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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on April 2, 2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-15 are currently pending in the above identified application.
Double Patenting
The terminal disclaimer was filed August 21, 2025, however, the referenced application number appears to be mistyped as “18/192,080” instead of 18/192,020.
Double patenting in the Office Action mailed, 18/192,020 remains. Applicant is requested to filed an updated terminal disclaimer for 18/192,020 to overcome the double patenting rejection.
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.
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.
Claims 1-6, 8-9, and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over JP 2017-197690 to Masuda.
NOTE: The English Machine Translation of JP 2017-197690 is being used for prior art mapping.
Regarding claims 1-6, 8-9, and 11-15, Masuda teaches a copolymer including tetrafluoroethylene units, specifically a tetrafluoroethylene/hexafluoropropylene / perfluoro(propyl vinyl ether) copolymer (copolymer comprising tetrafluoroethylene unit and a perfluoro(propyl vinyl ether) unit) having a molar ratio of 85.5/13.5/1.0, melt flow rate of 8g/ 10 min measured at a temperature of 280°C and a load of 5 kg in accordance with ASTM D3307-01, number of unstable terminal group of 18, and a melting point of 188°C (Masuda, abstract, p. 9, Copolymer IV, 4). A molar ratio of TFE/HFP/PPVE of 85.5/13.5/1.0 equates to a mass ratio of about 78.9/18.7/2.45 and the content of the perfluoro(propyl vinyl ether) unit being about 2.45% by mass with respect to the whole of the monomer units (claim 8-9). Masuda teaches the number of unstable terminal groups being per 106 chain carbon atom and include -COF, -COOH, -COOCH3, -CF=CF2, -OH, -CONH2 and -CF2H (Id., p. 3-4), which reads on the number of functional groups of the Copolymer IV being 50 or less per 106 main-chain carbon atoms, specifically 18 per 106 main-chain carbon atoms (claims 12-14). Masuda teaches the copolymer preferably having -CF3 at the end of the main chain to hardly generate corrosive gas when melted (Id., p. 4).
Regarding the melt flow rate according to ASTM 1238 at 372C, in general, a limitation is inherent if it is the “natural result flowing from” the explicit disclosure of the prior art. Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharms., Inc., 339 F.3d 1373, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Therefore, although the prior art does not disclose melt flow rate at the claimed temperature, the claimed properties are deemed to be inherent to the structure in the prior art since Masuda reference teaches an invention with a substantially similar structure and chemical composition as the claimed invention. Masuda teaches a copolymer including tetrafluoroethylene units and PPVE within the claimed range. Masuda establishes the melt flow rate is 8 g/10mol at 260C and 5 kg load. The claimed methodology test at a higher temperature and the claimed range extends to 23 g/10min (claim 1) and 21g/ 10min (claim 11). As the measuring temperature increases, the melt flow rate generally increases. Products of identical structure and composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The burden is on the Applicants to prove otherwise.
Regarding claims 2-6 and 15, Masuda teaches a molded body comprising the copolymer, including injection molding (claim 2), extrusion molding (claim 3), and compression molding (claim 4), a wire covering materials (claim 5), and a film (claim 6) formed from a pellet of the comonomer (Masuda, p. 5-7).
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.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2017/0260344 to Imamura.
Regarding claims 1-15, Imamura teaches a molded article, such as by extrusion molding (extrusion formed article, claim 4), compression molding (member to be compressed, claim 3), or injection molding (injection molded article, claim 2), comprising a fluororesin that is a tetrafluoroethylene/perfluoro(alkyl vinyl ether) (PAVE) copolymer, specifically a perfluoro(propyl vinyl ether) (PPVE), (a copolymer comprising tetrafluoroethylene unit and a perfluoro (propyl vinyl ether unit) (Imamura, abstract, para 00054-0058, 0147), wherein the copolymer contains 1.0 to 10 mass % of a polymerized unit based on PAVE relative to all the polymerized units, more preferably 2.0 mass % or more and most preferably 6.0% mass % or less (Id., para 0059-0060, 0076, 0082, 0092). Imamura teaches the fluororesin having a melt flow rate at 372°C of more preferably 0.5 g/10 min or more and 40 g/10 min or less (Id., para 0093-0094). Imamura teaches a low MFR leads to production of a molded article having excellent low permeability to nitrogen gas and hydrochloric acid but can have low melt flowability and thus be difficult to mold (Id., para 0094). Imamura teaches the fluororesin containing preferably 350 or less functional groups per 106 carbon atoms in the main chain and teaches the value may be 0 (claims 12-14) (Id., para 0114). Imamura teaches the presence of too many functional groups may facilitate progress of a crosslinking reaction by irradiation and possible cause a failure in producing a modified molded article having excellent low permeability (Id., para 0114). The functional groups include -CF=CF2, -CF2H, -COF, -COOH, -COOCH3, -CONH2 and -CH2OH (Id., para 0122-0123, Table 1, 0105-0108).
While the reference does not specifically teach the claimed range of 2.0 to 2.8% by mass of the perfluoro(propyl vinyl ether) unit with respect to the whole of the monomers, specifically 2.1 to 2.8% by mass (claim 8), more specifically 2.2 to 2.8% by mass (claim 9), 5 to 23 g/10 min melt flow rate, specifically 5.6 to 21 g/10 min (claim 11), and 50 or less per 106 of the number of claimed functional groups per 1-06 main-chain carbon atoms (claim 1), specifically 40 or less (claim 12), more specifically 30 or less (claim 13), even more specifically 20 or less (claim 14), the disclosed range of the prior art combination overlaps with the instant claimed range. It should be noted that in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The existence of overlapping or encompassing ranges shifts the burden to Applicant to show that his invention would not have been obvious. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to adjust, vary, and optimize the perfluoro(propyl vinyl ether) unit, melt flow rate, and number of functional groups, such as within the claimed range, motivated by the desire to successfully practice the invention of the prior art based on the totality of the teachings of the prior art as well as to balance the desired permeability with processibility taught by Imamura as influenced by the melt flow rate and minimize the functional group, taught as encompassing 0 (claims 12-14), in order to reduce possible failure in the production of molded articles having excellent low permeability as taught by Imamura as influenced by the presence of functional groups.
Regarding claim 5, Imamura teaches an coated electric wire comprising an electric wire coating material of the fluororesin (copolymer) (Imamura, para 0050, 0151-0152).
Regarding claim 6, Imamura teaches a film comprising the fluororesin (copolymer) (Imamura, para 0050, 0146-0147).
Regarding claim 7, Imamura teaches copolymer has a melting point preferably 290°C or higher and 315°C or lower (Imamura, para 0062-0063).
Regarding claim 10, Imamura teaches copolymer being a TFE/PAVE copolymer consisting of only TFE unit and a PAVE unit and having 2 mass% to 6.0 mass% of PAVE relative to all polymerized units (Imamura, para 0059-0060, 0074, 0092), indicating the balance is TFE monomers and would be 98 to 94% by mass. Imamura teaches units lower the permeability to nitrogen gas and hydrochloric acid (Id., para 0057). -COOCH3, -CONH2 and -CH2OH (Id., para 0122-0123, Table 1, 0105-0108). While the reference does not specifically teach the claimed range of tetrafluoroethylene units being 97.2 to 98.02% by mass with respect to the whole of the monomer units, the disclosed range of the prior art combination overlaps with the instant claimed range. It should be noted that in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The existence of overlapping or encompassing ranges shifts the burden to Applicant to show that his invention would not have been obvious. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to adjust, vary, and optimize the perfluoro(propyl vinyl ether) units and therefore the tetrafluoroethylene units, such as within the claimed range, motivated by the desire to successfully practice the invention of the prior art based on the totality of the teachings of the prior art.
Regarding claim 15, Imamura teaches the molded article being a pellet (Imamura, para 0050).
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2017/0260344 to Imamura, as applied to claims 1-15 above, in view of Fluorinated Polymers to Ohkura.
Regarding claims 1-15, Imamura teaches the fluororesin being a PFE/PAVE copolymer called PFA (Imamura, para 0055). In the event that Imamura does not teach the PPVE content with enough specificity, Ohkura teaches perfluoroalkoxy copolymer (PFA) are a melt processable perfluoroplastic obtains from random copolymerization of TFE with perfluoro(alkyl vinyl ether) comonomer and a typical PFA contains only about 1 mol% of PPVE to introduce an ether linkage between the perfluoroalkyl side-chain and polymer man chain (Ok, p. 88). About 1 mol% equates to about 2.6 wt% of a polymer consisting of TFE and PPVE monomer units (claims 1 and 8-9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the TFE/PPVE (PFA) copolymer, wherein the PPVE is present in an amount of about 1 mol% as taught by Ohkura, motivated by the desire of using conventional known and used PPVE comonomer amounts within the disclosed range of Imamura.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. 2017/0154707 to Abe in view of JP 2017-197690 to Masuda.
