DETAILED ACTION
Pending Claims
Claims 1-17 are pending.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-14) in the reply filed on October 30, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 15-17 (Group II) are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on October 30, 2025.
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 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawauchi et al. (US 2011/0144255 A1).
Regarding claims 1-3, 5 and 8, Sawauchi et al. disclose: (1) an aqueous coating material composition (Abstract; paragraphs 0012 & 0106-0108) comprising:
fluororesin particles (A) that can be melt-molded (Abstract; paragraphs 0013-0028),
a binder resin (B) (Abstract; paragraphs 0061-0080),
a non-fluorinated surfactant (C) (Abstract; paragraphs 0035-0060; paragraphs 0084 & 0090),
and water (D) (Abstract; paragraphs 0013-0028),
wherein the binder resin (B) is contained at a ratio of 10 mass% or less relative to the total solid content of the coating material composition (paragraph 0079);
(2) wherein the fluororesin particles (A) have an average particle size of 0.05 to 1,000 μm (paragraph 0018);
(3) wherein the fluororesin particles (A) have a particle size at a cumulative volume of 50% of 0.05 to 40 μm (paragraph 0018);
(5) wherein the non-fluorinated surfactant (C) is a silicone surfactant (paragraphs 0084 & 0090); and
(8) further comprising an inorganic filler (F) (paragraphs 0084-0086).
Sawauchi et al. fail to explicitly disclose: (1) wherein the binder resin (B) has a weight loss of 55% or more at 400°C measured under conditions at 10°C/min under N2. Applicant has identified polyvinyl alcohol as a resin that can satisfy this property, especially when the molecular weight ranges from 1,000 to 1,000,000 with a saponification degree of 30 to 90% (see paragraph 0019 of the instant specification). In light of this, Sawauchi et al. contemplate the use of a poly(vinyl alcohol) having a degree of polymerization of 300 to 6000 and a degree of saponification as low as 70% (see paragraphs 0074-0075). This appears to obviously embrace the preferred polyvinyl alcohol described by Applicant.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the instantly claimed binder resin (having a weight loss of 55% or more at 400°C measured under conditions at 10°C/min under N2) in the composition of Sawauchi et al. because: (a) Applicant has identified polyvinyl alcohol as a resin that can satisfy this property, especially when the molecular weight ranges from 1,000 to 1,000,000 with a saponification degree of 30 to 90%; (b) Sawauchi et al. contemplate the use of a poly(vinyl alcohol) having a degree of polymerization of 300 to 6000 and a degree of saponification as low as 70%; and (c) this poly(vinyl alcohol) of Sawauchi et al. appears to obviously embrace the preferred polyvinyl alcohol described by Applicant.
Regarding claim 4, Sawauchi et al. fail to explicitly disclose: (4) wherein the binder resin (B) has a solubility in water of 2 mass% or more. Rather, they disclose a water solubility of not lower than 0.1 mg/100 ml (see paragraph 0062). This appears to obviously embrace the instantly claimed solubility percentage. In light of this, it has been found 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 – see MPEP 2144.05.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the instantly claimed binder resin (having a solubility in water of 2 mass% or more) in the composition of Sawauchi et al. because: (a) Sawauchi et al. disclose a water solubility of not lower than 0.1 mg/100 ml; (b) the range of Sawauchi et al. appears to obviously embrace the instantly claimed solubility percentage; and (c) it has been found 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.
Claims 1-3, 6-8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomihashi et al. (US 2004/0242753 A1).
Regarding claims 1-3 and 8, Tomihashi et al. disclose: (1) an aqueous coating material composition (Abstract; paragraph 0010) comprising:
fluororesin particles (A) that can be melt-molded (paragraphs 0022-0027),
a binder resin (B) (paragraphs 0035-0045),
a non-fluorinated surfactant (C) (paragraphs 0046-0052);
and water (D) (paragraphs 0053-0055),
(2) wherein the fluororesin particles (A) have an average particle size of 0.05 to 1,000 μm (paragraph 0026: see “preferably 0.01-100”);
(3) wherein the fluororesin particles (A) have a particle size at a cumulative volume of 50% of 0.05 to 40 μm (paragraph 0026: see “particularly 0.1-5”); and
(8) further comprising an inorganic filler (F) (paragraphs 0056-0059).
Tomihashi et al. fail to explicitly disclose: (1) wherein the binder resin (B) has a weight loss of 55% or more at 400°C measured under conditions at 10°C/min under N2. Rather, they disclose a “de-polymerizable” characteristic of their acrylic binder, under similar temperature conditions (see paragraph 0038). This “de-polymerizable” characteristic suggests that their acrylic binder would have been capable of satisfying the instantly claimed weight loss property.
Tomihashi et al. fail to explicitly disclose: (1) wherein the binder resin (B) is contained at a ratio of 10 mass% or less relative to the total solid content of the coating material composition. Rather, they disclose an amount ranging from 5 to 25 parts per 100 parts of fluororesin particles (see paragraph 0040). In light of this, it has been found 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 – see MPEP 2144.05.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to formulate the composition of Tomihashi et al. with the instantly claimed amount of binder resin (a ratio of 10 mass% or less relative to the total solid content of the coating material composition) because: (a) Tomihashi et al. disclose an amount ranging from 5 to 25 parts per 100 parts of fluororesin particles; and (b) it has been found 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.
Regarding claims 6-7, Tomihashi et al. fail to explicitly disclose a composition: (6) further comprising a glycol solvent (E); (7) wherein none of the glycol solvent (E) remain after sintering of the fluororesin particles (A). Rather, they disclose the use of a polyol component (see paragraphs 0028-0034). The polyol component of Tomihashi et al. can be ethylene glycol with a boiling point of 198oC (see paragraph 0033). This boiling point suggests that it would be capable of not remaining after the future sintering of the fluororesin particles.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to formulate the composition of Tomihashi et al. with the instantly claimed glycol solvent because: (a) Tomihashi et al. disclose the use of a polyol component; and (b) the polyol component of Tomihashi et al. can be ethylene glycol with a boiling point of 198oC. Furthermore: (c) this boiling point suggests that it would be capable of not remaining after the future sintering of the fluororesin particles.
Regarding claim 10, Tomihashi et al. fail to explicitly disclose: (10) wherein the inorganic filler (F) has an average particle size of 0.1 to 20 μm. Rather, they disclose a range of 10-100, preferably 15-50 microns (see paragraph 0059). In light of this, it has been found 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 – see MPEP 2144.05.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to formulate the composition of Tomihashi et al. with the instantly claimed filler (having an average particle size of 0.1 to 20 μm) because: (a) Tomihashi et al. disclose a range of 10-100, preferably 15-50 microns; and (b) it has been found 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.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawauchi et al. (US 2011/0144255 A1) in view of Tomihashi et al. (US 2004/0242753 A1).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, the teachings of Sawauchi et al. are as set forth above and incorporated herein. Sawauchi et al. contemplate the use of an organic solvent (see paragraph 0027). However, they fail to disclose: (6) a glycol solvent (E); (7) wherein none of the glycol solvent (E) remain after sintering of the fluororesin particles (A).
The teachings of Tomihashi et al. are as set forth above and incorporated herein. They disclose a similar aqueous dispersion and demonstrate that ethylene glycol is recognized in the art as a suitable solvent for this type of formulation (see paragraph 0033). In light of this, it has been found that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination – see MPEP 2144.07. Furthermore, Tomihashi et al. disclose that ethylene glycol has a boiling point of 198oC, which suggests that it would be capable of not remaining after the future sintering of the fluororesin particles.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to formulate the composition of Sawauchi et al. with the instantly claimed glycol solvent because: (a) Sawauchi et al. contemplate the use of an organic solvent; (b) Tomihashi et al. disclose a similar aqueous dispersion and demonstrate that ethylene glycol is recognized in the art as a suitable solvent for this type of formulation; and (c) it has been found that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. Furthermore: (d) Tomihashi et al. disclose that ethylene glycol has a boiling point of 198oC, which suggests that it would be capable of not remaining after the future sintering of the fluororesin particles.
Claims 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawauchi et al. (US 2011/0144255 A1) in view of Tsuda et al. (US Pat. No. 6,350,806).
Regarding claims 9-14, the teachings of Sawauchi et al. are as set forth above and incorporated herein. Sawauchi et al. contemplate the use of a filler (see paragraphs 0084-0086). However, they fail to explicitly disclose: (9) wherein the inorganic filler (F) is silica; (10) wherein the inorganic filler (F) has an average particle size of 0.1 to 20 μm; (11) wherein the inorganic filler (F) has a maximum particle size of 10 μm or less; (12) wherein the inorganic filler (F) is surface-treated with a silicon compound; (13) wherein the silicon compound comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of silane coupling agents and organosilazanes; and (14) wherein the inorganic filler (F) is an inorganic filler that can be uniformly dispersed when 70% by mass of the inorganic filler and 30% by mass of water are mixed.
Tsuda et al. disclose a related aqueous fluoropolymer dispersion composition (see Abstract). They demonstrate that the instantly claimed silica (see column 6, line 38 through column 7, line 12; column 8, lines 23-30; see also column 7, liens 13-57) is recognized in the art as a suitable filler for this type of formulation. In light of this, it has been found that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination – see MPEP 2144.07.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to formulate the composition of Sawauchi et al. with the instantly claimed silica filler because: (a) Sawauchi et al. contemplate the use of a filler; (b) Tsuda et al. disclose a related aqueous fluoropolymer dispersion composition and demonstrate that the instantly claimed silica is recognized in the art as a suitable filler for this type of formulation; and (c) it has been found that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination.
Claims 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomihashi et al. (US 2004/0242753 A1) in view of Sawauchi et al. (US 2011/0144255 A1).
Regarding claim 5, the teachings of Tomihashi et al. are as set forth above and incorporated herein. They fail to explicitly disclose: (5) a silicone surfactant. Rather, they contemplate the use of various additives, including leveling agents (see paragraph 0060). In light of this, the teachings of Sawauchi et al. demonstrate that silicone surfactants are recognized in the art as suitable leveling agents for this type of formulation (see paragraph 0090). Furthermore, it has been found that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination – see MPEP 2144.07.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to formulate the composition of Tomihashi et al. with a silicone surfactant because: (a) Tomihashi et al. contemplate the use of various additives, including leveling agents; (b) the teachings of Sawauchi et al. demonstrate that silicone surfactants are recognized in the art as suitable leveling agents for this type of formulation; and (c) it has been found that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination.
International Search Report
The international search report cited two X-references. These references have been considered.
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J FEELY whose telephone number is (571)272-1086. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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.
/MICHAEL J FEELY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766
January 10, 2026