Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/198,340

METHOD FOR PRODUCING POLYTETRAFLUOROETHYLENE AND COMPOSITION CONTAINING POLYTETRAFLUOROETHYLENE

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
May 17, 2023
Examiner
BUTCHER, ROBERT T
Art Unit
1764
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Daikin Industries Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
71%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 8m
To Grant
89%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 71% — above average
71%
Career Allow Rate
665 granted / 941 resolved
+5.7% vs TC avg
Strong +18% interview lift
Without
With
+18.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
65 currently pending
Career history
1006
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.7%
-39.3% vs TC avg
§103
49.4%
+9.4% vs TC avg
§102
12.0%
-28.0% vs TC avg
§112
23.7%
-16.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 941 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
DETAILED ACTION The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This application is a Continuation of application No. PCT/JP2021/042684, filed on Nov. 19, 2021. Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. §119(a)-(d) by Application No. JP 2020-192859 filed 11/19/2020, which papers have been placed of record in the file. Claims 1-12 are pending. Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II Claims 5-12 in the reply filed on 1/26/2026 is acknowledged. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 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. Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nanba et al. (WO 2019/168183). While WO 2019/168183 is cited for prior art purposes, US 2020/0392266 is referred to in the body of the rejection below. Regarding claim 5: Nanba is directed to a composition comprising a polytetrafluoroethylene having an aspect ratio of a primary particle of less than 1.9 ([0796] Nanba) having a weight average molecular weight of at least 1.0x104 or more, and 150x104 or less ([0163]). A content of all polymerization units (1) is 90 mol% or more based on all polymerization units constituting the polymer (1) (see Claims 5 and 9 of Nanba). Example 1 contains a polymerization unit of CF2=CFOCF2CF2COONH4 (equivalent to polymer (1) in an amount of 40 mol% or more and has a Mw of 19x104. Regarding claim 6: The monomer includes A is -COOM (see claim 7 of Nanba). Regarding claim 7: A modifying unit is disclosed ([0388] Table 1 Nanba). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103 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 9-11 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 Nanba et al. (WO 2019/168183). Regarding claim 9: Nanba is directed to a composition comprising a polytetrafluoroethylene having an aspect ratio of a primary particle of less than 1.9 ([0796] Nanba) having a weight average molecular weight of at least 1.0x104 or more, and 150x104 or less ([0163]). A content of all polymerization units (2) is 90 mol% or more based on all polymerization units constituting the polymer (1) (see Claims 5 and 9 of Nanba). Example 1 contains a polymerization unit of CF2=CFOCF2CF2COONH4 in an amount of 40 mol% or more and has a Mw of 19x104. A ion exchange capacity is not mentioned. However, the polytetrafluoroethylene polymer produced in Nanba is substantially identical to the polytetrafluoroethylene polymer produced in Nanba. Case law holds that 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). Hence, Nanba suggests a polymer (2) having an ion exchange capacity within the scope of the claims. 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. A rejection under 35 USC 102/103 is appropriate “[w]hen the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention but has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP §§ 2112 - 2112.02. Regarding claim 10: The monomer includes A is -COOM (see claim 7 of Nanba). Regarding claim 11: A modifying unit is disclosed ([0388] Table 1 Nanba). Claims 8, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nanba as applied to claims 5 and 9 above, and further in view of Zhang et al. (US 6,774,270). Regarding claims 8, 12: Nanba doesn’t mention dimer or trimer content. Zhang is directed to a method of removing dimers and trimers from a fluid. The method comprises heating the crude fluoropolymer, contacting the fluid with a tertiary amine or salt, and separating the adducts from the reaction mixture (col. 2 ll. 19-28 and working examples of Zhang). Working Example 10 demonstrates reduction in dimers and trimers to less than 10 ppm and less than 0.1 wt% trimers. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to have treated the PTFE of Nanba since dimers are hazardous to persons handling the liquid or operating equipment containing the contaminated liquid or may be reactive and therefore undesirable under conditions of use (col. 1 ll. 10-21 Zhang). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to have comprised the method of Zhang utilizing the PTFE composition of Nanba to arrive at claim 8 of the present invention. Contact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT T BUTCHER whose telephone number is (571)270-3514. The examiner can normally be reached Telework M-F 9-5 Pacific Time Zone. 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, 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. /ROBERT T BUTCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 17, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 21, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600874
AQUEOUS PIGMENTED INK
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600086
BINDER SYSTEM AND DEVICES FOR 3-D PRINTING AND ARTICLES PRODUCED THEREFROM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12584001
HIGH EFFICACY CU-BASED ANTI-MICROBIAL FILMS AND SUBSTRATES AND METHODS OF MAKING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12577340
STORAGE STABLE TWO-COMPONENT DUAL CURE DENTAL COMPOSITION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12577406
RESIN COMPOSITION, FILM, AND MULTILAYER STRUCTURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
71%
Grant Probability
89%
With Interview (+18.4%)
2y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 941 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month