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 . Per response dated 7/6/26, claims 1-14 are currently pending in the application, with claims 6-14 being withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carella et al. (US2019/0284428 A1, of record).
Carella teaches fluorinated surfactant-free aqueous dispersions of vinylidene fluoride polymer (A) for use in electrochemical cell components, such as electrodes (Ab.).
Carella teaches that the polymer may be prepared by emulsion polymerization [0060]-[0062], and forming an aqueous coating composition thereof formed by adding and dispersing optional additives, such as non-fluorinated surfactants, such as fatty acid salts, e.g., sodium dodecyl sulfate/sulfonate, in an amount of 0 to 5% by wt. [0087]-[0110]. Disclosed fatty acid salts read on a surfactant of claim 3 having nonfluoro-group as a hydrophobic group.
Example 1 in Carella is drawn to an aqueous latex comprising copolymer of vinylidene fluoride (VDF, 98.3 moles), hexafluoropropylene (HFP, 1 mole%), and acrylic acid (AA, 0.7 mole%), having a melting point of 153.6oC [0134]-[0137]. The calculated wt.% of VDF is 97.7 wt.% and meets the limitation of claim 2.
Cerella is silent on a polymer composition providing for the claimed properties when mixed and formed as a dispersion with N-methyl-methyl-2-pyrrollidone, as recited in claims 1 and 5.
At the outset, it is noted that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Given the teaching in Carella on aqueous coating composition comprising a vinylidene fluoride polymer (A) having a melting point of 153.6oC , i.e., greater than 130oC as claimed, and optionally including a surfactant, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to prepare coating compositions within the scope Carella, and reasonably expect the compositions comprising the same components as claimed, when mixed with N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone to prepare a dispersion having a vinylidene fluoride polymer content of 6 mass%, to have the claimed properties as recited in claims 1 and 5, absent evidence to the contrary.
Where, as in here, the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness is established. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). When there is sound basis for believing that the products of the Applicant and the prior art are the same, the Applicant has the burden of showing that they are not. In re Spada, 15 USPQ 2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
When the prior art discloses all 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, basis exists for shifting the burden of proof to the Applicant. In re Fitzgerald et al., 619 F.2d 67, 70, 205 USPQ 594, 596 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP 2112-2112.02.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amin-Sanayei et al. (US 2015/0030906 A1, of record).
Regarding claims 1-3, 5, Amin-Sanayei teaches an aqueous fluoropolymer coating composition, preferably poly-vinylidene fluoride (PVDF, i.e., 100% VDF) prepared by emulsion polymerization [0013]-[0039]. In addition, post-polymerization, the reference teaches that a surfactant/anti-settling agent, e.g., ammonium lauryl sulfate, may be added in an amount of 0 to 10 parts per 100 parts of water, so as to improve shelf stability and provide additional stabilization during slurry preparation.
Disclosed Examples 1 and 3 teach vinylidene fluoride polymers having a melting point of 162oC (VDF homopolymer, meets limitation of claim 2) and 152oC (VDF-HFP copolymer), respectively ([0046]-[0047], Examples). Disclosed ammonium lauryl sulfate meets limitation of claim 3.
Amin-Sanayei is silent on a polymer composition providing for the claimed properties when mixed and formed as a dispersion with N-methyl-methyl-2-pyrrollidone, as recited in claims 1 and 5.
As stated in paragraph 6 above, where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Given the teaching in Amin-Sanayei on aqueous fluoropolymer coating composition comprising a vinylidene fluoride polymer having a melting point of 162o or 152oC, i.e., greater than 130oC as claimed, optionally including a surfactant added post-polymerization, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to prepare coating compositions within the scope Amin-Sanayei. Incorporating the discussion on case laws and MPEP citation from paragraph 7 above, a skilled artisan would reasonably expect the coating compositions comprising the same components as claimed, when mixed with N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone to prepare a dispersion having a vinylidene fluoride polymer content of 6 mass%, to have the claimed properties as in claims 1 and 5, absent evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claim 4, given the teaching that a surfactant/anti-settling agent, e.g., ammonium lauryl sulfate, may be added in an amount of 0 to 10 parts per 100 parts of water, so as to improve shelf stability and provide additional stabilization during slurry preparation [0046]-[0047], it is the examiner’s position that the amount of surfactant/anti-settling agent in the composition is a result because changing it will clearly affect the type of product obtained. See MPEP § 2144.05 (B). Case law holds that “discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art.” See In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize appropriately effective amount of a surfactant, e.g., ammonium lauryl sulfate, including in an amount within the scope of the claimed invention so as to produce desired end results.
Response to Arguments
As an initial matter, it is noted that although the non-final office action stated that “the compositions would inherently have, or reasonably be expected to have the claimed properties”, the alternative inherency basis is deleted in the rejections herein above with minor rephrasing that does not introduce any new factual basis. Applicant's arguments filed on 7/6/26 have been fully considered.
Referring to paragraphs [0057]-[0060] in the present specification, Applicant presents that the claimed features of the vinylidene fluoride polymer composition satisfying the claimed features, i.e., the viscosity ratio and the rate of change in content, can be obtained, by a method as taught in the disclosure. Furthermore, referring to the Examples in Tables 1-1,1-2, 2-1 and 2-2, Applicant asserts that the Examples demonstrate that the claimed properties are not inevitably obtained due to presence of a vinylidene fluoride polymer and a surfactant in the composition, that working Examples 3 and 5 and Comp. Example 2 use the same type of vinylidene fluoride polymer and differ at least in the heating temperature applied to the latex, and when the latex is heated at a temperature within the specific range described above, the viscosity ratio and the rate of change in content of the vinylidene fluoride polymer fall within the ranges recited in independent claim 1.
In response, as presented in the rejections of record and herein above, the Carella reference teaches an aqueous fluoropolymer composition comprising a vinylidene fluoride-based copolymer having a melting point of 153.6oC, and optionally, a surfactant. Likewise, Amin-Sanayei teaches an aqueous fluoropolymer composition comprising a vinylidene fluoride-based polymer, having a melting point of 162oC (homopolymer) or 152oC(copolymer), and optionally, a surfactant. Thus, both references meet the compositional limitations of the claimed invention.
Noting that the preamble is directed to a vinylidene fluoride polymer composition, the cited references are silent on the features of the when clause recited in claim 1, or on a method of preparing the polymer dispersion in as disclosed in the instant specification. According to the instant disclosure, all dispersions of inventive examples are prepared by the specific disclosed method from the corresponding compositions, and the data on record demonstrates that while the inventive dispersions prepared by the disclosed method satisfy the claimed features, those of the comparative examples formed by an altered method (e.g., by eliminating the surfactant addition step, the dialysis step and/or the powder heat treatment step), one or both the claimed features of the dispersion are not present.
Noting that both Carella and Amin-Sanayei teach copolymers of vinylidene fluoride, a skilled artisan would reasonably expect the viscosity of a dispersion thereof to depend on its compositional limitations, i.e., the type and amount of monomer units in the copolymer, in addition to its crystallinity on which its melting point would depend. Therefore, while the data on record establishes that dispersions formed by the disclosed method from compositions comprising a specific vinylidene fluoride polymer, i.e., vinylidene fluoride homopolymer having a melting point of 161oC, satisfy the claimed features, it is not evident that such a trend is to be expected of the polymers, e.g., copolymers of vinylidene fluoride, that fall within the scope of Carella and Amin-Sanayei, absent evidence to the contrary. As a practical matter, the Patent Office is not equipped to manufacture products by the myriad of processes put before it and then obtain prior art products and make physical comparisons.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Satya Sastri at (571) 272 1112. The examiner can be reached Monday-Friday, 9AM-5.30PM (EST). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Mr. Robert Jones can be reached at (571)-270-7733. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273 8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to
the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Satya B Sastri/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762
Prosecution Insights