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 .
Response to Amendment
The new grounds of rejection set forth below are necessitated by applicant’s amendment filed on June 29, 206. In particular, claim 6 is newly presented and requires new grounds of rejection. All other rejections remain the same. Thus, the following action is properly made final.
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) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kono et al (US 2011/0203830) in view of Bacino (US 2012/0064273).
Regarding claims 1-2 and 6, Kono teaches a copolymer which comprises a tetrafluoroethylene unit ([0055]) and a perfluoro (propyl vinyl ether) unit ([0058]). The perfluoro (propyl vinyl ether) unit is present in the amount from 0 to 10 wt. % ([0062]). Kono teaches that the copolymer has a melt flow rate from 1 to 50 g/10 min ([0066]) and has fewer than 20 per 106 carbon atoms of thermally unstable terminal groups which are terminal groups other than -CF3 ([0079]).
However, Kono fails to teach that the melt flow rate is at a temperature of 273 C.
Bacino teaches that melt flow rate is usually tested at 372 C ([0088]) via a standard test method for melt flow rates ([0088]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the melt flow rate of Kono to have been tested at the temperature as taught by Bacino. One would have been motivated to do so in order to receive the expected benefit of using a temperature that is part of the standard protocol for measuring melt flow index (Bacino, [0088]).
Regarding claim 3, Kono teaches an injection molded article comprising the copolymer according to claim 1 ([0092]).
Regarding claim 4, Kono teaches a coated electric wire comprising a coating layer comprising the copolymer according to claim 1 ([0092]).
Regarding claim 5, Kono teaches a formed article comprising the copolymer according to claim 1 wherein the formed article is an electric wire coating ([0092]).
Response to Arguments
The double patenting rejections set forth in paragraphs 5-10 in the office action mailed on February 27, 2026 are withdrawn in light of applicant’s terminal disclaimers filed on June 30, 2026.
Applicant's arguments filed June 29, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the reasons set forth below:
Applicant’s argument: Kono is very broad compared to claim 1 and Kono does not disclose regulating the PPVE, MFR and number of functional groups to fall within the claimed ranges – let alone for achieving the advantageous results.
Examiner’s response: While Kono does teach broader ranges which are larger than the recited ranges, nonetheless, Kono reads on the claimed invention as the ranges do overlap. It is noted that the advantageous results are not explicitly recited in the claimed invention and absent unexpected results (which are addressed below), Kono reads on all the limitations of the claimed invention and is appropriately used as prior art for the above rejections.
Applicant’s argument: There are no examples in Kono which fall within the scope of claim 1.
Examiner’s response: While Kono may not have an exemplified example, it does not obviate the more general teachings within the specification of the prior art.
Applicant’s argument: The presently claimed invention provides a polymer with many unexpected properties (applicants refer to paragraph and the Examples in the specification).
Examiner’s response: The examiner has considered the data presented in Table 4 of the specification. The data presented is not commensurate in scope with that of the claimed invention. For example, the polymer is open to other polymerizable units, namely such monomers like hexafluoropropylene, other perfluoro(alkyl vinyl ethers) and even other monomers which are not fluorinated. Also, there is no showing of the criticality of the 40 or less of the recited groups within the data set. Also the PPVE content and the MFR do not show the criticality of each parameter just above and below the claimed range. For example, would a copolymer with 3.8 % PPVE, 3.9 MFR and 41 units of the recited groups (which is outside the claimed range) behave unexpectedly poorer than a copolymer with 3.9 % PPVE, 4.0 MFR and 40 units of the recited groups (within the claimed range)? As applicants have not shown unexpected results over the entire scope of the claimed range, applicants’ argument is not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument: Kono neither discloses setting the PPVE unit content to “3.9 to 4.9% by mass” nor does it disclose the effects of the present invention (such as resistance to deterioration, ozone resistance, low permeability, etc.). Kono neither discloses setting the MFR to “4.0 to 9.0 g/10min” nor discloses the effects of the present invention that can be obtained by such an MFR range. Kono neither teaches nor suggests that the effects of the present invention can be obtained by the total number of the recited groups.
Examiner’s response: Kono teaches all the components of the recited copolymer (please refer to the above rejection). It is noted that the claims do not recite any of the effects as limitations within the claim and as the data is not commensurate in scope with that of the claimed invention, Kono is appropriated applied as prior art to the claimed invention.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DORIS L LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-3872. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am - 5 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, 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.
DORIS L. LEE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1764
/DORIS L LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights