DETAILED ACTION
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 Interpretation
Claim 1 uses the term “high purity” which is described as having a content of polymer (I) and volatile components smaller than the content in the composition subjected to the fluorine radical treatment. See pg. 15, ¶44 of the instant specification. However, no specific purity is recited, the content of polymer (I) and volatile components can be any amount prior to treatment, and the degree of ‘smaller’ is broad.
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.
Claim(s) 1-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nanba (WO 2019/168183). As the WO document is not in English, citations are made to the corresponding US document, US 2020/0392266.
Nanba teaches a composition and process of forming a composition of a polymer A and a PTFE where polymer A is a homopolymer of CH2=CF(CF2OCFCF3COONH4) (¶935, 938-940, Table 1) and compositions of polymer A and FEP (¶ 946-947, Table 1) where the PTFE and FEP are polymerized in the presence of the polymer A. The polymer A corresponds to the claimed polymer (I) and CH2=CF(CF2OCFCF3COONH4) meets the claimed formula (I) and PTFE corresponds to the claimed fluoropolymer. CH2=CF(CF2OCFCF3COONH4) contains a COOM group and meets claims 2-3.
Nanba does not explicitly provide an example having a fluorine radical treatment.
However, Nanba teaches the fluorination of the polymers by treatment with fluorine gas (¶620-625). Treatment with the fluorine gas corresponds to the claimed fluorine radical treatment (¶ 619).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to treat the polymers with fluorine gas because it removes unstable end groups resulting in improved heat resistance and attenuation of a wire (¶ 616-619).
Nanba teaches the polymer can be purified (¶609, 726) which meets the limitation ‘high purity’. Additionally, as the treatment with a fluorine radical causes the purification in the instant invention, the same treatment with a fluorine radical in the prior art must give the same results as the same process (fluorine radical treatment) with the same polymers (polymer (I) and fluoropolymer) are present in both the instant invention and Nanba which meets the limitation ‘high purity’.
Nanba does not explicitly recite the ion exchange capacity. However, Nanba teaches an example of a homopolymer of CH2=CF(CF2OCFCF3COONH4) having a Mn of 90,000 and Mw of 190,000 (¶ 936) which is identical to the polymer (I) of the examples in the instant specification. See instant specification, pg. 185, ¶ 610. Thus, it is expected that the exemplified polymer (I) (and also the polymer of Nanba) to have the claimed ion exchange capacity.
Nanba teaches the polymerization occurs in an aqueous dispersion and coagulated (¶938-947) which meets claim 9. The examples of Nanba do not teach adding a fluorinated surfactant which meets claim 10. Nanba teaches polymerization of TFE and HFP (¶ 946-947, Table 1) which meets claims 11-12.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT C BOYLE whose telephone number is (571)270-7347. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 10am-4pm.
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.
/ROBERT C BOYLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights