DETAILED ACTION
Any rejections and/or objections made in the previous Office action and not repeated below are hereby withdrawn.
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 new ground of rejection set forth below for claim 7 is necessitated by Applicant’s amendment filed on Jan. 22, 2026. In particular, claim 7 is newly presented. The grounds of rejection set forth below for claims 1-4 are the same as those set forth in the previous Office action mailed on Jan. 22, 2026. For these reasons, the present action is properly made final.
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 .
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 103
Claims 1-4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0008986 A1 (herein “Isaka”).
As to claim 1: Isaka describes a copolymer of tetrafluoroethylene, hexafluoropropylene, and perfluoro(propyl vinyl ether) (see ¶¶ [0020]-[0021]) and an electric wire including a coating thereof (see ¶¶ [0022]-[0025]).
Isaka’s copolymer has a content of perfluoro(alkyl vinyl ether) units of 0.1 to 10, more preferably 0.3 to 5% by mass (see ¶ [0038]), and these ranges of amounts overlap the presently recited range of 2.8 to 3.5% by mass. Isaka’s copolymer has a melt flow rate of 35.0 to 45.0 g/10 min (see ¶ [0040]), and this range of values overlaps the presently recited range of 31 to 38 g/10 min. Isaka’s copolymer has a number of unstable end groups of preferably 50 or less, more preferably 20 or less, per 106 carbon atoms (see ¶ [0059]). The number of these end groups can be reduced by fluorination (see ¶¶ [0069]-[0079]).
Isaka further discloses examples of copolymers (see Examples 1-3) including 1.0% by mass perfluoro(propyl vinyl ether) and having melt flow rates of 35.1 to 37.4 g/10 min and zero unstable end groups (see Table 2).
Isaka does not specifically disclose an embodiment of a copolymer that has an amount of the perfluoro(propyl vinyl ether) within the presently recited range of 2.8 to 3.5% by mass.
In light of Isaka’s disclosure of suitable amounts of perfluoro(alkyl vinyl ether) units of 0.1 to 10, more preferably 0.3 to 5% by mass, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make Isaka’s copolymers using any amount of perfluoro(alkyl vinyl ether) units within the disclosed ranges, including those amounts which overlap the presently recited range of 2.8 to 3.5% by mass. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made Isaka’s copolymers using amounts of perfluoro(propyl vinyl ether) within the range of 2.8 to 3.5% by mass.
Case law has established that a prima facie case of obviousness is established where the claimed ranges overlap the ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05.
As to claims 2 and 4: Isaka further discloses that the polymers are injection molded to produce a coating for a wire (see ¶ [0141]).
As to claim 3: Isaka further discloses that the polymers are compressed (see ¶ [0064]).
As to claim 7: Isaka further discloses that the polymers have a content of tetrafluoroethylene of 70 to about 97 wt% (see the amounts in ¶ [0038]), and this range of values overlaps the presently recited range of 96.5 to 97.2%.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but they would be allowable if written in independent form.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed Jan. 22, 2026 (herein “Remarks”) have been fully considered and they are persuasive in part.
The objection to the specification that was set forth in the preceding Office action mailed on Oct. 22, 2025 has been obviated by the replacement Table 4.
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) that was set forth in the preceding Office action mailed on Oct. 22, 2025 has been obviated by the amendment of claim 1.
Regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Isaka: Applicant argues (p. 7 of Remarks) that the Comparative Example 6 has a lower PPVE content and inferior crack resistance than do the inventive examples and (pp. 7-8 of Remarks) that Comparative Example 4 has a higher content of PPVE and a higher water vapor permeability and leakage.
It is noted that Applicant does not assert that the results that are presented in the specification or that are discussed in the Remarks are unexpected.
Nonetheless (to the extent that Applicant may have intended to present the results as evidence of unexpected results), allegations of unexpected results must be supported by evidence that is comparative to the closest prior art. MPEP 716.02(e).
In the present case, Isaka describes copolymer of tetrafluoroethylene, hexafluoropropylene, and perfluoro(propyl vinyl ether) (see ¶¶ [0020]-[0021] and Examples 1-3). In contrast, the present examples are copolymers of only tetrafluoroethylene and perfluoro(propyl vinyl ether) – that is, they do not include units of hexafluoropropylene. Because of this distinction in the monomeric composition among Isaka’s copolymers and the presently argued copolymers of Comparative Examples 4 and 6, the present comparative copolymers are not adequately representative of Isaka.
For this reason, an unexpected difference in properties has not been demonstrated over the copolymers of Isaka.
Applicant further comments (p. 8 of Remarks) appear to be an assertion that Isaka’s examples are not anticipatory, and they do not identify any supposed errors in the obviousness analysis in the rejection.
Conclusion
This action is properly final because Applicant's amendment necessitated some of the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action, and because the remainder of the rejections are on the same grounds as set forth in the previous Office Action mailed on Oct. 22, 2025. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). See MPEP § 706.07(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 mailing date of this final action.
This action is a final rejection and is intended to close the prosecution of this application. Applicant's reply under 37 CFR § 1.113 to this action is limited either to an appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board or to an amendment complying with the requirements set forth below.
If applicant should desire to appeal any rejection made by the examiner, a Notice of Appeal must be filed within the period for reply identifying the rejected claim or claims appealed. The Notice of Appeal must be accompanied by the required appeal fee.
If applicant should desire to file an amendment, entry of a proposed amendment after final rejection cannot be made as a matter of right unless it merely cancels claims or complies with a formal requirement made earlier. Amendments touching the merits of the application which otherwise might not be proper may be admitted upon a showing of good and sufficient reasons why they are necessary and why they were not presented earlier.
A reply under 37 CFR § 1.113 to a final rejection must include the appeal from, or cancellation of, each rejected claim. The filing of an amendment after final rejection, whether or not it is entered, does not stop the running of the statutory period for reply to the final rejection unless the examiner holds the claims to be in condition for allowance. Accordingly, if a Notice of Appeal has not been filed properly within the period for reply, or any extension of this period obtained under either 37 CFR 1.136(a) or (b), the application will become abandoned.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD A. HUHN whose telephone number is (571)270-7345. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9 AM to 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, Arrie (Lanee) Reuther can be reached at (571) 270-7026. 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.
/RICHARD A. HUHN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764