NOTE: The English Machine Translation of JP 2017-197690 is being used for prior art mapping.
Regarding claims 1-15, Abe teaches a fluorinated copolymer (A) having units based on tetrafluoroethylene (TFE) and units based on a perfluoroalkyl vinyl ether (PAVE), specifically perfluoropropyl vinyl ether, from 0.1 to 1.9 mol % to the total units in the fluorinated copolymer (A) and a melt flow rate of at least 0.1 and less than 15 in accordance with ASTM D-3307 at 372C (Abe, abstract, para 0013, 0023, 0038). Abe teaches the copolymer being used in an insulating layer in a wire (claim 5) (Id., para 0014). Abe teaches the TFE units being more preferably 95.0 to 99.5 mol% (Id., para 0031). Abe teaches if the TFE is lower than the above lower limit value, the heat resistance is poor, and if higher, the processibility is poor (Id.). Abe teaches the PAVE being preferably from 0.3 to 1.9 mol % (Id., para 0033). Abe teaches when the content of PAVE if lower, the melt processability deteriorates and the surface smoothness deteriorates (Id., para 0034). Abe teaches when too high, the crystallinity of the copolymer becomes low and thereby the abrasion resistance deteriorates (Id.). Abe teaches the total content of TFE and PAVE being more preferably from 95 to 100 mol% and is lower, the heat resistance is poor (Id., para 0035). Based on a copolymer consisting of 100% TFE and PPVE monomers, 0.1 to 1.9 mol% equates to about 0.3 to about 4.9% by mass with respect to the whole of the monomer units and 0.3 to 1.9 mol% equates about 0.8 to about 4.9% by mass with respect to the whole of the monomer units. Abe teaches the MFR being most preferably at least 3 and less than 12 (Id., para 0037). Abe teaches is the MFR is too high, the abrasion resistance deteriorates (Id., para 0037). Abe teaches if the MFR is lower, the molding processability deteriorates and surface is rough (Id., para 0036). Abe teaches if higher, the binding force among the molecules becomes low due to higher molecular weight copolymer and abrasion resistance deteriorates (Id., para 0036). Abe teaches if the MFR is lower than the limit, the viscosity is too high, the melting workability is poor, melt fraction occurs, and high surface roughness (Id., para 0037). Abe teaches if higher than the upper limit, the abrasion resistance deteriorates (Id.). Abe teaches application including insulated electric wire, medical product such as a tube, chemical liquid tank, and a molded product (Id., para 0056-0069).
While the reference does not specifically teach the claimed range of 2.0 to 2.8% by mass of the perfluoro(propyl vinyl ether) unit with respect to the whole of the monomers (claim 1), specifically 2.1 to 2.8% by mass (claim 8), more specifically 2.2 to 2.8% by mass (claim 9), 5 to 23 g/10 min melt flow rate (claim 1), specifically 5.6 to 21 g/10 min (claim 11), the disclosed range of the prior art combination overlaps with the instant claimed range. It should be noted that in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The existence of overlapping or encompassing ranges shifts the burden to Applicant to show that his invention would not have been obvious. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to adjust, vary, and optimize the perfluoro(propyl vinyl ether) unit and melt flow rate, such as within the claimed range, motivated by the desire to successfully practice the invention of the prior art based on the totality of the teachings of the prior art as well as predictably influence the melt processability, surface smoothness, abrasion resistance, and molding processability as taught by Abe as influenced by the PPVE content and the MFR.
Abe is silent with regards to the number of functionals as claimed being 50 or less per 106 main-chain carbon atoms.
However, Masuda teaches a copolymer including tetrafluoroethylene units and a perfluoro(propyl vinyl ether) unit used in molded body comprising the copolymer and a wire covering materials (Masuda, abstract, p. 5-9). Masuda teaches the number of unstable terminal groups being per 106 chain carbon atom and include -COF, -COOH, -COOCH3, -CF=CF2, -OH, -CONH2 and -CF2H (Id., p. 3-4), which reads on the number of functional groups of the Copolymer IV being 50 or less per 106 main-chain carbon atoms, specifically 18 per 106 main-chain carbon atoms in an embodiment comprising TFE and PPVE units in 1 mol% (about 2.45% wt). Masuda teaches the copolymer preferably having -CF3 at the end of the main chain to hardly generate corrosive gas when melted (Id., p. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the fluorinated copolymer of Abe, wherein the unstable terminal groups (functional groups) are minimized, such as 18 per 106 main-chain carbon atoms, as taught by Masuda, motivated by the desire of forming fluorinated copolymers containing TFE and PPVE units having conventionally known unstable terminal group level and by the desire to prevent that formation of corrosive gas when melted.
Regarding claims 2-6 and 15, the prior art combination teaches application including insulated electric wire, medical product such as a tube, chemical liquid tank, and a molded product (Abe, para 0056-0069). The prior art combination teaches molded body comprising the copolymer include injection molding (claim 2), extrusion molding (claim 3), and compression molding (claim 4), a wire covering materials (claim 5), and a film (claim 6) formed from a pellet (claim 15) of the comonomer (Masuda, p. 5-7). Examiner would also like to note that the “injection molded article,” “member to be compressed”, “extrusion formed article”, “film,” and “pellet” preamble recited in claim 2-4, 6, and 15, respective, a preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951). Since the prior art teaches a substantially similar structure and composition as claimed, and since these preambles does not impute a specific structure absent from the prior art, the invention of the prior art combination appears to be capable of the claimed intended use recited.
Regarding claim 7, the prior art combination teaches the melting point of the copolymer being more preferably from 260 to 330C (Abe, para 0040). The prior art combination teaches when the melting point is at least above the lower limit, mechanical properties such as abrasion resistance, tensile strength, tensile elongation and the elastic coefficient are excellent and when the melting point is at most the upper limit, the molding property is excellent (Id., para 0040). While the reference does not specifically teach the claimed range of 305 to 317C, the disclosed range of the prior art combination overlaps with the instant claimed range. It should be noted that in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The existence of overlapping or encompassing ranges shifts the burden to Applicant to show that his invention would not have been obvious. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to adjust, vary, and optimize the melting point, such as within the claimed range, motivated by the desire to successfully practice the invention of the prior art based on the totality of the teachings of the prior art as well as predictably adjust and influence mechanical properties such as abrasion resistance, tensile strength, tensile elongation and the elastic coefficient as well as molding property as taught by Abe as being affected by the melting point as a result effective variable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 2, 2026 and Declaration Filed April 2, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
It should be noted that the Declarant is a co-inventor of the currently examined Application, and therefore, Declarant’s interest in the matter is a factor which can legitimately be taken into consideration. However, Declarant does not refer to any prior art documents to support his conclusions. Nothing in the Patent Office jurisprudence requires an examiner to credit unsupported assertions of an expert witness. Cf Rohm & Haas Co. v. Brotech Corp., 127 F.3d 1089, 1092 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Applicant and Declarant argue, with regards to the application of Imamura, that the relatively narrowly claimed ranges of the presently claimed invention, as compared to the relatively broadly disclosed ranges of Imamura, are critical and provide unexpectedly superior results as demonstrate by the results of Examples 1-11 and Comparative Examples 1-5 of the present application. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Comparative Example 1 appear to be the closest comparative example to Imamura as being within Imamura while being outside the claimed range. Declarant asserts that when the content of PPVE is too high, the leak out of electrolytic solution cannot be prevented and the sealability at high temperature is poor (i.e. the surface pressure is low). It appears that Declarant is referencing electrolytic solution leak amount. Comp. 1 having 3.0% PPVE has a leak amount of 0.0035 g/1000hrs whereas Ex.7 and Ex. 8 having 2.7% and 2.8% PPVE, respectively, have leak amounts of 0.0030 and 0.0029 g/1000 hrs, respectively. This difference does not support that above 2.8%, leakage cannot be prevent but at or below, leakage is prevented. Additionally, the scope of the examples relied upon in the Declaration and originally filed disclosure are narrower than the scope of the currently claim 1. Claim 1 requires copolymer comprising (1) tetrafluoroethylene unit (TPE) and (2) 2.0 to 2.8% by mass with respect to the whole of the monomer units perfluoro(propyl vinyl ether) units (PPVE); (3) having a melt flow rate of 5 to 23 g/10 min at 372C: and having the number of the claimed functional groups of 50 or less per 106 main-chain carbon atoms. The examples all contain copolymer that consist of only TFE and PPVE. Applicant has not shown that the difference between 0.0035 and 0.0030 is patentably distinct. Additionally, if the storage elastic modulus at 150C electrolytic solution leak amount are key inventive concepts, the claim should be updated accordingly.
Regarding the lower end of the claimed range, there is a single comparative example, Comparative Example 2, which has the highest level of functional groups and exhibits cracking. It is unclear that the lower range of the PPVE is critical based on the single data point that is well above the claimed functional group. To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960). A sufficient number has not been provided. Additionally, Ohkura establishes that a well known and understood level of PPVE in PFA (TFE/PPVE copolymer) is about 1 mol%, which equates to a percent by mass within the claimed range.
Declarant argues that Imamura improvement is due to irradiation step not because of the copolymer composition itself. Declarant argues that Imamura focuses on adjusting PAVE content, MFR, and number of functional groups to enhance the effective of irradiation aimed at improving abrasion resistance and lowering permeability to nitrogen gas and hydrochloric acid. The reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (motivation question arises in the context of the general problem confronting the inventor rather than the specific problem solved by the invention); Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1323, 76 USPQ2d 1662, 1685 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ("One of ordinary skill in the art need not see the identical problem addressed in a prior art reference to be motivated to apply its teachings."); In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 173 USPQ 560 (CCPA 1972) (discussed below); In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 904 (1991). Applicant argues that when the number of functional groups is too large, the leakage of an electrolytic solution cannot be prevented. However, Imamura already establishes a clear desire for minimizing the functional groups and explicitly teaches the functional groups may be 0 (Imamura, para 0114). Additionally, the formation of corrosive gas due to the unstable functional group as known in the art as shown by Masuda.
Applicant argues that when the MFR is too low, the water vapor permeability and the electrolytic solution low permeability is poor and the injection moldability is also poor. However, Imamura establishes moldability at low MFR can be difficult, i.e. poor.
Applicant argues that when the MFR is too high, the leakage of an electrolytic solution cannot be prevented and the sealability at high temperature, the heat distortion resistance, and the abrasion resistance are poor. Imamura teaches a fluororesin having a low MFR leads to production of a molded article having excellent low permeability to nitrogen gas and hydrochloric acid but can be difficult to mold (Imamura, para 0094). Therefore, Imamura establishes if the MFR is too high, low permeability to nitrogen gas and hydrochloric acid would be poor, i.e. leakage. As with PPVE, the electronic solution leak of comparative example 5 is 0.0035 g/1000 hrs with a MFR of 33. It is unclear that this results. It a appears to be a difference without a distinction, especially given that Imamura teaches poor low permeability to nitrogen gas and hydrochloric acid, motivating a person skilled in the art to modify. While the leakage may be different, there is still direction guidance to chemical permeability associated with the MFR. Additionally, Abe establishes that MFR is associated with abrasion resistance. Applicant and Declarant have not present persuasive evidence of the claimed range being critical.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Pub. No. 2015/0322187 to Miele teaches a fluoropolymer consisting essentially of (a) from 0.5 to 8% by weight recurring units derived from PPVE and (b) recurring units derived from TFE used as a separator in electro-chemical devices and teaches the disc in a solvent mixture of ethylene carbonate and dimethyl carbonate. “Relationship between Structure and Mechanical Properties of Melt Processable PTFE: Influence of Molecular Weight and Comonomer Content” to Frick teaches the incorporation of PPVE into the PTFE chain leads to increase in the yield stress of PTFE copolymer and increasing the comonomer content leads to better fatigue life performance study PTFE, grafted PTFE with 0.049-0.670 mol% PPVE content, and TFE/PPVE comonomer having 1.754 mol% PPVE. “Copolymerizations of tetrafluoroethylene and perfluoropropylvinyl ether in supercritical carbon dioxide: polymer synthesis, characterization, and thermal properties” to Xu teaches a copolymer comprising tetrafluoroethylene and perfluoropropylvinyl ether (PPVE) containing 1.1% mol PPVE comonomer and teaches two transition peaks can be observed when the copolymer is over 1 mol% as well as when more PPVE is incorporated, the regularity of the crystalline chain decreases with a lower and broader peak during XRD.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER ANN GILLETT whose telephone number is (571)270-0556. The examiner can normally be reached 7 AM- 4:30 PM EST M-H.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
/JENNIFER A GILLETT/ Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights