DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
2. The amendment filed by Applicant on April 6, 2026 has been fully considered. The amendment to instant claims 1 and 18 and addition of new claim 21 are acknowledged. Specifically, claim 1 has been amended to include a limitation of
wherein the composition (C), when combined with a liquid medium (L) comprising a non-aqueous solvent, coated onto a substrate, and dried at a temperature of at least 60 °C, is flexible as characterized by achieving at least 3 bending times according to a Mandrel Bend Test Method.
This limitation was not previously presented and was taken from instant specification ([00124] of instant specification). In light of the amendment, the previous rejections cited below are maintained but suitably framed to better address the current amendment. The new grounds of rejections necessitated by Applicant’s amendment are set forth below. Thus, the following action is properly made final.
Priority
3. Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 16/343,402, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
Instant claims 1 and 18 of the present application recite the hydrophilic (meth)acrylic monomer (MA) of formula (I)
PNG
media_image1.png
95
114
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the moiety RH is a C2-10 hydrocarbon comprising at least one carboxyl group and comprising no hydroxyl groups, wherein both parent applications 16/343,402 and foreign priority EP 16194835.1 recite the (meth)acrylic monomer (MA) of formula:
PNG
media_image2.png
114
203
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Wherein the group ROH comprises at least one hydroxyl group.
Further, as currently amended, instant claims 1 and 18 recite the limitations of the composition (C), when combined with a liquid medium (L) comprising a non-aqueous solvent, and the slurry, when both coated onto a substrate, and dried at a temperature of at least 60 °C, are being flexible as characterized by achieving at least 3 bending times according to a Mandrel Bend Test Method. However, the earlier-filed application 16/343,402 does not provide support for said limitation in its entirety.
Therefore, the effective filing date of instant claims 1-8, 18-21 is March 31, 2023.
Specification
4. The amendment filed on April 6, 2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
1) the amendment to instant specification is as follows:
PNG
media_image3.png
159
684
media_image3.png
Greyscale
2) Paragraph [0056] of instant specification is as follows:
PNG
media_image4.png
66
647
media_image4.png
Greyscale
3) As cited on page 11 of Applicant’s arguments, the amendment to specification is supported by paragraph [0033] of the specification as filed,
wherein paragraph [0033] of instant specification as filed is as follows:
PNG
media_image5.png
150
647
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it is not clear how the paragraph [0033] can provide support for the amendment of paragraph [0056].
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
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.
5. Claims 1-8, 18-19, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abusleme et al (US 2010/0133482) alone, or alternatively, in view of Gozdz et al (US 5,429,891).
6. As to instant claim 1, Abusleme et al discloses
a binder composition A) comprising:
(a) at least 10%wt ([0063], as to instant claim 1) of a polymer (a) comprising:
recurring units of vinylidene fluoride (VDF) and 0.05-10%mol, or 0.2-3%mol ([0040]-[0041], also as to instant claims 4, 21) of recurring units derived from hydrophilic (meth)acrylic monomer (MA) having the following formula ([0014], [0021], [0026]-[0031]):
PNG
media_image6.png
80
149
media_image6.png
Greyscale
wherein ROH is hydrogen,
specifically acrylic acid ([0031], as to instant claims 1-3),
having intrinsic viscosity of 0.1-5 dl/g ([0042]-[0043], as to instant claim 1)
and
(b) a vinylidene polymer comprising at least 70%mol of VDF units and up to 30%mol of hexafluoropropylene (as to instant claims 5-6), chlorotrifluoroethylene or trifluoroethylene (polymer (b)) ([0062]-[0063], also as to instant claims 5-6).
The composition is used for making membranes, electrodes for lithium battery ([0001], [0073], [0074]).
Based on the teachings of Abusleme et al, it would have been obvious to a one of ordinary skill in the art to choose and use acrylic acid in amount of 0.2-3%mol as the comonomer (MA) to form the polymer (a), since it would have been obvious to choose material based on its suitability. Case law holds that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports prima facie obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co vs. Interchemical Corp., 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1045). Case law holds that the mere substitution of an equivalent (something equal in value or meaning, as taught by analogous prior art) is not an act of invention; where equivalency is known to the prior art, the substitution of one equivalent for another is not patentable. See In re Ruff 118 USPQ 343 (CCPA 1958).
7. As to instant claim 18, Abusleme et al discloses an electrode-forming slurry composition ([0072], [0130]) comprising:
- a powdery electrode material such as an active substance for battery ([0074]-
[0078]); and
- a binder solution comprising:
- the binder composition A) as discussed above and
- an organic solvent such as N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone ([0069], [0072], [0073], as to instant claim 19).
8. The polymer (a) consists essentially of the units from VDF monomer and the monomer (MA) ([0024]. The specific example 2 shows the vinylidene fluoride-acrylic acid copolymer comprising 1.4%mol of acrylic acid, having intrinsic viscosity in DMF at 25C of 3.5 dl/g (Table 1, [0119], as to instant claim 1, 18). Given the copolymer comprises only vinylidene fluoride and acrylic acid units, and the content of the acrylic acid is 1.4%mol, therefore, the content of the vinylidene fluoride unit will intrinsically and necessarily be more than 50%mol, or more than 75%mol as required by instant claims 1, 4. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). MPEP 2112.01(I).
9. The exemplified compositions comprise 10-75%wt of the polymer (a), i.e. at least 10%wt or at least 25%wt as required by instant claims 1 and 7, in combination with 90-25%wt of vinylidene fluoride homopolymer SOLEF 1015 having intrinsic viscosity of 1.5 dl/g ([0139], [0138], as to instant claims 1 and 8). Thus, the shown compositions comprise the VDF polymer SOLEF 1015 as the polymer component (b) (corresponding to the polymer (F2) of instant claims) and having intrinsic viscosity of 1.5 dl/g, which value is less than the intrinsic viscosity of the polymer (A) of Example 2 (3.5 dl/g) and less than 2 dl/g, as required by instant claim 8.
10. Though the compositions exemplified in Example 11 and Table 5 are based on vinylidene fluoride homopolymer, but not on vinylidene fluoride copolymer, in light of the teachings of Abusleme et al that the polymer (b) maybe (co)polymer of vinylidene fluoride with up to 30%mol of other fluoromonomers such as hexafluoropropylene ([0062]), it would have been obvious to a one of ordinary skill in the art to choose and include the copolymer of vinylidene fluoride with as high as 30%mol of hexafluoropropylene as the polymer (b) in the composition of Abusleme et al as well, since it would have been obvious to choose material based on its suitability. Case law holds that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports prima facie obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co vs. Interchemical Corp., 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1045). Case law holds that the mere substitution of an equivalent (something equal in value or meaning, as taught by analogous prior art) is not an act of invention; where equivalency is known to the prior art, the substitution of one equivalent for another is not patentable. See In re Ruff 118 USPQ 343 (CCPA 1958).
11. In the alternative, though Abusleme et al does not explicitly recite the polymer (b) being a copolymer of vinylidene fluoride with hexafluoropropylene having intrinsic viscosity of less than 2 dl/g,
Gozdz et al discloses a copolymer of 75-92%wt of vinylidene fluoride and 8-25%wt of hexafluoropropylene (col. 6, lines 30-34), having intrinsic viscosity at 25ºC of 1.1-1.6 dl/g (col. 5, lines 45-52) and used as polymeric membranes and electrolytes in lithium batteries (Abstract, col. 4, lines 38-45).
12. Since both Abusleme et al and Gozdz et al are related to vinylidene fluoride copolymer- based compositions used for making membranes and electrolytes for lithium batteries, and thereby belong to the same field of endeavor, wherein Gozdz et al discloses the use of a copolymer of 75-92%wt of vinylidene fluoride and 8-25%wt hexafluoropropylene having intrinsic viscosity at 25ºC of 1.1-1.6 dl/g for making said membranes, therefore, based on the combined teachings of Gozdz et al and Abusleme et al, it would have been obvious to a one of ordinary skill in the art to include, or obvious to try to include the vinylidene fluoride-hexafluoropropylene copolymer of Gozdz et al as the vinylidene fluoride-hexafluoropropylene copolymer (polymer (b)) in the composition of Abusleme et al, since it would have been obvious to choose material based on its suitability. Case law holds that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports prima facie obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co vs. Interchemical Corp., 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1045). Case law holds that the mere substitution of an equivalent (something equal in value or meaning, as taught by analogous prior art) is not an act of invention; where equivalency is known to the prior art, the substitution of one equivalent for another is not patentable. See In re Ruff 118 USPQ 343 (CCPA 1958). The key to supporting any rejection under 35 USC 103 is the clear articulation of the reason(s) why the claimed invention would have been obvious. The Supreme Court in KSR noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 USC 103 should be made explicit. The Court quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006), stated that "‘[R]ejections on obviousness cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.’" KSR, 550 U.S. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
PNG
media_image7.png
18
19
media_image7.png
Greyscale
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
PNG
media_image7.png
18
19
media_image7.png
Greyscale
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
PNG
media_image7.png
18
19
media_image7.png
Greyscale
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
PNG
media_image7.png
18
19
media_image7.png
Greyscale
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
PNG
media_image7.png
18
19
media_image7.png
Greyscale
(E) "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
PNG
media_image7.png
18
19
media_image7.png
Greyscale
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art; (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141
13. All ranges in the composition of Abusleme et al alone, or in view of Gozdz et al are overlapping with the corresponding ranges of those as claimed in instant invention. It is well settled that where the prior art describes the components of a claimed compound or compositions in concentrations within or overlapping the claimed concentrations a prima facie case of obviousness is established. See In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 1343, 74 USPQ2d 1951, 1953 (Fed. Cir 2005); In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329, 65 USPQ 2d 1379, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (CCPA 1990); In re Malagari, 499 F.2d 1297, 1303, 182 USPQ 549, 553 (CCPA 1974).
14. It would have been further obvious to and within the skills of a one of ordinary skill in the art to make variations and optimize by routine experimentation the relative amounts of the polymers (a) and (b), and further the properties such as relative comonomer content and intrinsic viscosity of each of the polymers (a) and (b), so to produce the final composition having a desired combination of properties, depending on the end-use of the composition, thereby arriving at the present invention.
"[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
15. Though Abusleme et al alone, or in view of Gozdz et al do not explicitly recite the property of “when the composition combined with a liquid medium (L) comprising a non-aqueous solvent, or the slurry, are coated onto a substrate, and dried at a temperature of at least 60 °C, said composition is flexible as characterized by achieving at least 3 bending times according to a Mandrel Bend Test Method”,
since the composition and the slurry of Abusleme et al alone, or in view of Gozdz et al are essentially the same as those claimed in instant invention, i.e. comprise both the polymer (a) comprising recurring units of vinylidene fluoride (VDF) and 0.05-10%mol, or 0.2-3%mol of recurring units derived from hydrophilic (meth)acrylic monomer (MA) and b) the vinylidene polymer comprising at least 70%mol of VDF units and up to 30%mol of hexafluoropropylene, chlorotrifluoroethylene or trifluoroethylene units, said polymers a) and b) are used in the same amounts as claimed in instant invention or amounts in the ranges overlapping with those as claimed in instant invention, therefore, the composition and the slurry of Abusleme et al alone, or in view of Gozdz et al will intrinsically and necessarily comprise, or would be reasonably expected to comprise the properties that are either the same as those claimed in instant invention, or having values in the ranges overlapping with those as claimed in instant invention as well, including when combined with a liquid medium (L) comprising a non-aqueous solvent, coated onto a substrate, and dried at a temperature of at least 60 °C, being flexible as characterized by achieving at least 3 bending times according to a Mandrel Bend Test Method, especially since:
i) all examples of instant invention showing the combination of the polymer (a) comprising recurring units of vinylidene fluoride (VDF) and 0.05-10%mol, or 0.2-3%mol of recurring units derived from hydrophilic (meth)acrylic monomer (MA) and b) the vinylidene copolymer show flexibility bending times of higher than 10 times (Table 1 of instant specification);
ii) the polymer (a) comprising recurring units of vinylidene fluoride (VDF) and 0.05-10%mol, or 0.2-3%mol of recurring units derived from hydrophilic (meth)acrylic monomer (MA) used alone showing the value of bending times of 2 (Table 1 of instant invention);
iii) the composition and the slurry of Abusleme et al alone, or in view of Gozdz et al clearly comprise the combination of the polymer (a) comprising recurring units of vinylidene fluoride (VDF) and 0.05-10%mol, or 0.2-3%mol of recurring units derived from hydrophilic (meth)acrylic monomer (MA) and b) the vinylidene copolymer,
therefore, the composition and the slurry of Abusleme et al alone, or in view of Gozdz et al will intrinsically and necessarily comprise bending times of more than 2 as shown for the polymer (a) comprising recurring units of vinylidene fluoride (VDF) and 0.05-10%mol, or 0.2-3%mol of recurring units derived from hydrophilic (meth)acrylic monomer (MA) used alone, that is at least 3 times, as claimed in instant invention.
The above rejections were made in the sense of in re Fitzgerald (205 USPQ 594). (CAFC ) based on presumption that the properties governing the claimed compositions , if not taught, may be very well met by the compositions of Abusleme et al alone, or in view of Gozdz et al, since the compositions of Abusleme et al alone, or in view of Gozdz et al are essentially the same and made in essentially the same manner as applicants’ compositions, wherein the burden to show that it is not the case is shifted to applicants; or in the sense of In re Spada, 911 F 2d 705, 709 15 USPQ 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990), which settles that when the claimed compositions are not novel, they are not rendered patentable by recitation of properties, whether or not these properties are shown or suggested in prior art. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). MPEP 2112.01(I). Since PTO cannot conduct experiments the proof of burden is shifted to the applicants to establish an unobviousness difference, see In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP § 2112.01.
16. Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abusleme et al (US 2010/0133482) alone, or alternatively, in view of Gozdz et al (US 5,429,891), in further view of in further view of Sasaki (US 2011/0157773).
17. The discussion with respect to Abusleme et al (US 2010/0133482) alone, or alternatively, in view of Gozdz et al (US 5,429,891), set forth in paragraphs 5-15 above, is incorporated here by reference.
18. Though Abusleme et al discloses an electrode-forming slurry composition ([0072], [0130]) comprising a powdery electrode material such as an active substance for battery ([0074]-[0078]); and a binder solution comprising:
- the binder composition A) and
- an organic solvent such as N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone ([0069], [0072], [0073]),
Abusleme et al does not explicitly recite the viscosity of said slurry.
19. However, Sasaki discloses an electrode forming composition, wherein Sasaki explicitly teaches that the slurry used for coating of the electrode composition depends on the kind of coating machine and shape of coating line, but is most preferably in the range of 5,000-20,000 mPa.s ([0074, Abstract).
20. Since both Sasaki and Abusleme et al are related to slurry compositions for preparation of coatings in electrodes, and thus belong to the same field of endeavor, wherein Sasaki explicitly teaches that the slurries used for said coatings should have viscosity in the most preferable range of 5,000-20,000 mPa.s, therefore, it would have been obvious to a one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Sasaki and Abusleme et al, and to prepare, or obvious to try to prepare the slurry of Abusleme et al having a viscosity of 5,000-20,000 mPa.s as well, since slurries have such viscosities are taught in the art as being used for making coatings in electrodes, and since it would have been obvious to choose material based on its suitability. Case law holds that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports prima facie obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co vs. Interchemical Corp., 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1045). Case law holds that the mere substitution of an equivalent (something equal in value or meaning, as taught by analogous prior art) is not an act of invention; where equivalency is known to the prior art, the substitution of one equivalent for another is not patentable. See In re Ruff 118 USPQ 343 (CCPA 1958).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
21. Claims 1-8, 18-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 of U.S. Patent No. 8,337,725 in view of Gozdz et al (US 5,429,891) and Sasaki (US 2011/0157773).
22. The rejection is adequately set forth on pages 17-22 of an Office action mailed on January 6, 2026 and is incorporated here by reference.
23. With respect to the amended claims 1 and 18, since the composition and the slurry of U.S. Patent No. 8,337,725 in view of Gozdz et al and Sasaki are the same as those claimed in instant invention, i.e. comprise both the polymer (a) comprising recurring units of vinylidene fluoride (VDF) and 0.05-10%mol, or 0.2-3%mol of recurring units derived from hydrophilic (meth)acrylic monomer (MA) and b) the vinylidene polymer comprising at least 70%mol of VDF units and up to 30%mol of hexafluoropropylene, chlorotrifluoroethylene or trifluoroethylene units, said polymers a) and b) are used in the same amount or amounts in the ranges overlapping with those as claimed in instant invention, therefore, the composition and the slurry of U.S. Patent No. 8,337,725 in view of Gozdz et al and Sasaki will intrinsically and necessarily comprise, or would be reasonably expected to comprise the properties that are either the same as those claimed in instant invention, or having values in the ranges overlapping with those as claimed in instant invention as well, including when combined with a liquid medium (L) comprising a non-aqueous solvent, coated onto a substrate, and dried at a temperature of at least 60 °C, being flexible as characterized by achieving at least 3 bending times according to a Mandrel Bend Test Method, especially since:
i) all examples of instant invention showing the combination of the polymer (a) comprising recurring units of vinylidene fluoride (VDF) and 0.05-10%mol, or 0.2-3%mol of recurring units derived from hydrophilic (meth)acrylic monomer (MA) and b) the vinylidene copolymer show flexibility bending times of higher than 10 times (Table 1 of instant specification);
ii) the polymer (a) comprising recurring units of vinylidene fluoride (VDF) and 0.05-10%mol, or 0.2-3%mol of recurring units derived from hydrophilic (meth)acrylic monomer (MA) used alone showing the value of bending times of 2 (Table 1 of instant invention);
iii) the composition and the slurry of U.S. Patent No. 8,337,725 in view of Gozdz et al and Sasaki clearly claims the combination of the polymer (a) comprising recurring units of vinylidene fluoride (VDF) and 0.05-10%mol, or 0.2-3%mol of recurring units derived from hydrophilic (meth)acrylic monomer (MA) and b) the vinylidene copolymer (claims 8-9), therefore, the composition and the slurry of U.S. Patent No. 8,337,725 in view of Gozdz et al and Sasaki will intrinsically and necessarily comprise bending times of more than 2 as shown for the polymer (a) comprising recurring units of vinylidene fluoride (VDF) and 0.05-10%mol, or 0.2-3%mol of recurring units derived from hydrophilic (meth)acrylic monomer (MA) used alone, that is at least 3 times, as claimed in instant invention. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). MPEP 2112.01(I). Since PTO cannot conduct experiments the proof of burden is shifted to the applicants to establish an unobviousness difference, see In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP § 2112.01.
24. With respect to newly added claim 21, US patent 8,337,725 claims a composition C) comprising:
A) a polymer (A) comprising: recurring units of vinylidene fluoride (VDF) and 0.05-10%mol of recurring units derived from hydrophilic (meth)acrylic monomer (MA) having the following formula:
PNG
media_image6.png
80
149
media_image6.png
Greyscale
specifically acrylic acid (as to instant claims 2-3).
25. Since no Terminal Disclaimer has been filed, the rejection is maintained.
Response to Arguments
26. Applicant's arguments filed April 6, 2026 have been fully considered but they are moot in light of discussion set forth above.
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 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 IRINA KRYLOVA whose telephone number is (571)270-7349. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm EST M-F.
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.
/IRINA KRYLOVA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights