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 .
This Office action is in response to the amendment filed 2/19/2026. Claims 1-21 are currently pending in the application.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of group I, drawn to claims 1-6, in the reply filed on 2/19/2026 is acknowledged.
The traversal is on the ground(s) that restriction is only proper if the restricted groups are independent or patentably distinct and there would be a serious burden placed on the Examiner if restriction is not required There is no evidence of record to show that the claimed product can be made by a different process as the Office as alleged.
This is not found persuasive because it was shown in paragraphs 3-5, of Office action mailed 2/9/2026, there is a search burden in light of the two inventions being classified in different class/subclasses and incorporated here by reference. Additionally, there is no requirement, for application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111, to provide evidence of such different process.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 7-21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 2/26/2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites “residue unit of represented by the following formula” (line 2) and should read as “residue unit represented by the following formula”.
Appropriate correction and/or clarification to the typographical error are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 the 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.
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.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Selman et al (US 3,308.107).
Regarding claims 1 and 5, Selman et al disclose a copolymer comprising repeat unit represented by formula:
PNG
media_image1.png
76
150
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(col. 2, lines 28-35) which reads on the fluororesin of formula I:
PNG
media_image2.png
112
108
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein Rf1, Rf2, and Rf3 = fluorine atom and Rf4 is a perfluoroalkyl group having 1 carbon atom in present claim 1. See example 2, wherein the polymer could be compression molded at 2750C into a clear, colorless transparent film (col. 4, lines 5-7) which reads on heat-press molded product in present claim 1.
Selman et al fails to disclose as in present claims a resin producing a heat-press molded product having a thickness of 1 mm and a haze value of 2% or less; and yellow index of 4 or less after being heated for 24 hours at 2800C of a film having a thickness of 3mm.
However, Selman et al provide examples (Table 2), wherein a film having a higher thickness of 10 mil (i.e., equivalent to 0.254 mm) is optically clear and transparent but hazy and transparent at lower thickness of 7 mil. Therefore, in light of the teachings in exemplary embodiment, one skilled in art prior to the filing of present application would have a reasonable basis to expect the molded product, of Selman et al, to exhibit a haze value of 2% or less at higher thickness of 1 mm as in present claim 1 and a yellow index of 4 or less after being heated for 24 hours at 2800C of a film having a thickness of 3mm as in present claim 5, absent evidence to the contrary. Since PTO cannot conduct experiments, the burden of proof is shifted to the applicants to establish an unobviousness difference, see In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 2, Selman et al teach that polymer is found to be soluble in fluorocarbon solvent believed to be consisting predominantly of perfluorinated alkylfuranes (bridging paragraph col. 3-4). Given that the polymer, in Selman et al, is soluble in a perfluorinated solvent, one skilled in art prior to the filing of present application would have a reasonable basis to expect the fluororesin, of Selman et al, when dissolved in 1,1,1,2,3,4,4,5,5,5-decafluoro-3-methoxy-2-(trifluoromethyl)pentane to have an insoluble matter in an amount of 0.2% by weight or less based on the resin, absent evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claim 6, Selman et al teach that homopolymer of perfluoro(2-methylene-4-methyl-1,3-dioxolane) is normally a solid and of high molecular weight (col. 2, lines 28-40). The polymerization time, temperature, the particular initiator and its amount, presence or absence of chain-transfer agents can all be varied in conventional manner to obtain the desired degree of monomer conversion and molecular weight (bridging paragraph col. 1 to col. 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in art prior to the filing of present application to optimize the polymerization time, temperature, the particular initiator, chain-transfer agent to obtain the desired weight average molecular weight (such as 5 * 104 to 3 * 105, absent evidence to the contrary. Case laws holds that if there is no evidence in the record pointing to any critical significance in a claimed molecular weight then the claims are not patentable over the prior art. In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969).
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mikeš et al (Macromolecules, vol. 38, pp 4237-4245, Year: 2005)
Regarding claim 1, Mikeš et al disclose a perfluorinated monomer, perfluoro-2-methylene-4-methyl-1,3-dioxolane (PFMMD) and polymer obtained (poly(PFMMD) (abstract). PFMMD is represented by formula
PNG
media_image3.png
128
152
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(page 4239, scheme 1) and would result in unit of
PNG
media_image4.png
113
98
media_image4.png
Greyscale
wherein Rf2, Rf3, and Rf4 = fluorine atom and Rf1 is a linear perfluoroalkyl group having 1 carbon atom as in present claim 1.
Mikeš et al are silent with respect to heat-pressed molded product having a thickness of 1 mm and a haze value of 2% or less.
However, Mikeš et al teach a process wherein the polymers isolated are dissolved in HFB, then precipitated in chloroform and dried in vacuo (page 4240, col. 2, Section: Polymer Preparation, 2nd full paragraph). The polymers obtained were colorless and transparent. When the polymers were purified by precipitating the polymer solution into chloroform, they did not turn hazy when exposed to air for a long period of time and remained clear with a high UV-light transmittance (abstract). See Table 3, wherein the polymer no. 78, 83 and 84 have a molecular weight of 1.7 * 105, 2.6 * 105, and 2.5 * 105. Therefore, given that purified polymer of PFMMD did not turn hazy when exposed to air for a long period of time and remained clear with a high UV-light transmittance, is obtained by dissolving obtained polymer in solvent, filtering and precipitating in a poor solvent, and has weight average molecular weight as in present invention, one skilled in art prior to the filing of present application would have a reasonable basis to expect the heat-press molded resin product, of Mikeš et al, having a thickness of 1 mm to exhibit a haze value of 2.0% or less, absent evidence to the contrary. Since PTO cannot conduct experiments, the burden of proof is shifted to the applicants to establish an unobviousness difference, see In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 2, Mikeš et al teach a process wherein the polymers isolated are dissolved in HFB, then precipitated in chloroform and dried in vacuo (page 4240, col. 2, Section: Polymer Preparation, 2nd full paragraph). Therefore, given that polymers obtained are dissolved in HFB and filtered prior to precipitation to obtain a purified resin, one skilled in art prior to the filing of present application would have a reasonable basis to expect the insoluble matter to be present in amount of 0.2% by weight or less based on the resin, when dissolved in 1,1,1,2,3,4,4,5,5,5-decafluoro-3-methoxy-2-(trifluoromethyl)pentane, absent evidence to the contrary. Since PTO cannot conduct experiments, the burden of proof is shifted to the applicants to establish an unobviousness difference, see In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Mikeš et al teach a process wherein the polymers isolated are dissolved in HFB, then precipitated in chloroform and dried in vacuo (page 4240, col. 2, Section: Polymer Preparation, 2nd full paragraph). Therefore, given that polymers obtained are dissolved in HFB and filtered prior to precipitation, and dried in vacuo to obtain a purified resin in powdered form, one skilled in art prior to the filing of present application would have a reasonable basis to expect the poly(PFMMD) to have the presently claimed density (such as 0.1 g/cm3 to 1.5 g/cm3 of present claim 3 and 0.12 g/cm3 to 0.25 g/cm3 of present claim 4), absent evidence to the contrary. Since PTO cannot conduct experiments, the burden of proof is shifted to the applicants to establish an unobviousness difference, see In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 5, see Table 3, wherein the polymer no. 78, 83 and 84 have a molecular weight of 1.7 * 105, 2.6 * 105, and 2.5 * 105. Mikeš et al teach a process wherein the polymers isolated are dissolved in HFB, then precipitated in chloroform and dried in vacuo (page 4240, col. 2, Section: Polymer Preparation, 2nd full paragaph). Purified and dried polymers were clear and did not turn color even when exposed to air for a long period of time (page 4241, col. 1, first paragraph). Therefore, given that purified polymer is clear and did not turn color and is prepared by a substantially similar process of dissolving in good solvent, filtering, precipitating in a poor solvent and has a weight average molecular weight falling within the present claimed range, one skilled in art prior to the filing of present application would have a reasonable basis to expect heat-melted molded product, of Mikeš et al, after being heated for 24 h at 2800C and having a thickness of 3 mm, to exhibit a yellow index of 4 or less. Since PTO cannot conduct experiments, the burden of proof is shifted to the applicants to establish an unobviousness difference, see In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 6, see Table 2, wherein the polymer no. 78, 83 and 84 have a molecular weight of 1.7 * 105, 2.6 * 105, and 2.5 * 105, respectively.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARUNA P REDDY whose telephone number is (571)272-6566. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM M-F.
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.
/KARUNA P REDDY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights