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 . Claims 1-14 are currently pending in the application.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I invention (claims 1-5) in the reply filed on 1/29/26 is acknowledged. Although the election is made with traverse, because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 6-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 a 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 an aqueous coating composition comprising a vinylidene fluoride polymer (A) having a melting point greater than 130oC, optionally including a surfactant of the claimed invention, 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, including those satisfying the claimed compositional limitations.
Additionally, Carella’s coating compositions of overlapping scope and comprising the same components of the claimed invention, when mixed with N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone to prepare a dispersion having a vinylidene fluoride polymer content of 6 mass%, would inherently have, or reasonably be expected to have the claimed properties as in claims 1 and 5, absent evidence to the contrary.
Where, as 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).
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 7 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 polymer having a melting point greater than 130oC, optionally including a surfactant of the claimed invention 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, including those satisfying the claimed compositional limitations.
Additionally, incorporating the discussion on case laws from 9 above, Amin-Sanayei’s coating compositions of overlapping scope and comprising the same components of the claimed invention, when mixed with N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone to prepare a dispersion having a vinylidene fluoride polymer content of 6 mass%, would inherently have, or reasonably be expected to have the claimed properties as in claim 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.
Conclusion
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