Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/349,314

METHOD FOR PRODUCING FLUOROPOLYMER COMPOSITION

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jul 10, 2023
Examiner
LEE, RIP A
Art Unit
1762
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Daikin Industries Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
83%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 8m
To Grant
78%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 83% — above average
83%
Career Allow Rate
1119 granted / 1345 resolved
+18.2% vs TC avg
Minimal -5% lift
Without
With
+-4.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
36 currently pending
Career history
1381
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
31.8%
-8.2% vs TC avg
§102
25.5%
-14.5% vs TC avg
§112
24.4%
-15.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1345 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION Claim Objections Claims 2-16 are objected to because of the following informalities: In line 1 of each claim, please insert “fluoropolymer composition” between “The” and “production” so that all claims recite the same preamble. Appropriate corrections are required. 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. Claims 1, 2, 5-7, 9-11, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamanaka et al. (US 10,047,175). Example 1 of Yamanaka et al. discloses polymerizing tetrafluoroethylene in the presence of ammonium perfluorooctanoate surfactant and an initiator in a reactor at 55 ºC and 0.80 MPa to form an aqueous dispersion of polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE). At the end of polymerization, the pressure was released to ordinary pressure (0.1 MPa) a gas phase in the reactor was replaced with nitrogen. The aqueous dispersion was treated further with nonionic surfactant and concentrated to a solid content of 60 % by being held at ordinary pressure and 65 ºC to cause water to evaporate off (col. 16, lines 34-38). After concentration, the aqueous dispersion is coagulated, filtered, washed and dried, and a PTFE powder is obtained. Yamanaka et al. is silent with respect to the time required to achieve concentration, but one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious that the process is at least 15 minutes as claimed, especially since reduction in volume of 3.3 L of aqueous dispersion is carried out at ordinary pressure without stirring. Since the PTO cannot perform experiments, the burden is shifted to the Applicants to establish an unobviousness difference. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2112-2112.02. Claims 1, 2, 5-7, 9, 11, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ji et al. (CN 104403036) in view of Yamanaka et al. (US 10,047,175). Ji et al. teaches preparation of a fluoropolymer dispersion and a step of concentrating the fluoropolymer dispersion to increase the solid content and to reduce the content of fluorinated surfactant. In Example 1, an aqueous dispersion of polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) is prepared by polymerizing tetrafluoroethylene in the presence of EEA (perfluoro(2-ethoxy-2-fluoroethoxy)acetic acid) fluorinated surfactant and initiator at a temperature of 80 ºC to 100 ºC and pressure of 2.8 MPa. In the concentration step, the aqueous dispersion of PTFE is heated to 50 ºC and allowed to stand at 55 ºC for 10 hours to obtain a 60-70 % PTFE dispersion. Ji et al. does not disclose details regarding termination of polymerization. Yamanaka et al. teaches that polymerization of tetrafluoroethylene is terminated by reducing the pressure in the reactor to ordinary pressure (0.1 MPa) and purging the reactor with an inert gas such as nitrogen. One of ordinary skill in the art, carrying out the invention of Ji et al., would have found it obvious to terminate the reaction by the process disclosed in Yamanaka et al., and since the termination procedure is well established in the art, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the combination of teachings to work with a reasonable expectation of success. Claims 3, 4, 8, and 12-15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten to overcome claim objections, supra, and if rewritten in independent form including all the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Yamanaka et al. does not teach or suggest reducing the pressure in a reactor below 0.00 MPaG prior to feeding inert gas into the reactor. Prior art does not teach adding a radical generator to an aqueous dispersion and subjecting the aqueous dispersion to heat treatment. Finally, prior art does not disclose an aqueous dispersion comprising a water-soluble fluorine-containing compound such that a fluoropolymer composition is obtained having a reduced content of said water-soluble fluorine-containing compound upon heat treatment. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rip A. Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-1104. The examiner can be reached on Monday through Friday from 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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. /RIP A LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762 February 12, 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 10, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 12, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600807
POLYPROPYLENE FILM WITH IMPROVED SLIP PERFORMANCE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600805
FLUORINE-CONTAINING ALKYL AMMONIUM BORATE COMPOUND AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595322
GAS-PHASE BIPHENYLPHENOL POLYMERIZATION CATALYSTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12594538
CONTINUOUS PROCESSOR UTILIZING QUANTUM FIELD MICRO-VARIABLE PARTICLE INTERACTION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12590245
LONG-PERSISTENT LUMINESCENCE EMITTER AND LONG-PERSISTENT LUMINESCENT DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
83%
Grant Probability
78%
With Interview (-4.7%)
2y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1345 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month