DETAILED ACTION
Status of Application
This action is responsive to continuing application filed 12/27/2023 as a continuation of PCT/JP2022/026257, filed 06/30/2023. Original claims 1-12 are currently pending and under examination herein.
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 . However, 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 a 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.
Information Disclosure Statement(s)
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) filed on 12/27/2023, 02/15/2024, 12/19/2024, 05/05/2025, 07/07/2025, 10/15/2025, and 11/11/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609, and therefore the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits. Initialed copies of the IDS are included with the mailing/transmittal of this Office action.
Foreign Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Interpretation
With respect to claim 1, the Office is interpreting recited term “content of a high-temperature volatile substance” as a content calculated according to the expression set forth in paragraph [0125] of the instant specification as originally filed.
With respect to claim 5, the claim recites the phrase “substantially free from a fluorine-containing compound having a hydrophilic group.” The instant specification at paragraph [0145] defines the phrase to mean that the content of the fluorine-containing compound in the PTFE powder is 50 mass ppb or less based on PTFE. The Office is interpreting the phrase in accordance with this definition.
With respect to claim 7, the claim recites the phrase “substantially free from a fluorine-containing surfactant.” The instant specification at paragraph [0149] defines the phrase to mean that the content of the fluorine-containing compound in the PTFE powder is 50 mass ppb or less. The Office is interpreting the phrase in accordance with this definition.
Common Ownership Notice
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 Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 102/103
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.
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, 5-9 and 11 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 Yoshimura et al (US 4898779) (hereinafter, ‘Yoshimura’) as evidenced by Kokumai et al (US 5763082) (hereinafter, ‘Kokumai’).
Regarding Claims 1 and 8-9, Yoshimura generally relates to powders of TFE copolymer useful for powder coating, and a process for preparing the same (Col. 1, ll. 8-10). As detailed in Preparation Example 2, a copolymer of TFE and perfluoro(vinyl ether) [for claims 8/9] was manufactured in accordance with the dispersion (i.e., suspension) polymerization method of Japanese Unexamined Patent Application, Publication No. Sho 58-189210, then formed into a sheet and pulverized; the resulting pulverized product was sieved with a sieve of 60 mesh to give a non-spherical TFE copolymer having, inter alia, an average particle size of 40 µm (Col. 5, ll. 40-45). That a suspension-polymerized polymer of TFE is not melt-processable is well known in the art as evidenced by Kokumai (see Col. 1, ll. 18-22). As such, Yoshimura describes PTFE copolymer powder that contains (implicitly) a non-melt processable PTFE, wherein an average particle size is 200 µm or less [for claim 1].
It is acknowledged that Yoshimura is silent as to content of a high-temperature volatile substance in the PTFE copolymer powder. However, as further detailed in Yoshimura Preparation Example 8, the TFE copolymer powder prepared in Preparation Example 2 was additionally subjected to fluorine gas treatment carried out at 200oC for 120 minutes by using a fluorine gas (fluorine gas content: 10% by volume) to give a powder having a thermal stability ratio of 9% (Col. 6, ll. 53-59). The described fluorine gas treatment corresponds to the “fluorine radical treatment” used in the present invention to obtain a PTFE powder wherein a content of a high-temperature volatile substance is 0.010% by mass or less as claimed (cf., as-filed specification, [0097], [0185] and [0197] (Table 3), Comparative Example 1).
Because the high-temperature volatile matter content of the claimed polytetrafluoroethylene powder depends on manufacturing method, and because the aforementioned TFE copolymer powder of Yoshimura was made via processes substantially similar to those described in the present application, the Office has a plausible basis to infer that claimed parameter relating to content of a high-temperature volatile substance is intrinsically satisfied by Yoshimura. Accordingly, the onus is shifted to Applicant to establish that the product claimed in Claim 1 is not the same as or obvious from that set forth by the reference. Once a reference teaching a product appearing to be substantially identical is made the basis of a rejection and the examiner presents evidence or reasoning tending to show inherency, the burden shifts to the Applicant to show an unobvious difference (MPEP 2112).
Regarding Claims 5-7, Yoshimura as evidenced by Kokumai discloses the PTFE powder according to claim 1 as discussed above. Yoshimura further indicates a dry powder prepared by dispersion polymerization is preferred in view of contaminant, since a dry powder prepared by emulsion polymer contains an emulsifier or a coagulant (Col. 3, ll. 50-54). Yoshimura thus implies that the TFE copolymer powder prepared by the aforementioned dispersion polymerization is relatively low in contaminant, and as none of the Preparation Examples 1-3 (see Col. 5) make mention of a fluorine-containing compound having a hydrophilic group or a fluorine-containing surfactant being used in the described production procedures, it must be presumed, as a prima facie matter, that the above TFE copolymer powder of Yoshimura is “substantially free” of such fluorine-containing compound [for claims 5/6] as well as a fluorine-containing surfactant [for claim 7].
Regarding Claim 11, Yoshimura as evidenced by Kokumai discloses the PTFE powder according to claim 1 as discussed above. Yoshimura further discloses a PTFE formed article obtained by forming the PTFE powder according to claim 1. That is, Yoshimura describes a container obtained by roto-molding the powder prepared in aforementioned Preparation Example 8 (see Col. 7, Example 6).
Claims 1 and 3-12 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 JP 2001-049822A (‘JP ‘822’; citing infra to machine-generated English language translation, of record).
Regarding Claims 1 and 8-10, JP ‘822 has already disclosed a non-melt-processable modified PTFE molding resin powder that contains 0.01-1 wt. % perfluoroalkyl ether unit [for claims 8-10] and wherein an average particle diameter (i.e., size) is 200 µm or less, specifically about 30 µm (see [0008], [0034] (Example 1 of manufacture)). Although silent as to a content of a high-temperature volatile substance in the PTFE molding resin powder, JP ‘822 does describe in Example 1 ([0036]) subjecting the modified PTFE resin powder obtained in Production Example 1 to contact with a reactive fluorine-nitrogen gas mixture containing a fluoride radical source (fluorine-nitrogen (wt. ratio) = 30/70) while maintaining a temperature of 150oC for 300 minutes, followed by nitrogen purging of the system immediately after completion of the reaction. The described fluorine gas treatment corresponds to the “fluorine radical treatment” used in the present invention to obtain a PTFE powder wherein a content of a high-temperature volatile substance is 0.010% by mass or less as claimed (cf., as-filed specification, [0097], [0185] and [0197] (Table 3), Comparative Example 1).
Because the high-temperature volatile matter content of the claimed polytetrafluoroethylene powder depends on manufacturing method, and because the aforementioned modified PTFE resin powder of JP ‘822 was made via a production method substantially similar to that described in the present application, the Office has a plausible basis to infer that claimed parameter relating to content of a high-temperature volatile substance is intrinsically satisfied by JP ‘822. Accordingly, as discussed above (see page 5 supra), the onus properly shifts to the Applicant to show an unobvious difference (MPEP 2112).
Regarding Claim 3, JP ‘822 discloses the PTFE powder according to claim 1 as discussed above. JP ‘822 further discloses wherein a Z value measured after a formed article obtained from the PTFE powder is heated at 370oC for 1.5 hours is 95 or more; for example, 100 (see [0033], [0044] (Table 1), Example 1).
Regarding Claim 4, JP ‘822 discloses the PTFE powder according to claim 1 as discussed above. JP ‘822 does not directly disclose standard specific gravity for the described non-melt-processable modified PTFE molding resin powder. Nevertheless, it is understood from the instant specification, in particular paragraph [0021], that when the standard specific gravity of the PTFE is within a preferred range of 2.130 to 2.280, it is meant that the PTFE is a high molecular weight PTFE. In this regard, it is noted that JP ‘822 states that the molecular weight of the modified polytetrafluoroethylene resin may be 1,000,000 to 10,000,000, for example, 2 million to 8 million (see [0015]). As the disclosed ranges reflect a high (if not very high) molecular weight PTFE, the Office has a plausible basis to presume the modified PTFE resin powder of at least Example 1 of JP ‘822 intrinsically possesses a standard specific gravity within the claimed range, absent probative evidence to the contrary.
Regarding Claims 5-7, JP ‘822 discloses the PTFE powder according to claim 1 as discussed above. Further, as JP ‘822 nowhere mentions of a fluorine-containing compound having a hydrophilic group or a fluorine-containing surfactant being used in the manufacture procedures of any of Examples 1-5, the Office presumes, as a prima facie matter, that the obtained modified PTFE molding resin powder of JP ‘822 is “substantially free” of such fluorine-containing compound [for claims 5/6] as well as a fluorine-containing surfactant [for claim 7].
Regarding Claims 11-12, JP ‘822 discloses the PTFE powder according to claim 1 as discussed above. JP ‘822 further discloses that a sample used to determine coloring degree for each of Examples 1-5 and Comparative Examples 1-3 was formed in a mold at a forming ram speed of 50 mm/min and a forming pressure of 29.50 mm for 5 minutes ([0033]). The molded block is fairly considered a “formed product” [for claim 11]. JP ‘822 also mentions a compression molding method as a molding method in which the disclosed modified PTFE molding resin powder can be used ([0026]), thus rendering obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art subjecting the modified PTFE resin powder obtained according to Example 1 thereof to such compression molding to obtain a PTFE compression-molded article [for claim 12].
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 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 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshimura in view of Kokumai.
Regarding Claims 2 and 12, Yoshimura as evidenced by Kokumai discloses the polytetrafluoroethylene powder according to claim 1 as discussed above. Yoshimura is silent as to specific surface area of its TFE copolymer powder; however, in the same technical field, Kokumai teaches that the PTFE raw powder obtained by suspension polymerization that is dried and ground in a usual way affords a molding powder having a specific surface area of 0.5 to 9.0 m2/g and an average particle size of not more than 100 µm (Col. 4, ll. 21-30). Kokumai further teaches that this molding powder can be processed by a usual molding method to provide molded articles, with compression molding being mentioned as one of such molding methods (id.). Kokumai additionally provides concrete embodiments of PTFE molding powder having a specific surface area of 1.5 m2/g, a value well within the claimed range [for claim 2] (see, e.g., Cols. 11-12 (Table 2), Example 1). Given the teachings of Kokumai, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Yoshimura by judiciously adjusting the disclosed drying and grinding (pulverizing) operations such that the resulting TFE copolymer powder has a surface area of 5.0 m2/g or less [for claim 2] so as to be amenable to compression molding to obtain a PTFE compression-molded article [for claim 12].
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Saito et al (US 3953412) Is cited as pertinent to PTFE micro-powder having an average particle size less than 200 µm and a specific gravity ranging from 2.16 – 2.18 (note Table 1). The citation is silent as to content of a high-temperature volatile substance and utilizes emulsion polymerization to prepare the micro-powder (note Example 1), instead of suspension polymerization as used in the production method of the instant PTFE powder.
Conclusion
Pending claims 1-12 are rejected. No claims are in condition for allowance at this time.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to Examiner F. M. Teskin whose telephone number is (571) 272-1116. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 9:00 AM - 5:30 PM.
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, Robert Jones, can be reached at (571) 270-7733. The appropriate 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, 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.
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/FRED M TESKIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762
/FMTeskin/06-21-26
Prosecution Insights