CTNF 18/277,123 CTNF 89640 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. Claim Rejections - 35 USC §§ 102/103 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. or 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-27-aia AIA Claim s 1-6, 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Koike (U.S. 5,916,971) . In Example 2, Koike teaches a mixture of a polymer of perfluoro(butenyl vinyl ether) (PBVE) with 12 wt% of chlorotrifluoroethylene of number average molecular weight of 800. (Column 13 lines 25 – 45) Additionally, in Column 7 lines 20-35 Koike teaches chlorotrifluoroethylene (CTFE) oligomer is particularly preferred and the preferred number average molecular weight is 500 to 1500. This component (material (b) of Koike) is taught to have a refractive index different than the fluoropolymer (the exemplified PBVE) (Column 6 lines 65-67). The molecular weight of the chlorotrifluoroethylene monomer is 116.5. Therefore, the exemplified 800 number average molecular weight CTFE is 800/116.5 = 6.8 repeat units and the preferred molecular weights above result in a range of 4.29-12.87 repeat units, or more reasonably 4 to 13 repeat units preferred. The PVBE anticipates, or in the alternative meets, the fluorine containing resin of Claim 1 . The CTFE of 6.8 repeat units in an amount of 12 wt% of the composition anticipates the matter (b) as one of ordinary skill in the art is reasonably suggested 6 repeat units and/or 7 repeats are present in the 800 molecular weight oligomer of Koike as there cannot be 0.8 repeat units. In other words, as fractional repeats are present Koike is reasonably suggested to exemplify a CTFE oligomer with 6 repeats and one with 7 repeats in Example 2. This is sufficiently specific to anticipate 6 repeat units of matter (b) of Claim 1 . Alternatively, the 800 molecular weight oligomer of Koike reasonably suggest 6-7 repeat units of CTFE in the refractive index modifying material of Koike and there is no evidence of record at this time one monomer unit difference at 7 repeats in the CTFE at 12 wt% concentration in the composition behaves significantly differently than the CTFE of 6 monomer units at 12 wt%. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art is reasonably suggested both 6 monomer unit CTFE and 7 monomer unit CTFE in Example 2 of Koike for the above reason. This reads over the 6 units of matter (b) of Claim 1. Alternatively, Koike, as above, teaches preferred number average molecular weights of 500 to 1500 g/mol for the CTFE. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to practice the invention of Koike, in particular that of Example 2, such that the molecular weight of the oligomer is 500 to 1500 because Koike teaches this preferred range as above. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to choose molecular weights of 500 to less than 800 for this modification because Koike already exemplifies molecular weights 800 and above in the various examples. This 500 to less than 800 range is 4 to 6 repeat units of the CTFE oligomer which overlaps the claimed range of 6 of matter (b) and 5 of matter (a) of Claim 1 . The 12 wt % CTFE anticipates or the alternative meets the limitations of the amount of this component in matter (a) and matter (b) of Claim 1 . CTFE anticipates or in the alternative meets Claim 2 and Claim 3 and Claim 4 . The PBVE is taught to have a Tg of 108 o C and contains no hydrogen (i.e. is fully fluorinated) which anticipates or in the alternative meets the limitation of Claim 5 and Claim 6 . The repeat is shown below. PNG media_image1.png 110 132 media_image1.png Greyscale Koike teaches optical plastic materials which are light transmission mediums out of the above compositions including optical fibers in Column 11 lines 59 – Column 12 lines 20 (optical fiber Column 12 lines 15-20) which anticipate or in the alternative meet Claim 10 , Claim 11 and Claim 12 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. Claims 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Koike (U.S. 5,916,971) in view of Kawamitsu (WO20200203920; reference made to included English translation). Koike is applied as above under §102/§103. Koike does not teach or suggest the polymer of Claim 7 monomer unit, however, Koike is open to using such a monomer unit. (See Column 4 lines 1-15 of Koike). Kawamitsu, working in the field of plastic optical fibers (POF) similar to Applicant and Koike, teaches the use of a specific kind of fluorine containing resin that is related to the exemplified fluororesins of Koike and offers high transparency. ¶[0018] In ¶[0024] Kawamitsu teaches the polymer may be a homopolymer or can be polymerized with other comonomers. Additionally, in ¶[0035] Kawamitsu teaches the POF can be a graded index type, this is the type of Koike, which can include a refractive index adjusting material (material (b) of Koike). Kawamaitsu teaches specific monomers for this resin in ¶[0022] PNG media_image2.png 612 716 media_image2.png Greyscale It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to practice the invention of Koike, in particular that of Example 2 above, by using the fluorine containing alicyclic polymer of Kawamistu because Kawamistu teaches this polymer has high transparency in plastic optical fiber applications ¶[0018] such as Koike’s invention and this also is reasonably suggested to be an alternative to Koike’s preferred alicyclic main chain polymers. