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 .
The addition of claims 8-14, in the response filed August 21, 2025, have been entered.
Claims 1-14 are currently pending in the above identified application.
The terminal disclaimer with 18/192,080, filed August 21, 2025, is acknowledged and corresponding double patenting rejection has been overcome.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2017/0260344 to Imamura.
Regarding claims 1-14, 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 98.02.8% 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
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 21, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, 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. 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). Examiner would like to highlight that the Table containing empirical data is not legible. A message was left on November 3, 2025 with Applicant’s representative to provide a legible copy, however, no response was received. Examiner cannot determine if Applicant’s assertion of unexpected results are supported based on the specifically claimed ranges argued. Therefore, Applicant has not provided evidence that the claimed range is critical, resulting in unexpected results.
Applicant argues that when PPVE is too high, the leak out of an electrolytic solution cannot be prevented and the sealability at high temperature is poor (i.e., the surface pressure is low). Applicant argues that when the content of PPVE is too low, the crack resistance to compression stresses, the heat distortion resistance, and the abrasion resistance are poor. However, Imamura teaches a fluororesin containing many TFE units leads to production of a molded article having excellent low permeability to nitrogen gas and hydrochloric acid (Imamura, para 0094). Imamura establishes a high amount of TFE linked with excellent low permeability to nitrogen and hydrochloric acid and therefore, too low TFE amount, corresponding to too high a PPVE, leakage. Additionally, US Pub. No. 2016/0322128 to Imamura teaches the use of PAVE for heat resistance and crack resistance, specifically PPVE (Imamura ‘128, para 0021, 0038, 0040, 0095), establishing the content of PAVE is associated with heat and crack resistance. USPN 4,029,868 to Carlson teaches TFE/PPVE have less heat shrinkability and therefore cannot be use over a large range of size compared to terpolymer or FEP copolymers. Therefore, Carlson establishes it is known that higher PPVE content can effect sealability at high temperature. Applicant has not provided persuasive evidence that the claimed range is critical and associated with unexpected results.
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).
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. 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 moldability at low MFR can be difficult, i.e. poor, and if the MFR is too high, low permeability to nitrogen gas and hydrochloric acid would be poor, i.e. leakage.
As Applicant has not provided evidence that the claimed ranges are critical, Examiner maintains the rejections detailed above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Pub. No. 2003/0013791 to Blong teaches a fluorothermoplastic composition comprising interpolymerized units derived from about 94 to about 97.5 mole percent tetrafluoroethylene (TFE), about 2 to about 3 mol% perfluoro (propyl vinyl ether) (PPVE), and about 0.5 to about 3 mol% hexafluoropropylene (HFP) having a melt flow index of less than 25 g/10 min for use in fluorothermoplastic article such as tubing, tube fitting, film, and coatings in applications requiring high chemical resistance and high stress crack resistance and teaches an embodiment having 2.2 mol% PPV and 1.5 mol% HFP compared with a comparative example having a higher PPVE content and no HFP that has a lower flex life. US Pub. No. 2017/0154707 to Abe teaches an insulated wire comprising a fluorinated copolymer comprising PAVE and teaches if the content of the structural units based on PAVE is lower than the lower limit, the crystallinity becomes low and the abrasion property and mechanical strength deteriorate and teaches the content of the units based on TFE being preferably from 90.0 to 99.9 mol% and that is the content is lower than the lower limit, the heat resistance is poor and if higher, the processability is poor.
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 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