaches that the fluorine-containing resin particles may have a fluorine atom-containing dispersant comprising polymers obtained by homopolymerization or copolymerization of polymerizable compounds including 2-methoxyethyl methacrylate and methoxypolyethylene glycol methacrylate [0096-0097, 0100].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to produce the fluorine-containing resin particles by emulsion polymerization in the presence of the dispersant comprising polymers of 2-methoxyethyl methacrylate and methoxypolyethylene glycol methacrylate, as these are expressly disclosed as being suitable in this capacity. It has been established that selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obvious (Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)). See MPEP 2144.07.
The examiner submits that 2-methoxyethyl methacrylate and methoxypolyethylene glycol methacrylate meet the claimed formula (1), as evidenced by the applicant [0078, 0083 spec.].
Regarding claim 2, Yamada does not specifically teach the amount of the dispersant (corresponding to the claimed specific polymer) relative to the amount of the aqueous medium. However, Yamada teaches that the amount of the fluorine-containing dispersant contained relative to, for example, the fluorine-containing resin particles is preferably 0.5 mass % or more and 10 mass % or less [0124]. In addition, Example 5 discloses a fluorine-containing resin dispersion made with 1000 g of TFE in 3 L of water [0371]. Thus, the ratio of the fluorine-containing resin particles to water is 1:3. This specific example does not contain the dispersant. However, based on Yamada’s general teaching that a dispersant can be added as stated above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to add a dispersant to a fluorine-containing resin dispersion in an amount of 0.17 to 3.3 parts by mass of the dispersant per 100 parts by mass of water, as calculated by the examiner.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to form a fluorine-containing resin dispersion according to Yamada including the dispersant in an amount of 0.17 to 3.3 parts by mass per 100 parts by mass of water, as Yamada demonstrates this range to be suitable for this type of fluorine-containing resin dispersion. "The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416-21 (2007). See MPEP 2141.
The amount of the dispersant is 0.17 to 3.3 parts by mass per 100 parts by mass of water overlaps the claimed range of 0.0001 to 1.0 parts by ass per 100 parts by mass of the aqueous medium. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" (MPEP 2144.05.I).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIANGTIAN XU whose telephone number is (571)270-1621. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday.
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, Robert Jones can be reached on (571) 270-7733. 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.
/JIANGTIAN XU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762