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 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 6 refers to “A method for producing a radical-polymerized fluorine-based polymer using the radical polymerization method according to Claim 1…”, but claim 1 already pertains to a radical polymerization method that yields a radical-polymerized fluorine-based polymer. It is unclear how the method of claim 1 is being “used” within the method of claim 6. It is unclear what difference, if any, is intended by the “a radical-polymerized fluorine-based polymer” of claim 6 with respect to the “a radical-polymerized fluorine-based polymer” of claim 1. It is suggested the preambles of claims 6-13 be changed to “The radical polymerization method according to Claim…” and “a radical-polymerized fluorine-based polymer” of claim 6 be changed to “the radical-polymerized fluorine-based polymer”. Claims 6-13 are construed as such in the interest of compact prosecution.
As claims 7-13 depend from claim 6, they are rejected for the same issue discussed above.
Claim 3 recites “wherein the polymerization initiator is used by dissolving the radical-polymerizable fluorine-based monomer in a polymerization solvent”. It is unclear how dissolving a monomer in a solvent constitutes “using” the initiator.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 2 recites “wherein the radical-polymerizable fluorine-based monomer is a fluorine-based monomer or a perfluoromonomer”. All perceivable radical-polymerizable fluorine-based monomers are fluorine-based monomers and/or perfluoromonomers. Therefore, claim 2 fails to further limit of the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Allayarov (Journal of Fluorine Chemistry, 2015, 180, 240-247).
Regarding Claims 1 and 2, Allayarov teaches methods of making radical-polymerized fluorine-based polymer comprising subjecting tetrafluoroethylene (fluorine-based monomer) to radical polymerization using perfluoro-3-ethyl-2,4-dimethyl-3-pentyl polymerization initiator, which generates perfluoroalkyl radicals by thermal decomposition (Abstract; Page 246; Figure 10).
Allayrov teaches other fluorocarbon radicals are of interest/suitable (Page 246, first full paragraph; Table 1) inclusive of perfluoro-3-ethyl-2,2,4-trimethyl-3-pentyl (Entry 9 of Table 1). Accordingly, Allayrov anticipates the use of perfluoro-3-ethyl-2,2,4-trimethyl-3-pentyl as a polymerization initiator toward the creation of polymers such as polytetrafluoroethylene.
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.
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(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allayarov (Journal of Fluorine Chemistry, 2015, 180, 240-247).
Allayarov teaches methods of making radical-polymerized fluorine-based polymer comprising subjecting tetrafluoroethylene (fluorine-based monomer) to radical polymerization using perfluoro-3-ethyl-2,4-dimethyl-3-pentyl polymerization initiator, which generates perfluoroalkyl radicals by thermal decomposition (Abstract; Page 246; Figure 10).
Allayrov teaches other fluorocarbon radicals of interest/suitable (Page 246, first full paragraph; Table 1) inclusive of perfluoro-3-ethyl-2,2,4-trimethyl-3-pentyl (Entry 9 of Table 1). Accordingly, Allayrov anticipates the use of perfluoro-3-ethyl-2,2,4-trimethyl-3-pentyl as a polymerization initiator toward the creation of polymers such as polytetrafluoroethylene.
Regarding Claim 5, although the temperature used within the example of Allayrov (100 degrees C) is outside the range claimed, Allayrov teaches perfluoro-3-ethyl-2,2,4-trimethyl-3-pentyl has a substantially low BDE (Entry 9 of Table 1), which in turn leads to lower reaction temperatures such a room temperature being possible (Conclusions section). 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). In view of this, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to discover workable/optimal reaction temperatures within the scope of the present claims so as to produce decomposition/initiation of polymerization while avoiding costs with excessive heating.
Claim(s) 3, 4, and 6-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allayarov (Journal of Fluorine Chemistry, 2015, 180, 240-247) in view of Sato (JP2006-312736A). As the cited JP publication is in a non-English language, a machine-translated version of the publication will be cited to.
The discussion regarding Allayarov within ¶ 19-21 is incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding Claims 3 and 6, Allayarov differs from the subject matter claimed in that particulars regarding the synthesis of tetrafluoroethylene polymers from free radical initiator are not indicated. In this regard, Sato teaches known methods of synthesizing perhalo polymers from stable perfluoroalkyl radicals (Abstract; Examples). Sato teaches the methods can easily produce perhalopolymer having thermally stable polymer chain ends (¶ 5-9). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ the polymerization methods of Sato to create perhalopolymers using the stable perfluoroalkyl radicals of Allayarov because doing so would easily produce perhalopolymer having thermally stable polymer chain ends as taught by Sato.
Sato teaches examples where stable radical initiator is dissolved in HFP trimer solvent and the subsequent solution is introduced into fluoromonomers to initiate polymerization (¶ 60), which is seen to entail dissolving monomer in a polymerization solvent since all monomer is not instantly reacted upon addition.
Regarding Claims 4 and 7, Sato teaches embodiments where two or more fluorine-containing monomers (tetrafluoroethylene and perfluoro(methyl vinyl ether)) are used (¶ 60). The resulting polymer is seen to be a perfluoropolymer. The polytetrafluoroethylene polymer of Allayarov is also a perfluoropolymer.
Regarding Claim 8, Sato teaches trifluoromethyl groups at the terminals (¶ 31).
Regarding Claim 9, Sato teaches the perfluoromonomer can be tetrafluroethylene and polytetrafluoroethylene can be produced (¶ 26). Allayarov also teaches the creation of polytetrafluoroethylene from tetrafluoroethylene.
Regarding Claim 10, Allayrov teaches the temperature required for decomposition relates to bond dissociation energy, whereby perfluoro-3-ethyl-2,2,4-trimethyl-3-pentyl has a substantially low BDE (Entry 9 of Table 1), which in turn leads to lower reaction temperatures such a room temperature as being possible (Conclusions section). 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). In view of this, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to discover workable/optimal reaction temperatures within the scope of the present claims so as to produce decomposition/initiation of polymerization while avoiding costs with excessive heating in a given radical initiator.
Regarding Claims 11 and 12, Sato teaches the use of 1.7 g of C9 radical (~ 0.0041 mol) relative to 8.1 g PVME (~ 0.049 mol), 21.5 g TFE (~ 0.215 mol), 150 g water (~ 150 mL), and 250 g perfluorohexane (~ 150 mL; d = 1.67 g/mL). Therefore, Sato suggests embodiments of roughly 1:64 initiator:monomer molar ratio and 0.014 mol/L initiator.
Regarding Claim 13, Sato teaches embodiments where initiator is added to initial mixture of monomers to start polymerization, after which additional monomers are added to maintain polymerization pressure (¶ 60), reading on additional radical polymerization steps using residual solution containing unreacted perfluoroalkyl radicals.
Claim(s) 1-9 and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato (JP2006-312736A) in view of Ono (US 2003/0114613 A1). As the cited JP publication is in a non-English language, a machine-translated version of the publication will be cited to.
Regarding Claims 1, 2, 5 and 6, Sato teaches methods of manufacturing fluorine-based polymers via subjecting radical-polymerizable fluorine-based monomer to radical polymerization using stable perfluoroalkyl radical initiator via thermal decomposition achieving perfluoroalkyl radicals (Abstract; Examples; ¶ 33-34). Examples are taught where stable radical initiator is dissolved in HFP trimer solvent and the subsequent solution is introduced into fluoromonomers to initiate polymerization at 70 degrees C (¶ 60). Sato differs from the subject matter claimed in that the specific perfluoroalkyl radicals of claim 1 are not described.
Ono teaches perfluoro-alkyl based radicals suitable for polymerization processes (Abstract; ¶ 126; Claims 24-25). Ono teaches both perfluoro-3-ethyl-2,2,4-trimethyl-3-pentyl or perfluoro-2,2,4-trimethyl-3-isopropyl-3-pentyl were known suitable radicals (“(bR)” and “(cR)” of ¶ 104). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the perfluoro-alkyl based radical of Sato’s examples with either perfluoro-3-ethyl-2,2,4- trimethyl-3-pentyl or perfluoro-2,2,4-trimethyl-3-isopropyl-3-pentyl, thereby giving the predictable result of the radical polymerization of monomers.
Regarding Claim 3, Sato teaches examples where stable radical initiator is dissolved in HFP trimer solvent and the subsequent solution is introduced into fluoromonomers to initiate polymerization (¶ 60), which is seen to entail dissolving monomer in a polymerization solvent since all monomer are not instantly reacted upon addition.
Regarding Claims 4 and 7, Sato teaches embodiments where two or more fluorine-containing monomers (tetrafluoroethylene and perfluoro(methyl vinyl ether)) are used (¶ 60). The resulting polymer is seen to be a perfluoropolymer.
Regarding Claim 8, Sato teaches trifluoromethyl groups at the terminals (¶ 31).
Regarding Claim 9, Sato teaches the perfluoromonomer can be tetrafluroethylene and polytetrafluoroethylene can be produced (¶ 26).
Regarding Claims 11 and 12, Sato teaches the use of 1.7 g of C9 radical (~ 0.0041 mol) relative to 8.1 g PVME (~ 0.049 mol), 21.5 g TFE (~ 0.215 mol), 150 g water (~ 150 mL), and 250 g perfluorohexane (~ 150 mL; d = 1.67 g/mL). Therefore, Sato suggests embodiments of roughly 1:64 initiator:monomer molar ratio and 0.014 mol/L initiator.
Regarding Claim 13, Sato teaches embodiments where initiator is added to initial mixture of monomers to start polymerization, after which additional monomers are added to maintain polymerization pressure (¶ 60), reading on additional radical polymerization steps using residual solution containing unreacted perfluoroalkyl radicals.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato (JP2006-312736A) in view of Ono (US 2003/0114613 A1) and Allayarov (Journal of Fluorine Chemistry, 2015, 180, 240-247). As the cited JP publication is in a non-English language, a machine-translated version of the publication will be cited to.
The discussion regarding Sato and Ono within ¶ 33-40 is incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding Claim 10, Sato teaches the polymerization temperature is preferably 60-120 (¶ 55). Sato differs from the subject matter claimed in that temperatures of 10-50 degrees is not described.
Allayarov also teaches methods of making radical-polymerized fluorine-based polymer comprising subjecting tetrafluoroethylene (fluorine-based monomer) to radical polymerization using radical polymerization initiator, which generates perfluoroalkyl radicals by thermal decomposition (Abstract; Page 246; Figure 10). Allayrov teaches the temperature required for decomposition relates to bond dissociation energy, whereby perfluoro-3-ethyl-2,2,4-trimethyl-3-pentyl has a substantially low BDE (Entry 9 of Table 1), which in turn leads to lower reaction temperatures such a room temperature as being possible (Conclusions section). 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). In view of this, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to discover workable/optimal reaction temperatures within the scope of the present claims so as to produce decomposition/initiation of polymerization while avoiding costs with excessive heating in a given radical initiator.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN E RIETH whose telephone number is (571)272-6274. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8AM-4PM Mountain Standard Time.
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, Duane Smith can be reached at (571)272-1166. 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.
/STEPHEN E RIETH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759