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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 August 13th, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on July 14th, 2026 has been entered. Claim 1 and claims 3-8 are pending in the application. Claim 2 has been cancelled.
The rejection of claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Aibara (US 9818598 B2), Amin-Sanayei (US 8765890 B2), and Koh (WO 2011037124 A1) is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 1 and claims 3-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aibara (US 9818598 B2) and further in view of Amin-Sanayei (US 8765890 B2), as evidenced by Koh (WO 2011037124 A1).
With regard to claims 1, 3, and 7-8, Aibara discloses a film-forming treatment composition (see Abstract). Aibara further discloses the film-forming treatment composition as comprising an organic acid and a fluorine-containing polymer (see Abstract ). Aibara further discloses the composition comprises an organic solvent, a fluorine-containing polymer, and an organic acid (see Col 5 line 65-67- Col 6 line 1-2).
However, Aibara fails to disclose a hydrophobic polymer.
Amin-Sanayei discloses fluoropolymers used in coatings, an analogous art (see Col 4 line 4-7). Amin-Sanayei further discloses a copolymer of 70-99% VDF and 1-30% HFP (see Col 4 line 37-38). This corresponds to a PVDF-HFP copolymer. A PVDF-HFP copolymer comprising 92% VDF and 8% HFP may have a molecular weight of 200,000g/mol, as evidenced by Koh (see Example 24). A PVDF-HFP copolymer is disclosed as suitable in the instant specifications.
Aibara discloses a film forming treatment comprising a fluorine containing polymer. Amin-Sanayei discloses fluoropolymers used in coatings and further discloses a copolymer of 70-99% VDF and 1-30% HFP (see Col 4 line 37-38). Applicant is reminded of In re Kerkhoven, which affirmed that "It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose....the idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art". In re Kerkhoven, 626 F .2d 846, 850, 205, USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980). Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art would find the claimed invention obvious as both Aibara and Amin-Sanayei disclose a coating composition comprising a fluorine containing polymer. As stated above, both Aibara and Amin-Sanayei disclose a coating composition comprising a fluorine containing polymer. It would, therefore, have been obvious to utilize the PVDF-HFP copolymer of Amin-Sanayei in the composition of Aibara to produce a coating composition comprising a fluorine containing polymer.
With regard to the organic acid bonded to the polar second allotrope of the hydrophobic polymer, Aibara discloses a film-forming treatment composition as comprising an organic acid and a fluorine-containing polymer (see Abstract). Aibara further discloses the composition as being formed by mixing the polymer with an organic acid (see Col 21 line 35-38). Further, Aibara discloses oxalic acid as a suitable organic acid (see Table 2). As the specifications merely state the polymer and organic acid as mixed in one step, it stands to reason that the organic acid would bond to the polar second allotrope of the hydrophobic polymer.
With regard to claim 4, Aibara discloses the film-forming treatment composition as comprising an organic acid and a fluorine-containing polymer (see Abstract). Aibara further teaches 0.1wt% to 10wt% of an organic acid (see col 10 line 55-60). Aibara further discloses 1wt%-15wt% of a fluorine containing polymer (see Col 9 line 55-60).
With regard to claim 5, Aibara teaches oxalic and malic acid as suitable organic acids (see col 10 line 52-54).
With regard to claim 6, Aibara discloses the composition may comprise N,N-dimethylformamide and N,N-dimethylacetamide (see col 6 line 36-37).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 13th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the instant claims require a specific PVDF/PVDF-copolymer. Applicant further argues that none of the disclosed prior art teaches or suggests a specific PVDF/PVDF-copolymer structure including a first nonpolar allotrope, wherein fluorine of the first allotrope is located on both sides of carbon, and a second polar allotrope, wherein fluorine of the second allotrope is located on one side of carbon. As stated above, Amin-Sanayei further discloses a copolymer of 70-99% VDF and 1-30% HFP (see Col 4 line 37-38). This corresponds to a PVDF-HFP copolymer. A PVDF-HFP copolymer is disclosed as suitable in the instant specifications.
Applicant further argues that the prior art fails to disclose the organic acid bonded to the second allotrope. However, neither the instant claims nor the instant specifications disclose a mechanism by which this bonding occurs.
As stated above, Aibara discloses a film-forming treatment composition as comprising an organic acid and a fluorine-containing polymer (see Abstract). Aibara further discloses the composition as being formed by mixing the polymer with an organic acid (see Col 21 line 35-38). Aibara further teaches oxalic acid as a suitable organic acid (see Table 2). As the specifications merely state the polymer and organic acid as mixed in one step, it stands to reason that the organic acid would bond to the polar second allotrope of the hydrophobic polymer.
Applicant further argues that incorporating the PVDF/PVDF-HFP materials of Amin-Sanayei or Koh would be contrary to the nature and purpose of Aibara's disclosed cleaning system, which does not teach or suggest achieving excellent cleaning performance on hydrophobic surfaces using the claimed hydrophobic polymer having polar and nonpolar allotropes. However, the cleaning of hydrophobic surfaces is merely functional language and intended use. Aibara and Amin-Sanayei are analogous art. Both Aibara and Amin-Sanayei disclose fluoropolymers as used in coatings.
Applicant further argues that Koh’s Example 24 merely identifies a VdF/HFP copolymer having a 92/8 molar ratio and Mw of 200,000, which is a monomer composition, not a disclosure of a polar second allotrope percentage or acid bonding to that allotrope.
Extrapolating the molar ratio into a total would give 100. Koh discloses 92 mols of VdF and 8 mols of HFP for every 100 mols of the copolymer. This results in HFP accounting for approximately 8% of the hydrophobic copolymer and is within the scope of the instant claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRITTANY SHARON HARRIS whose telephone number is (571)270-1390. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5:00.
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, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached at (571) 272-2817. 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.
/B.S.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/LORNA M DOUYON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights