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Any rejections and/or objections made in the previous Office action and not repeated below are hereby withdrawn.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 grounds of rejection set forth below for claim 11 are the same as those set forth in the previous Office action mailed on Oct. 15, 2025. For this reason, 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. § 102
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2002/0198334 A1 (herein “Kaspar”).
As to claim 11: Kaspar describes a vinylidene fluoride polymer (see Example 1 in ¶¶ [0081]-[0083]).
The present claim recites that the polymer is obtained by the process of base claim 1. The present claim is thus drafted as a product-by-process. Case law has established that the patentability of a product-by-process is determined by the patentability of the product itself, i.e. that the patentability of a product does not depend upon its method of production (MPEP 2113). The process limitations are only given consideration regarding patentability if there is criticality to the structure implied by the steps of the process.
Because no such criticality of the suspending agents recited in base claim 1 to the structure of the presently claimed vinylidene polymer has been demonstrated, the claim stands properly anticipated by Kaspar, notwithstanding any difference in the method by which Kaspar’s vinylidene fluoride is made.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 106336476 A (herein “Miao”). A computer-generated English translation of Miao is attached to the Office action mailed on Oct. 15, 2025 and is referred to herein.
Miao describes a copolymer of vinylidene fluoride and hexafluoropropylene (see Example 1 in ¶ [0032]).
The present claim recites that the polymer is obtained by the process of base claim 1. The present claim is thus drafted as a product-by-process. Case law has established that the patentability of a product-by-process is determined by the patentability of the product itself, i.e. that the patentability of a product does not depend upon its method of production (MPEP 2113). The process limitations are only given consideration regarding patentability if there is criticality to the structure implied by the steps of the process.
Because no such criticality of the suspending agents recited in base claim 1 to the structure of the presently claimed vinylidene polymer has been demonstrated, the claim stands properly anticipated by Miao, notwithstanding any difference in the method by which Miao’s polymer is made.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6, 8-10, and 12-18 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed Jan. 8, 2026 (herein “Remarks”) have been fully considered and they are persuasive in part.
The rejection of claims 12-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 over Kaspar has been withdrawn light of the argument that Kaspar does not disclose the size distribution recited in claim 12.
The rejection of claims 1-6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Miao has been withdrawn in light of the amendment of claim 1 to incorporate the limitations of previous claim 7.
Applicant does not present a substantive rebuttal of the rejections of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 over Kaspar or Miao. Applicant has not made a showing of a distinction among the polymer of Kaspar and of the polymer claimed in claim 11; or of a distinction among the polymer of Miao and of the polymer claimed in claim 11.
The rejections of claim 11 that were set forth in the preceding Office action have therefore been maintained above in paragraphs 5-12.
Conclusion
This action is properly final because the claims are rejected on the same grounds as set forth in the previous Office Action mailed on Oct. 15, 2026. 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