DETAILED ACTION
Any rejections and/or objections made in the previous Office action and not repeated below are hereby withdrawn.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
The new grounds of rejection set forth below for claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-12, and 15 are necessitated by Applicant’s amendment filed on Aug. 6, 2026. In particular, claim 1 has been amended to contain a limitation regarding the addition of a radical generator after the termination of a polymerization reaction. Therefore, claim 1 and claims 2-3, 5-7, 9-12, and 15 which ultimately depend on amended claim 1 are now different in scope from what they were at the time of the preceding Office action. For this reason, the present action is properly made final.
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 U.S.C. § 103
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 2001/0021756 A1 (herein “Noda”) in view of US 2018/0355205 A1 (herein “Wille”).
As to claims 1 and 6-7: Noda describes processes for preparing a fluoropolymer (see the abstract). Noda describes an example of a method (see Example 1 in ¶¶ [0025]-[0026]) comprising polymerizing fluoromonomers in the presence of a fluorine-containing surfactant, a polymerization initiator, and an aqueous medium to prepare a dispersion (see ¶ [0025]). The supply of monomers is stopped, and unreacted monomer mixture is removed from the reactor (see ¶ [0026]), thereby terminating the polymerization.
Noda does not disclose the presently recited steps of adding a radical generator to the dispersion and subjecting it to a heat treatment.
Wille discloses aqueous fluoropolymer compositions (see the abstract). Wille discloses that initiators that produce free radicals may be used as chasers for the purpose of driving residual monomers to low levels in the final latex products (see ¶ [0029]). Wille discloses a method (see ¶ [0053]) in which a polymerization reaction mixture is heated to 75 °C (see midway through ¶ [0053]) and then completed; then t-butyl hydroperoxide and sodium formaldehyde sulfoxylate or sodium metabisulfite are added; the reaction conditions are maintained for 20 minutes; and then the reaction mixture is cooled (see the end of ¶ [0053]). The continuation of the reaction conditions (75 °C) corresponds to the presently recited heat treatment step in the presence of the radical generator.
In light of Wille, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to add chasers including t-butyl hydroperoxide and sodium formaldehyde sulfoxylate or sodium metabisulfite to the reaction mixture of Noda’s completed polymerization and then continued the polymerization reaction temperature in order to drive residual monomers to low levels. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added chasers including t-butyl hydroperoxide and sodium formaldehyde sulfoxylate or sodium metabisulfite to the reaction mixture of Noda’s completed polymerization and then continued the polymerization reaction temperature in order to drive residual monomers to low levels.
As to claim 2: Wille’s maintenance of reaction conditions following the addition of the t-butyl hydroperoxide and sodium formaldehyde sulfoxylate or sodium metabisulfite indicates that the reaction temperature (75 °C) is sufficient to cause thermal decomposition of the t-butyl hydroperoxide and sodium formaldehyde sulfoxylate or sodium metabisulfite. The reaction temperature in Noda’s polymerization is 95 °C which higher than Wille’s reaction temperature, and thus there is a reasonable basis to conclude that their addition to Noda’s polymerization temperature would also cause their thermal decomposition.
As to claim 3: Willie’s t-butyl hydroperoxide and sodium formaldehyde sulfoxylate or sodium metabisulfite are both added in aqueous form (see ¶ [0053]).
As to claim 5: The cited process of Noda yields 445 g of polymer after drying (see ¶ [0026]), and because the sum of the amounts of ingredients added into the reactor is less than 44,500 g (see ¶ [0025]), the content of the fluoropolymer in the dispersion must be greater than 1% by mass.
As to claims 9: Noda further discloses a step of coagulating the polymer (see ¶ [0026]).
As to claim 10: Noda further discloses a fluorine-containing surfactant according to the presently recited chemical formula (see ¶ [0025]).
As to claim 11: Because the combination of Noda and Wille as set forth above would result in the treatment of residual fluoromonomers with various water-soluble radical generators, there is a reasonable basis to conclude that the combination of Noda and Wille as set forth above would result in the same water-soluble low-molecular weight compounds for the same reason that they occur in the present invention.
As to claim 12: Noda’s surfactant (see ¶ [0025]) is according to the presently recited chemical formulas. Because the combination of Noda and Wille as set forth above would result in the treatment of residual fluoromonomers and surfactant with water-soluble radical generators, there is a reasonable basis to conclude that the combination of Noda and Wille as set forth above would result in the same water-soluble low-molecular weight compounds for the same reason that they occur in the present invention.
As to claim 15: Noda discloses TFE and HFP (see ¶ [0025]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 8, and 13-14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but they would be allowable if written in independent form.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed Aug. 6, 2026 (herein “Remarks”) have been fully considered, and they are persuasive.
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112 that was set forth in the preceding Office action has been withdrawn in light of the amendment of claim 11.
Regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Noda in view of Mishra: Applicant argues (p. 9 of Remarks) that Mishra describes the addition of a chaser followed by allowing the polymerization to complete, whereas the amended claims require the addition of a radical generator after termination of the polymerization reaction.
In light of the amendment of claim 1 to specify that the addition of a radical generator occurs after termination of the polymerization reaction, a new rejection has been set forth above over Noda in combination with a reference to Wille.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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.
This action is a final rejection and is intended to close the prosecution of this application. Applicant's reply under 37 CFR § 1.113 to this action is limited either to an appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board or to an amendment complying with the requirements set forth below.
If applicant should desire to appeal any rejection made by the examiner, a Notice of Appeal must be filed within the period for reply identifying the rejected claim or claims appealed. The Notice of Appeal must be accompanied by the required appeal fee.
If applicant should desire to file an amendment, entry of a proposed amendment after final rejection cannot be made as a matter of right unless it merely cancels claims or complies with a formal requirement made earlier. Amendments touching the merits of the application which otherwise might not be proper may be admitted upon a showing of good and sufficient reasons why they are necessary and why they were not presented earlier.
A reply under 37 CFR § 1.113 to a final rejection must include the appeal from, or cancellation of, each rejected claim. The filing of an amendment after final rejection, whether or not it is entered, does not stop the running of the statutory period for reply to the final rejection unless the examiner holds the claims to be in condition for allowance. Accordingly, if a Notice of Appeal has not been filed properly within the period for reply, or any extension of this period obtained under either 37 CFR 1.136(a) or (b), the application will become abandoned.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD A. HUHN whose telephone number is (571)270-7345. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9 AM to 6 PM EST.
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, Arrie (Lanee) Reuther can be reached at (571) 270-7026. 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.
/RICHARD A. HUHN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights