DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed on 8/11/2026.
Claim(s) 19 were cancelled.
Claim(s) 36 have been added.
Claim(s) 15-18 and 20-36 are now pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or (a)(2) as anticipated by US20070009727 to Sawada et al.
Regarding Claim 36, Sawada teaches a mixture of polytetrafluoroethylene resins (A) and (B) [0071] (i.e., fluororesin composition) that is subjected to a molding process at a temperature not lower than the primary maximum endothermic peak temperature of the polytetrafluoroethylene resin [0082] wherein the method of molding can be compression molding [0104] (i.e., compression molding and firing) wherein the molded article is an antenna cover [0100] (i.e., casing). The fluororesin composition comprises polytetrafluoroethylene (B) [0072] that has a history of having been heated at the primary maximum endothermic peak temperature [0055] (i.e., fluororesin A having a history of being heated to melting point); particle (A) comprising polytetrafluoroethylene resin [0072] that has no history of having been heated to a temperature above the primary maximum endothermic peak temperature [0035] (i.e., fluororesin B having no history of being heated to a melting point thereof or higher); wherein components (A) and (B) are tetrafluroethylene [0039] and [0057] and component (A) comprises a minor component monomer other than TFE [0039] such as perfluoromethylethylene [0041] (i.e., modifying monomer).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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 15-18, 20-21, 23-24, 26-27, 29-30, 32-33, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or (a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US20070009727 to Sawada et al.
Regarding Claims 15 and 18, Sawada teaches a mixture of polytetrafluoroethylene resins (A) and (B) [0071] (i.e., fluororesin composition) comprising polytetrafluoroethylene (B) [0072] that has a history of having been heated at the primary maximum endothermic peak temperature [0055] (i.e., fluororesin A having a history of being heated to melting point); particle (A) comprising polytetrafluoroethylene resin [0072] that has no history of having been heated to a temperature above the primary maximum endothermic peak temperature [0035] (i.e., fluororesin B having no history of being heated to a melting point thereof or higher); wherein components (A) and (B) are tetrafluroethylene [0039] and [0057] and component (A) comprises a minor component monomer other than TFE [0039] such as perfluoromethylethylene [0041] (i.e., modifying monomer). Sawada further teaches this mixed polytetrafluoroethylene powder can be compression molded [0104].
Sawada is silent regarding the fluororesin composition having an apparent density of 0.40 g/ml or higher.
However, the mechanical property of apparent density is a function of the composition. Sawada teaches the same composition comprising fluororesin A, fluororesin B, and a modifying monomer set forth in the rejection above. Therefore, the mechanical properties of apparent density in the composition of Sawada will be the same mechanical properties as required by the instant claims. Case law has held that claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). The courts have stated that a chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655, (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430, (CCPA 1977). "Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established." Further, if it is the applicant's position that this would not be the case, evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant's position. In the alternative that the above disclosure is insufficient to anticipate the above listed claims, it would have nonetheless been obvious to the skilled artisan to produce the claimed composition, as the reference teaches each of the claimed ingredients within the claimed proportions for the same utility.
Regarding Claim 16, Sawada teaches the fluororesin composition of claim 15, wherein the amount of minor component monomer is 0.001 to 1 mole percent [0042] reading on the modifying monomer unit is 1.0% by mass or less of polymerized units.
Regarding Claim 17, Sawada teaches the fluororesin composition of claim 15, wherein B has a maximum endothermic peak of 327°C [0056] and A has a maximum endothermic peak of 337°C – 343°C [0035].
Regarding Claim, 20, 23, and 24, Sawada teaches the fluororesin composition of claim 15, as set forth above and incorporated herein by reference.
Sawada is silent regarding apparent density, angle of repose, tensile strength at break, and tensile strain at break.