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to choose to make homopolymers of any of the above monomers of Kawamitsu for the above modification including monomer B of Kawamitsu because Kawamitsu teaches homopolymers of the above monomers including monomer B. This reads over the monomer of Claim 7 and Claim 8 . With respect to the overall Tg of the optical composition, Koike exemplified Tg is outside the range claimed with PVBE as the fluorine resin. The above combination has a monomer according to Claim 8 which is homopolymerized and used with 12 wt% of a 6-7 repeat unit, or more broadly, 4-6 units CTFE as discussed in the §102/§103 above. Applicant’s as-filed specification discloses a homopolymer of the above monomer B has a Tg of 117 o C (¶[0050] of the as-filed specification). Every example with a homopolymer of monomer B above and 12 wt% of 4-6 CTFE has a Transparency of A. A rating is Tg greater than or equal to 105 o C. Based on the above evidence, one of ordinary skill in the art is reasonably suggested, when test accordingly, the Tg of the above composition must be in the range of Claim 9 . The reliance upon the specification by the Office to establish inherent properties has been supported by the Federal Circuit. In re Kao , 98 USPQ2d 1799, 1809 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Claim 5 and Claim 6 are also rejected for the above reasons. Claims 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Koike (U.S. 5,916,971) in view of Sugiyama (U.S. 20060281883). Koike is applied as above under §102/§103. Koike does not teach or suggest the polymer of Claim 7 monomer unit, however, Koike is open to using such a monomer unit. (See Column 4 lines 1-15 of Koike). Note Claim 7 is not limited to a homopolymer or copolymer. Any kind of polymer containing the recited monomer reads on the claim. Sugiyama teaches fluorinated products for optical materials which are polymers which have excellent transparency, light resistance and heat resistance. (¶[0172]) The fluorinated polymers of Sugiyama exemplifies a (c-2) monomer polymerized with another monomer (a-1). ((a-1) ¶[0145] no hydrogens present; (c-2) below) PNG media_image3.png 296 386 media_image3.png Greyscale It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to practice the invention of Koike, in particular that of Example 2 as discussed above, by using the above fluorinated resin taught by Sugiyama for the advantage of using a polymer which has excellent transparency, light resistance and heat resistance as taught by Sugiyama. (¶[0172]) One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to choose the above polymer with (c-2) units because Sugiyama exemplifies it. This reads over the formula of Claim 7 . The above (CF 2 ) 5 (CF 3 ) unit does not read over the formula of Claim 8, however, in ¶[0042] Sugiyama teaches the above substituent can be a C 1-14 perfluoroalkyl group (the above is C 6 ). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to choose the above substituent to be CF 3 because Sugiyama suggest C 1-14 perfluoroalkyl groups for this substituent. This reads over Claim 8 . With respect to the overall Tg of the optical composition, Koike exemplified Tg is outside the range claimed with PVBE as the fluorine resin. The above combination has a monomer according to Claim 8 which is polymerized and used with 12 wt% of a 6-7 repeat unit, or more broadly, 4-6 units CTFE as discussed in the §103 above. Applicant’s as-filed specification discloses a homopolymer of the above monomer of Claim 8 has a Tg of 117 o C (¶[0050] of the as-filed specification). Every example with a homopolymer of monomer of Claim 8 above and 12 wt% of 4-6 CTFE has a Transparency of A. A rating is Tg greater than or equal to 105 o C. While the above copolymer is not a homopolymer, the above monomer c-2 is used in majority and this reasonably suggests the Tg will be closer to the Tg of the above homopolymer of monomer of Claim 8. Based on the above evidence, one of ordinary skill in the art is reasonably suggested, when test accordingly, the Tg of the above composition must be in the range of Claim 9 and also the Tg of the copolymer above must be in the range of Claim 5 . The above copolymer also reads over Claim 6 as there are no hydrogens present. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER M RODD whose telephone number is (571)270-1299. The examiner can normally be reached 7 am - 3:30 pm (Pacific). 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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at (571) 272-1302. 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. /Christopher M Rodd/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766 Application/Control Number: 18/277,123 Page 2 Art Unit: 1766 Application/Control Number: 18/277,123 Page 3 Art Unit: 1766 Application/Control Number: 18/277,123 Page 4 Art Unit: 1766 Application/Control Number: 18/277,123 Page 5 Art Unit: 1766 Application/Control Number: 18/277,123 Page 6 Art Unit: 1766 Application/Control Number: 18/277,123 Page 7 Art Unit: 1766 Application/Control Number: 18/277,123 Page 8 Art Unit: 1766 Application/Control Number: 18/277,123 Page 9 Art Unit: 1766 Application/Control Number: 18/277,123 Page 10 Art Unit: 1766 Application/Control Number: 18/277,123 Page 11 Art Unit: 1766
Prosecution Insights