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 .
Claims filed 11/27/2023 are made of record. Claims 1-10 are currently pending in the application.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “other monomer other than the tetrafluoroethylene” (line 2). The use of “other” twice is redundant. Applicant is advised to rephrase it as “monomer other than the tetrafluoroethylene”.
Claim 1 recites “to produce a fluorinated copolymer in the presence of a hydroperoxide, at least one selected from the group consisting of a sulfite, a hydrogen sulfite, a dithionite and a metabisulfite, at least one selected from the group consisting of an acidic substance and a substance that generates an acid by hydrolysis, and an aqueous medium” (lines 3-6). For clarity, applicant is advised to use different punctuation marks between groups and elements within a group such as “to produce a fluorinated copolymer in the presence of a hydroperoxide; at least one selected from the group consisting of a sulfite, a hydrogen sulfite, a dithionite and a metabisulfite; at least one selected from the group consisting of an acidic substance and a substance that generates an acid by hydrolysis; and an aqueous medium”.
Claims 2-10 recite “The method” (line 1) while independent claim 1 recites “A process”. While “process” and “method” imply the same, for consistency within the claims, applicant is advised to replace either “A process” with “A method” or “The method” with “The process”.
Claim 3 recites “the other monomer” (line 2). In light of the amendment suggested to claim 1, applicant is advised to rephrase this as “the monomer other than the tetrafluoroethylene”.
Appropriate correction and/or clarification 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 1-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chernysheva et al (US 2020/0123293 A1).
Regarding claims 1, Chernysheva et al disclose, in example 3, a method of preparing PVDF polymer comprising polymerizing VDF in the presence of ethyl acetate (i.e., reads on a substance that generates an acid by hydrolysis in present claim 1), t-butyl hydroperoxide (i.e., reads on hydroperoxide in present claim 1) in demineralized water (paragraphs 0122-0123) which reads on aqueous medium in present claim 1.
Chernysheva et al fails to disclose as in present claims, a method comprising polymerizing tetrafluoroethylene and other monomers in the presence of sulfite.
However, Chernysheva et al teach that the polymer may be copolymer comprising VDF and recurring units derived from at least one further perfluorinated monomer (paragraph 0025) which reads on the other monomer in present claim 1. Non limitative examples of suitable monomers include C2-C8 perfluoroolefins such as tetrafluorothylene (paragraph 0028) which reads on tetrafluoroethylene in the present claim 1. The redox initiating system comprises at least one organic radical initiator and at least one composition CS comprising at least one compound bearing at least one sulfinic acid group (paragraph 0057). Preferably CS composition further comprises a sulphurous acid or salt thereof such as sodium sulphite (paragraph 0070) which reads on the sulfite in present claim 1. Therefore, in light of the teachings in general disclosure of Chernysheva et al, it would have been obvious to one skilled in art prior to the filing of present application to prepare a copolymer comprising tetrafluoroethylene and other monomer such as VDF in the presence of hydroperoxide, preferred sulfite, and ethyl acetate in an aqueous medium, absent evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claim 2, see example 3, of Chernysheva et al, wherein t-butyl hydroperoxide is used in the preparation of fluoropolymer (paragraphs 0122-0123) which reads on hydroperoxide represented by formula X, wherein Rx1, Rx2 and Rx3 = C1-alkyl group in present claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, Chernysheva et al teach examples of suitable monomers include recurring units derived from at least one hydrogenated monomer including ethylene (paragraphs 0035-0036).
Regarding claim 4, see example 3, of Chernysheva et al, wherein ethyl acetate is used in the preparation of fluoropolymer (paragraphs 0122-0123) which reads on compound of formula A, wherein Ra1, Ra2, Ra3, Ra4, and Ra5 = hydrogen atom and Ra6 = alkyl group in present claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, see example 3, wherein t-butyl hydroperoxide is added as a 2.2 wt% solution in demineralized water (paragraph 0123). Based on total amount of demineralized water in the process of preparing fluoropolymer, amount of hydroperoxide is calculated to be about 0.15 wt% based on entire mass of the aqueous medium (i.e., reads on amount of hydroperoxide in present claim 5). Additionally, Chernysheva et al teach that organic radical initiator is used at a concentration of 0.001 to 20 wt% based on the total weight of polymerization medium (paragraph 0059) which overlaps with the amount of hydroperoxide in present claim 5. Case law holds that when the range of instant claims and that disclosed in prior art overlap, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 6, see example 3, wherein Bruggolite® is added at 1.5 wt% in demineralized water (paragraph 0123). Based on the total amount of demineralized water in the process of preparing fluoropolymer, amount of Bruggolite® is calculated to be about 0.010 wt%. The composition CS comprises sodium sulfite in amounts of from 20 wt% to 40 wt% based on the total weight of CS composition which includes Bruggolite® as compound S (see paragraph 0057, 0070-0072, and 0077). Hence, based on total amount of demineralized water in the process of preparing fluoropolymer, amount of sodium sulfite is calculated to be about 0.002 to 0.004 wt% based on total mass of the aqueous medium (i.e., reads on the amount of sulfite in present claim 6).
Regarding claim 7, see example 3, wherein ethyl acetate is added as a 5.6 wt% solution in demineralized water (paragraph 0123). Based on the total amount of demineralized water in the process of preparing fluoropolymer, amount of ethyl acetate (a substance that generates acid upon hydrolysis) is calculated to be about 0.38 wt% based on entire mass of the aqueous medium (i.e., reads on amount of a substance that generates acid upon hydrolysis in present claim 7).
Regarding claim 8, Chernysheva et al teach that preferably CS composition further comprises a sulphurous acid or salt thereof such as sodium sulphite (paragraph 0070) which reads on sodium sulfite in present claim 8.
Regarding claim 10, Chernysheva et al teach that method comprises the use of further ingredients known in the art such as surfactants (paragraph 0078) which reads on emulsifier in present claim 10.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chernysheva et al (US 2020/0123293 A1) in view of .Higuchi et al (EP 3 786 203 A1).
The discussion with respect to Chernysheva et al in paragraph 8 above is incorporated here by reference.
Chernysheva et al are silent with respect to polyalkylene oxide.
However, Higuchi et al in the same field of endeavor teach a method for producing modified polytetrafluoroethylene in which formation of a fluorinated oligomer as a by-product is little. The method comprises conducing copolymerization in an aqueous medium comprising polyalkylene oxide compound, hydrocarbon surfactant, and an oxidizing agent (abstract). The polyalkylene oxide is a compound for forming nuclei at the time of polymerization of TFE and corresponds to a nucleation additive (paragraph 0139). The formation of a fluorinated oligomer is suppressed (paragraph 0143). Therefore, in light of the teachings in Higuchi et al, it would have been obvious to one skilled in art prior to the filing of present application, to include polyalkylene oxide, of Higuchi et al, in the process, of Chernysheva et al, for above mentioned advantages.
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