However, the mechanical properties of angle of repose, tensile strength at break, and tensile strain at break are functions of the composition. Sawada teaches the same composition comprising fluororesin A, fluororesin B, and a modifying monomer set forth in the rejection above. Therefore, the mechanical properties of angle of repose, tensile strength at break, and tensile strain at break in the composition of Sawada will be the same mechanical properties as required by the instant claims. Case law has held that claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). The courts have stated that a chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655, (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430, (CCPA 1977). "Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established." Further, if it is the applicant's position that this would not be the case, evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant's position. In the alternative that the above disclosure is insufficient to anticipate the above listed claims, it would have nonetheless been obvious to the skilled artisan to produce the claimed composition, as the reference teaches each of the claimed ingredients within the claimed proportions for the same utility.
Regarding Claim 21, Sawada teaches the fluororesin composition of claim 15, wherein the polytetrafluoroethylene resin (B) obtained by mechanical grinding preferably has an average particle diameter not greater than 500 µm [0069].
Regarding Claim 26, Sawada teaches the fluororesin composition of claim 15, is subjected to a molding process at a temperature not lower than the primary maximum endothermic peak temperature of the polytetrafluoroethylene resin [0082] wherein the method of molding can be compression molding [0104].
Regarding Claim 27, Sawada teaches a mixture of polytetrafluoroethylene resins (A) and (B) [0071] (i.e., fluororesin composition) comprising polytetrafluoroethylene (B) [0072] that has a history of having been heated at the primary maximum endothermic peak temperature [0055] (i.e., fluororesin A having a history of being heated to melting point); particle (A) comprising polytetrafluoroethylene resin [0072] that has no history of having been heated to a temperature above the primary maximum endothermic peak temperature [0035] (i.e., fluororesin B having no history of being heated to a melting point thereof or higher); wherein components (A) and (B) are tetrafluroethylene [0039] and [0057] and component (A) comprises a minor component monomer other than TFE [0039] such as perfluoromethylethylene [0041] (i.e., modifying monomer).
Sawada is silent regarding the fluororesin composition having an apparent density of 0.40 g/ml or higher.
However, the mechanical properties of apparent density is a function of the composition. Sawada teaches the same composition comprising fluororesin A, fluororesin B, and a modifying monomer set forth in the rejection above. Therefore, the mechanical properties of apparent density in the composition of Sawada will be the same mechanical properties as required by the instant claims. Case law has held that claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). The courts have stated that a chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655, (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430, (CCPA 1977). "Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established." Further, if it is the applicant's position that this would not be the case, evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant's position. In the alternative that the above disclosure is insufficient to anticipate the above listed claims, it would have nonetheless been obvious to the skilled artisan to produce the claimed composition, as the reference teaches each of the claimed ingredients within the claimed proportions for the same utility.
Regarding Claim 29, Sawada teaches the fluororesin composition of claim 27, wherein the amount of minor component monomer is 0.001 to 1 mole percent [0042] of perfluoro(alkyl vinyl ether) [0041] reading on the modifying monomer unit is 1.0% by mass or less of perfluoro vinyl ether.
Regarding Claim 30, Sawada teaches the fluororesin composition of claim 27, that is molded into an insulated wire [0100] reading on heat-resistant electric wire.
Regarding Claim 32, Sawada teaches a mixture of polytetrafluoroethylene resins (A) and (B) [0071] (i.e., fluororesin composition) comprising polytetrafluoroethylene (B) [0072] that has a history of having been heated at the primary maximum endothermic peak temperature [0055] (i.e., fluororesin A having a history of being heated to melting point); resin (A) that is polytetrafluoroethylene resin [0072] that has no history of having been heated to a temperature above the primary maximum endothermic peak temperature [0035] (i.e., fluororesin B having no history of being heated to a melting point); wherein components (A) and (B) are tetrafluroethylene [0039] and [0057] and comprises a minor component monomer other than TFE [0039] such as perfluoromethylethylene [0041] (i.e., modifying monomer).
Sawada is silent regarding the fluororesin composition having an apparent density of 0.40 g/ml or higher.
However, the mechanical properties of apparent density is a function of the composition. Sawada teaches the same composition comprising fluororesin A, fluororesin B, and a modifying monomer set forth in the rejection above. Therefore, the mechanical properties of apparent density in the composition of Sawada will be the same mechanical properties as required by the instant claims. Case law has held that claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). The courts have stated that a chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655, (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430, (CCPA 1977). "Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established." Further, if it is the applicant's position that this would not be the case, evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant's position. In the alternative that the above disclosure is insufficient to anticipate the above listed claims, it would have nonetheless been obvious to the skilled artisan to produce the claimed composition, as the reference teaches each of the claimed ingredients within the claimed proportions for the same utility.
Regarding Claim 33, Sawada teaches the fluororesin composition of claim 27, wherein the polytetrafluoroethylene resin (B) obtained by mechanical grinding preferably has an average particle diameter not greater than 500 µm [0069].
Regarding Claim 35, Sawada teaches the fluororesin composition of claim 27, wherein the fluororesin is pulverized [0213].
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.
Claims 22 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2007/0009727 to Sawada et al. in view of EP1452571 to Dadalas et al.
Regarding Claim 22, Sawada teaches the fluororesin composition of claim 15 as set forth above and incorporated herein by reference.
Sawada is silent regarding the fluororesin composition contains a low molecular weight fluorine-containing compound in an amount of 1ppm by mass or less.
However, Dadalas teaches fluoropolymer dispersions containing no or little low molecular weight fluorinated surfactant [title] in an amount of not more than 0.05% by weight based on the total weight solids [0011] reading on 1 ppm by mass or less. Sawada and Dadalas are analogous art as they are from the same field of endeavor, namely PTFE compositions.
Before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to reduce the amount of low molecular weight fluorinated compounds in Sawada’s composition, as taught by Dadalas.
The motivation would have been that low molecular weight fluorinated compounds have raised environmental concerns. Accordingly, measures have been taken to either completely eliminate the fluorinated low molecular weight surfactants from aqueous dispersion or at least to minimize the amount thereof in an aqueous dispersion [0005, Dadalas].
Regarding Claim 28, Sawada teaches the fluororesin composition of claim 27 as set forth above and incorporated herein by reference.
Sawada is silent regarding the fluororesin composition contains a low molecular weight fluorine-containing compound in an amount of 1ppm by mass or less.
However, Dadalas teaches fluoropolymer dispersions containing no or little low molecular weight fluorinated surfactant [title] in an amount of not more than 0.05% by weight based on the total weight solids [0011] reading on 1 ppm by mass or less. Sawada and Dadalas are analogous art as they are from the same field of endeavor, namely PTFE compositions.
Before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to reduce the amount of low molecular weight fluorinated compounds in Sawada’s composition, as taught by Dadalas.
The motivation would have been that low molecular weight fluorinated compounds have raised environmental concerns. Accordingly, measures have been taken to either completely eliminate the fluorinated low molecular weight surfactants from aqueous dispersion or at least to minimize the amount thereof in an aqueous dispersion [0005, Dadalas].
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2007/0009727 to Sawada et al.
Regarding Claim 31 , Sawada teaches a mixture of polytetrafluoroethylene resins (A) and (B) [0071] (i.e., fluororesin composition) comprising polytetrafluoroethylene (B) [0072] that has a maximum endothermic peak temperature [0055] of 327°C [0056] (i.e., fluororesin A having a melting point of not lower than 100°C but lower than 333°C); resin (A) that is polytetrafluoroethylene resin [0072] that has a maximum endothermic peak temperature [0035] of 337°C – 343°C [0035] (i.e., fluororesin B having a melting point of 100-360°C); wherein components (A) and (B) are tetrafluroethylene [0039] and [0057] and component (A) comprises a minor component monomer other than TFE [0039] such as perfluoromethylethylene [0041] (i.e., modifying monomer) wherein resins (A) is non-melt-processible [0039] and (A) and (B) have the same constituents [0057] (i.e., non melt flowable fluororesin A and B)
Sawada is silent regarding the fluororesin composition having an apparent density of 0.40 g/ml or higher.
However, the mechanical properties of apparent density is a function of the composition. Sawada teaches the same composition comprising fluororesin A, fluororesin B, and a modifying monomer set forth in the rejection above. Therefore, the mechanical properties of apparent density in the composition of Sawada will be the same mechanical properties as required by the instant claims. Case law has held that claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). The courts have stated that a chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655, (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430, (CCPA 1977). "Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established." Further, if it is the applicant's position that this would not be the case, evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant's position. In the alternative that the above disclosure is insufficient to anticipate the above listed claims, it would have nonetheless been obvious to the skilled artisan to produce the claimed composition, as the reference teaches each of the claimed ingredients within the claimed proportions for the same utility.
Though the prior art melting point range is not identical to the claimed range (100-360°C), it does overlap. It has been held that, where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPG 90 (CCPA 1976) (MPEP 2144.05).
Claims 25 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20070009727 to Sawada et al. in view of US 6,350,801 to Asano et al.
Regarding Claim 25, Sawada teaches the fluororesin composition of claim 15, as set forth above and incorporated herein by reference.
Sawada is silent regarding the composition further comprising a filler.
However, Asano teaches a polytetrafluoroethylene powder containing filler [Asano, abstract] wherein the PTFE powder and the filler in water are mixed [Asano, Col 1, L47-50]. Sawada and Asano are analogous art as they are from the same field of endeavor, namely PTFE compositions.
Before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add Asano’s filler to Sawada’s composition, thereby arriving at the claimed invention.
The motivation would have been that granulating with filler obtains a granular powder that is more excellent in powder characteristics and physical properties [Col 1, L54-57].
Regarding Claim 34, Sawada teaches the fluororesin composition of claim 27, as set forth above as incorporated herein by reference, wherein PTFE resin lumps are pulverized [Sawada, 0213].
Sawada is silent regarding the pulverization using at least one pulverizer selected from an air jet mill, hammer mill, a force mill, and a millstone pulverizer.
However, Asano teaches a pulverizing machine such as a hammer mill and a jet mill [Asano, Col 5, L5-8]. Sawada and Asano are analogous art as they are from the same field of endeavor, namely fluororesins.
Before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use Asano’s hammer mill with Sawada’s method, thereby arriving at the claimed invention.
The motivation would have been that it has been held that it is obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use. See Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945); In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960); and MPEP 2144.07. In the instant case, Asano shows that a hammer mill is known in the art to be suitable for pulverization.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to applicant’s argument regarding overcoming the conventional problem of degraded physical properties when reusing heated PTFE, these arguments are not found persuasive, as the discussion does not clearly link the conventional problem of degraded physical properties to the claimed subject matter, prior art, and/or rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Applicant states Sawada does not disclose apparent density values for the mixed powder and is thus further distinguished. Applicant further states citation [0130] and the examples of instant specification are achieved by mixing under specific conditions, wherein Sawada does not disclose mixing conditions.
In response, attention is drawn to the updated rejection of claims 15, 27, 31, and 33 wherein Sawada teaches the same composition of the instant claims, therefore teaching that the claimed density is inherently present in Sawada’s composition.
Regarding the mixing conditions, Case law has held that the process does not determine patentability, because the claim is drawn to the product (fluororesin composition). "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." (In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964,966). Once the Examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious different between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983), MPEP 2113.
Furthermore, instant specification [0130] and the examples of instant specification do not fairly suggest Sawada’s composition would not have the instantly claimed apparent density.
For these reasons, Applicant's arguments are not persuasive.
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 DEVIN MITCHELL DARLING whose telephone number is (703)756-5411. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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.
/DEVIN MITCHELL DARLING/Examiner, Art Unit 1764 /ARRIE L REUTHER/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights