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Groups II-VII (claims 3-14) are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 8/12/2026 has been entered. Claim(s) 1 is/are currently amended. Claim(s) 1-14 is/are pending with claim(s) 3-14 withdrawn from consideration. Claim(s) 1-2 is/are under examination in this office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's argument filed on 8/12/2026, with respect to 103 rejection has been fully considered but is moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “in formula (2), R2 is an alkyl group, …”. However, formula (2) does not contain R2.
Claim 2 is rejected likewise as depending on claim 1.
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 Amin-Sanayei et al (US 20070135546 A1) in view of Toru et al (JP 2002201227 A, machine translation is referenced herein). Kowa (NK Ester M-90G, https://kowachemical.com/products/methoxy-tetraethylene-glycol-dimethacrylatepegma-peg-mol9/) is cited as evidentiary reference.
Regarding claim 1, Amin-Sanayei teaches a method for making fluoropolymer dispersions, the method comprising polymerizing at least one fluorinated monomer including tetrafluoroethylene, chlorotrifluoroethylene and vinylidene fluoride in an aqueous medium in the presence of a non-ionic non-fluorinated glycol-based emulsifier [abstract, 0022, 0024, 0040].
Amin-Sanayei does not teach that the non-ionic non-fluorinated glycol-based emulsifier is one meeting the claimed formula (1) or formula (2).
In the same field of endeavor, Toru teaches an aqueous fluorocopolymer dispersion which has improved dispersion stability and film-forming properties, which is prepared by dispersing, in water, a copolymer which comprises units derived from units derived from ethylene, such as NK-Ester M90G manufactured by Shin-Nakamura Chemical Co., Ltd. [0090, 0123].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to select NK Ester M-90G as the non-ionic non-fluorinated glycol-based emulsifier in Amin-Sanayei’s method, as it is expressly disclosed as being useful 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.
As evidenced by Kowa, NK Ester M-90G is methoxy polyethylene glycol methacrylate, which has structure of
PNG
media_image1.png
381
381
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein n=9, which has the unit of the claimed formula (1), wherein X and Y are hydrogen; R1 is methyl; L is ethylene; n is 9; and R2 is a methyl group.
Amin-Sanayei teaches that the non-ionic non-fluorinated glycol-based emulsifier can be the sole emulsifier; and co-surfactants are only optional [0037]. This meets the claimed limitation of “wherein the polymerizing is carried out in the absence of an emulsifier”, because the non-ionic non-fluorinated glycol-based emulsifier is not considered as the recited emulsifier by the applicant; and applicant calls it the specific polymer having units based on a compound of formula (1).
Regarding claim 2, Amin-Sanayei suggests that the non-ionic non-fluorinated glycol-based emulsifier can be in an amount of from 100 ppm to 2 percent based on the weight of the fluoropolymer solids [0016]; and the dispersion has a solids level of from 15 to 70 weight percent [0030]. Therefore, the aqueous medium in the dispersion is 30-85 wt%; and the amount of the non-ionic non-fluorinated glycol-based emulsifier is 0.01-6.7 parts per 100 parts of the aqueous medium, as calculated by the examiner, overlapping the claimed range of from 0.0001 to 1.0 parts by mass per 100 parts by mass. 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
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 date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights