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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s species election of the instant specification Example 1 metal compound of boron, compound (2) of 2,2,3,3-tetrafluorobutane-1,4-diol, compound (3) of 2,2,3,3-tetrafluoro-1,4-dimethoxybutane-1,4-diol, and compound (4) of methyl 2,2,3,3-tetrafluoro-4-oxobutanate in the reply filed on 08 July 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse, see MPEP § 818.01(a). Claims 1-7 are herein examined on the merits.
Elected Species - Free of Prior Art
As elected by applicants in the response to the species restriction requirement filed on 08 July 2026, the species of a composition comprising the metal compound boron, compound (2) is 2,2,3,3-tetrafluorobutane-1,4-diol, compound (3) is 2,2,3,3-tetrafluoro-1,4-dimethoxybutane-1,4-diol, and compound (4) is methyl 2,2,3,3-tetrafluoro-4-oxobutanate, appears to be free of prior art. This species reads on claim 1-7.
The closest prior art is Geiculescu et al. (US20120328938, published 27 December 2012) teaching “fluorinated chelated orthoborate anions are prepared and used as electrolytes or electrolyte additives in lithium-ion batteries”, see Abstract, where “[p]articles of LiBFBDB may be prepared from a particulate mixture of boric acid (H3BO3), lithium hydroxide (LiOH), and 2,2,3,3-tetrafluoro-1,4-butane-diol, as shown by Reaction 1”, see Paras. [0037]-[0040], meeting a composition containing compound (2) is 2,2,3,3-tetrafluoro-1,4-butane-diol and a metal compound is boron in instant application claim 1.
Geiculescu et al. do not teach the instant application claim 1 limitations of at least one selected from the group consisting of a compound (3) as 2,2,3,3-tetrafluoro-1,4-dimethoxybutane-1,4-diol and a compound (4) as methyl 2,2,3,3-tetrafluoro-4-oxobutanate, the compound (3) being contained in an amount of 10000 ppm or less relative to the compound (2), the compound (4) being contained in an amount of 10000 ppm or less relative to the compound (2).
Species Search Extension
As per MPEP 803.02C.2., the herein search and examination is extended to the non-elected species or group of species that falls within the scope of a proper Markush grouping that includes the elected species. The herein search is extended to the instant application claim 1 variables of:
The metal is boron;
Compound (2), as 2,2,3,3-tetrafluorobutane-1,4-diol, or as formula (15) below
PNG
media_image1.png
164
906
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Compound (3), as 2,2,3,3,4,4,4-Heptafluorobutane-1,1-diol, where A3, B3, and D3 are each F, C3 is formula (F) C2F4CH(OH)2 where X, Y, and Z are each F, n is 1, R2 is hydrogen; and,
Compound (4), as 2,2,3,3,4,4,4-Heptafluorobutanal, where A4, B4, and D4 are each F, C4 is formula (H) C2F4CHO, where X, Y, and Z are each F, and n is 1.
Accordingly, claims 1-7 are herein examined on the merits with the above extended species.
Priority
This application is a Continuation of PCT/JP2022/17520 which claims the benefit of JP 2021-079979 with an effective filing date of 10 May 2021 as reflected in the filing receipt mailed on 01 February 2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
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.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bulinski et al. (US20170198186, published 13 July 2017, hereinafter Bulinski) in view of Husted et al. (US2568501, patented 18 September 1951, hereinafter Husted).
Regarding the limitations of instant application claim 1, Bulinski teaches “new working fluids exhibiting further reductions in environmental impact and toxicity”, “which can meet the performance requirements of a variety of different applications, and be manufactured cost-effectively” containing a “hydrofluoroether compound”, see Abstract; Para. [0008], where the “hydrofluoroether compound” is made by reaction with alcohols, such as “C3F7CH2OH, (CF3)2CHOH, HCF2CF2CH2OH, H(CF2CF2)2CH2OH, H(CF2CF2)3CH2OH, CF3CFHCF2CH2OH, CF3CFHCF2CH(CH3)OH, C4F9CH2CH2OH, C6F13CH2CH2OH, C8F17CH2CH2OH, C4F9OCH2CH2OH, HOCH2CF2CF2CH2OH” aka ““2,2,3,3-tetrafluorobutane-1,4-diol” “or the like” and combinations thereof, see Paras. [0042]-[0046];[0187]-[0188], in the presence of a metal salt, see Paras. [0036]-[0041].
Bulinski teaches the “hydrofluoroether compounds can be utilized alone or in admixture with each other or with other commonly-used cleaning solvents, e.g., alcohols, ethers, alkanes, alkenes, perfluorocarbons, perfluorinated tertiary amines, perfluoroethers, cycloalkanes, esters, ketones, aromatics, siloxanes, hydrochlorocarbons, hydrochlorofluorocarbons, hydrofluorocarbons, or mixtures thereof”, see Paras. [0079]-[0084], and in “electrolyte compositions” comprising “(a) a solvent composition including one or more of the hydrofluoroether olefin compounds; and (b) at least one electrolyte salt”, see Paras. [0089]-[0094], where surfactants are present in each composition, such as fluorinated surfactants, see Paras. [0081];[0083]-[0084];[0094], the electrolyte metal salts are “fluorine-containing and nonfluorinated tetraarylborates”, such as “lithium tetrafluoroborate”, see Paras. [0090]-[0092], and the solvent is “one or more conventional” solvents “mixed with the hydrofluoroether compound(s)”, such as “organic and fluorine-containing” solvents, see Paras. [0043]-[0045];[0082];[0092]-[0094], i.e., a variety of combinations of fluorinated alcohols, ethers, esters, ketones, etc. are used in the differing compositions of the invention as alcohols, solvents, and surfactants, meeting:
Instant application claim 1 compound (2), as 2,2,3,3-tetrafluorobutane-1,4-diol aka HOCH2CF2CF2CH2OH, where HOCH2CF2 is A2 as formula (D) where n is 0 and Z is F, CF2 is B2 and D2 both as F, CH2OH is C2 as formula (C); and,
The first claimed proviso selected combination of A2 to D2 in instant application claim 1, where A2 as formula (D), C2 as formula (C), and B2 and D2 both are F.
Regarding the limitations of instant application claims 1 and 4-7, instant application claim 1 states “at least one selected from the group consisting of a compound (3) and a compound (4)” and all of the above instant application claims state an amount of compound (3) or compound (4) is “ppm or less”. The “or less” implies a lower limit of zero and the “at least one” implies the composition comprised either compound (3) or compound (4). As stated above, Bulinski teaches a variety of combinations of fluorinated alcohols, ethers, esters, ketones, etc. are used in the differing compositions of the invention as alcohols, solvents, and surfactants. The alcohol solvents, such as compound 2, as 2,2,3,3-tetrafluorobutane-1,4-diol aka HOCH2CF2CF2CH2OH, “are mixed with the hydrofluoroether compound(s) (for example, such that the hydrofluoroether(s) constitute from about 1 to about 80 or 90 percent of the resulting solvent composition)”, see Para. [0094], as calculated by the examiner from about 99 to about 10 percent of solvent in the electrolyte. The “working fluids may include at least 25%, at least 50%, at least 70%, at least 80%, at least 90%, at least 95%, or at least 99% by weight of the above-described hydrofluoroether compounds based on the total weight of the working fluid. In addition to the hydrofluoroether compounds, the working fluids may include a total of up to 75%, up to 50%, up to 30%, up to 20%, up to 10%, or up to 5% by weight of one or more of the following components: alcohols, ethers, alkanes, alkenes, perfluorocarbons, perfluorinated tertiary amines, perfluoroethers, cycloalkanes, esters, ketones, oxiranes, aromatics, siloxanes, hydrochlorocarbons, hydrochlorofluorocarbons, hydrofluorocarbons, hydrofluoroolefins, hydrochlorofluoroolefins, hydrofluoroethers, or mixtures thereof, based on the total weight of the working fluid, i.e., “up to” implies from 0 to 5 wt.%, see Para. [0046]. Surfactants are “added in amounts from 0.1 to 5.0 wt. % or from 0.2 to 2.0 wt. %” of the working fluid, see Paras. [0081];[0084];[0094], as calculated by the examiner 0.1 wt.% is 1000 ppm, i.e., a compound (3) and/or compound (4) may be added as an alcohol, a solvent, and/or a surfactant, meeting:
A compound (3) and/or compound (4) added as an alcohol, a solvent, and/or a surfactant from within the range of 0 to 1000 ppm in instant application claim 1, in instant application claim 4, in instant application claim 5, in instant application claim 6, and in instant application claim 7.
Regarding the limitations of instant application claims 2 and 3, Bulinski teaches “a concentration such that the conductivity of the electrolyte composition is at or near its maximum value (typically, for example, at a Li molar concentration of around 0.1-4.0 M, or 1.0-2.0 M, for electrolytes for lithium batteries), although a wide range of other concentrations may also be employed”, see Para. [0093], as calculated by the examiner, 0.1M of lithium is 700 ppm or 0.07% and 0.1M of boron is 1100 ppm or 0.11% in the total electrolyte solution. The alcohol solvents, such as compound 2, as 2,2,3,3-tetrafluorobutane-1,4-diol aka HOCH2CF2CF2CH2OH, “are mixed with the hydrofluoroether compound(s) (for example, such that the hydrofluoroether(s) constitute from about 1 to about 80 or 90 percent of the resulting solvent composition)”, see Para. [0094], as calculated by the examiner from about 99 to about 10 percent of solvent in the electrolyte equates to 0.07% metal to 0.007% or 70 ppm lithium metal as compared to the diol solvent, meeting:
Within the metal component amount in the metal compound in instant application claim 2 and in instant application claim 3.
Bulinski does not teach:
The instant application claims 1 and 4-7 limitations of the composition including at least one of the specific structures of compound (3) or compound (4).
Husted is in the known prior art field of “a new and useful class of reactive non-cyclic fluorocarbon ester compounds having novel properties”, such as “surface-active properties” “and their use as blending and plasticizing agents”, see Col. 1, Lns. 7-51; Col. 2, Ln. 50-Col. 3, Ln. 60.
Regarding the limitations of instant application claims 1 and 4-7, Husted teaches “n-heptafluorobutyraldehydrol” “and n-heptafluorobutyraldehyde”,
PNG
media_image2.png
299
351
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
256
302
media_image3.png
Greyscale
, see Col. 2, Ln. 50-Col. 3, Ln. 60; Col. 5, Ln. 39-Col. 6, Ln. 63, meeting:
Instant application claim 1 compound (3), as 2,2,3,3,4,4,4-Heptafluorobutane-1,1-diol, where A3, B3, and D3 are each F, C3 is formula (F) C2F4CH(OH)2 where X, Y, and Z are each F, n is 1, R2 is hydrogen;
Instant application claim 1 compound (4), as 2,2,3,3,4,4,4-Heptafluorobutanal, where A4, B4, and D4 are each F, C4 is formula (H) C2F4CHO, where X, Y, and Z are each F, and n is 1; and,
Compound (3) and/or compound (4) in instant application claim 4, in instant application claim 5, in instant application claim 6, and in instant application claim 7.
In reference to the above claims, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the fluorinated surfactants of Bulinski to use the surface active non-cyclic fluorocarbon ester compounds as taught by Husted with a reasonable predictability of success for the purpose of efficiently producing a composition containing fluoropolymers, fluoroesters, and fluoroalcohols that are “partly soluble and partly insoluble” in phases in order to optimize the “surface-active properties” of the composition by using the blending properties of non-cyclic fluorocarbon ester compounds, see Husted, Col. 1, Lns. 7-51; Col. 2, Ln. 50-Col. 3, Ln. 60.
A rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. Another rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of modifying the fluorinated surfactants of Bulinski by applying the known technique of the surface active non-cyclic fluorocarbon ester compounds as taught by Husted with a reasonable predictability of success for the purpose of efficiently producing a composition containing fluoropolymers, fluoroesters, and fluoroalcohols that are “partly soluble and partly insoluble” in phases in order to optimize the “surface-active properties” of the composition by using the blending properties of non-cyclic fluorocarbon ester compounds; and MPEP 2143 I. B-D.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense”, see MPEP 2143 I.E. Since patents are part of the literature of the prior art relevant for all they contain, see MPEP 2123, and Bulinski and Husted both teach the use of surface active non-cyclic fluorocarbon ester compounds, a person of ordinary skill in the art has good reason to modify Bulinski by relying upon Husted before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for knowledge generally available within the non-cyclic fluorocarbon ester compounds art regarding the selection of the desired ester, see MPEP 2143 B & G and 2141, for the benefit of efficiently producing a composition containing fluoropolymers, fluoroesters, and fluoroalcohols that are “partly soluble and partly insoluble” in phases in order to optimize the “surface-active properties” of the composition by using the blending properties of non-cyclic fluorocarbon ester compounds; and, MPEP 2141 and 2143 I. B-D.
Furthermore, an “obvious to try” rationale may support a conclusion that a claim would have been obvious where one skilled in the art is choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, see MPEP 2145 X.B. Since Bulinski and Husted both teach the use of surface active non-cyclic fluorocarbon ester compounds, the prior art contains “detailed enabling methodology, a suggestion to modify the prior art to produce the claimed invention, and evidence suggesting the modification would be successful”, see MPEP 2145 X.B.; therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to try the surface active non-cyclic fluorocarbon ester compounds of Husted in the compositions of Bulinski as surfactants.
As stated in Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 189 USPQ 449, reh’g denied, 426 U.S. 955 (1976), “[w]hen a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability. For the same reason, if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill”, see MPEP 2141.
In addition, “[t]he normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is
already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set
of percentage ranges”, such as the concentration of the differing compounds, “is the optimum combination of percentages.” In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969), see MPEP 2144.05.
Selection of a known material, such as surface active non-cyclic fluorocarbon ester compounds, based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), see MPEP 2144.07.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tatsuya et al. (JP2014227421, published 08 December 2014, see Original and Machine Translation, hereinafter Tatsuya) in view of Husted et al. (US2568501, patented 18 September 1951, hereinafter Husted).
Regarding the limitations of instant application claim 1, Tatsuya teaches “a method for producing an aqueous perfluororubber dispersion, characterized by producing an aqueous dispersion containing perfluororubber particles by polymerizing a fluoromonomer in an aqueous medium in the presence of a fluorine-containing surfactant with a LogPOW of 3.4 or less and a polymerization initiator”, see Abstract; Para. [0007];
The fluoromonomer is “represented by general formula (15):”
PNG
media_image1.png
164
906
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, “wherein m is an integer from 0 to 5, n is an integer from 1 to 3, and” X6 “is a cyano group, a carboxyl group, an alkoxycarbonyl group, an iodine atom, a bromine atom, or” -CH2OH, see Translation and Original, Para. [0048], meeting:
Instant application claim 1 compound 2 where CH2=CFCF2O is A2 that is a C3 hydrocarbon with multiple bonds and an ether bond, m is 0, n is 1, CF where B2 is fluorine, (CF3) where D2 is a C1 hydrocarbon with hydrogen atoms replaced by fluorine, X6 is C2 which is -CH2OH formula C;
The last claimed proviso selected combination of A2 to D2 in instant application claim 1, where C2 is formula C, B2 is fluorine, A2 and D2 are both hydrocarbons;
The initiator is a “water-soluble radical polymerization initiator”, such as “perboric acid” and other metal salts, see Para. [0059], meeting:
The composition including a metal, such as boron, and the compound (2) in instant application claim 1;
The fluorine-containing surfactant is “at least one selected from” variety of surfactants as long as the surfactant is a short-chain fluorine containing surfactant, such as a surfactant with a chain shorter than ammonium perfluorooctanoate, C8HF15O2.H3N, see Abstract; Paras. [0012]-[0014];[0034]-[0036]; therefore, the surfactant may be a mixture of instantly claimed compound (3) and/or compound (4); and,
Instant application claim 1 states “at least one selected from the group consisting of a compound (3) and a compound (4)” and all of the above instant application claims state an amount of compound (3) or a compound (4) is “ppm or less”. The “or less” implies a lower limit of zero and the “at least one” implies the composition comprised either compound (3) or compound (4), as stated above, Tatsuya teaches the “fluorine-containing surfactant” may be a mixture of instantly claimed compound (3) and/or compound (4) in an amount of “equivalent to 2,000 to 500,000 ppm of the aqueous medium”, see Paras. [0038];[0086]; Claim 7, i.e. the aqueous medium containing 2000 pm of surfactant and the monomer, meeting:
Within the range of the amount of compound (3) and/or compound (4) in instant application claim 1.
Regarding the limitations of instant application claims 2 and 3, Tatsuya teaches “[t]here are no particular limitations on the amount of polymerization initiator to be added, but it is sufficient to add an amount that does not significantly reduce the polymerization rate (for example, a few ppm relative to water concentration) in a lump sum at the beginning of polymerization, or sequentially or continuously”, see Paras. [0059]-[0060], meeting within the range of a few ppm of the metal component in instant application claim 2 and in instant application claim 3.
Tatsuya does not teach:
The instant application claim 1 limitations of the composition including at least one of the specific structures of compound (3) and/or compound (4).
Husted is in the known prior art field of “a new and useful class of reactive non-cyclic fluorocarbon ester compounds having novel properties”, such as “surface-active properties” “and their use as blending and plasticizing agents”, see Col. 1, Lns. 7-51; Col. 2, Ln. 50-Col. 3, Ln. 60.
Regarding the limitations of instant application claim 1, Husted teaches “n-heptafluorobutyraldehydrol” “and n-heptafluorobutyraldehyde”,
PNG
media_image2.png
299
351
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
256
302
media_image3.png
Greyscale
, see Col. 2, Ln. 50-Col. 3, Ln. 60; Col. 5, Ln. 39-Col. 6, Ln. 63, meeting:
Instant application claim 1 compound 3, as 2,2,3,3,4,4,4-Heptafluorobutane-1,1-diol, where A3, B3, and D3 are each F, C3 is formula (F) C2F4CH(OH)2 where X, Y, and Z are each F, n is 1, R2 is hydrogen; and,
Instant application claim 1 compound 4, as 2,2,3,3,4,4,4-Heptafluorobutanal, where A4, B4, and D4 are each F, C4 is formula (H) C2F4CHO, where X, Y, and Z are each F, and n is 1.
In reference to the above claims, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the fluorinated surfactants of Tatsuya to use the surface active non-cyclic fluorocarbon ester compounds as taught by Husted with a reasonable predictability of success for the purpose of efficiently producing a composition containing fluoropolymers, fluoroesters, and fluoroalcohols that are “partly soluble and partly insoluble” in phases in order to optimize the “surface-active properties” of the composition by using the blending properties of non-cyclic fluorocarbon ester compounds, see Husted, Col. 1, Lns. 7-51; Col. 2, Ln. 50-Col. 3, Ln. 60.
A rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. Another rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of modifying the fluorinated surfactants of Tatsuya by applying the known technique of the surface active non-cyclic fluorocarbon ester compounds as taught by Husted with a reasonable predictability of success for the purpose of efficiently producing a composition containing fluoropolymers, fluoroesters, and fluoroalcohols that are “partly soluble and partly insoluble” in phases in order to optimize the “surface-active properties” of the composition by using the blending properties of non-cyclic fluorocarbon ester compounds; and MPEP 2143 I. B-D.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense”, see MPEP 2143 I.E. Since patents are part of the literature of the prior art relevant for all they contain, see MPEP 2123, and Tatsuya and Husted both teach the use of surface active non-cyclic fluorocarbon compounds, a person of ordinary skill in the art has good reason to modify Tatsuya by relying upon Husted before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for knowledge generally available within the non-cyclic fluorocarbon ester compounds art regarding the selection of the desired ester, see MPEP 2143 B & G and 2141, for the benefit of efficiently producing a composition containing fluoropolymers, fluoroesters, and fluoroalcohols that are “partly soluble and partly insoluble” in phases in order to optimize the “surface-active properties” of the composition by using the blending properties of non-cyclic fluorocarbon ester compounds; and, MPEP 2141 and 2143 I. B-D.
Furthermore, an “obvious to try” rationale may support a conclusion that a claim would have been obvious where one skilled in the art is choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, see MPEP 2145 X.B. Since Tatsuya and Husted both teach the use of surface active non-cyclic fluorocarbon compounds, the prior art contains “detailed enabling methodology, a suggestion to modify the prior art to produce the claimed invention, and evidence suggesting the modification would be successful”, see MPEP 2145 X.B.; therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to try the surface active non-cyclic fluorocarbon ester compounds of Husted in the compositions of Tatsuya as surfactants.
As stated in Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 189 USPQ 449, reh’g denied, 426 U.S. 955 (1976), “[w]hen a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability. For the same reason, if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill”, see MPEP 2141.
In addition, “[t]he normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is
already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set
of percentage ranges”, such as the concentration of the differing compounds, “is the optimum combination of percentages.” In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969), see MPEP 2144.05.
Selection of a known material, such as surface active non-cyclic fluorocarbon ester compounds, based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), see MPEP 2144.07.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Y. Lynnette Kelly-O'Neill whose telephone number is (571) 270-3456. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday-Friday, 8:30 a.m. - 6:30 p.m., EST, with Flex Time.
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, Scarlett Yen-Ye Goon can be reached at (571) 270-5241. 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.
/YO/Examiner, Art Unit 1692
/FEREYDOUN G SAJJADI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1699
Prosecution Insights