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 election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-9 in the reply filed on 10/14/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the Office has failed to provide any evidence to support the assertion that the claimed product can be made as the Office has alleged. This is not found persuasive because the Examiner has provided reasoning to support any conclusion in regard to patentable distinction. The Examiner's position remains that there would be undue burden for the reasons established in paragraphs 2-3 of the office action mailed 09/23/2025. Further, as set forth in MPEP 806.05(f), allegations of different processes or products need not be documented. If applicant convincingly traverses the requirement, the burden shifts to the examiner to document a viable alternative process or product, or withdraw the requirement. However, while applicants have argued that the examiner's alternative process is not feasible, applicants have provided no evidence to support this position and therefore, have not convincingly traversed the restriction. Therefore, the burden does not shift back to the examiner to establish that the process is viable and the restriction requirement is maintained.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim 10 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 10/14/2025.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 9 recites “.” at the end of line 2. It is suggested the period is replaced with a comma. Appropriate correction is 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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al. (US 2019/0055390).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 5, and 8, Sato et al. teaches a fluorinated copolymer composition comprising a thermoplastic resin A and a fluorinated elastomer B, wherein the fluorinated elastomer B is dispersed in the thermoplastic resin A, the number average particle diameter of the fluorinated elastomer B is from 1 to 300 μm, the volume ratio of the thermoplastic resin A to the fluorinated elastomer B is from 97:3 to 55:45 (See Abstract), wherein the thermoplastic resin is an aromatic polyamide (paragraph [0018]) and wherein the fluorinated elastomer B is a copolymer having units based on tetrafluoroethylene and units based on propylene (paragraph [0017]) including 3,3,3-trifluoro-1-propylene (TFP), 1,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropylene and 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropylene (paragraph [0055]).
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); see MPEP 2144.05.
Given that Sato teaches a fluorinated polymer identical to that presently claimed including monomers identical to those presently claimed in amounts (paragraph [0069]) identical to that used in the present invention, the fluorinated polymer of Sato et al. would necessarily have a glass transition temperature and melting point as presently claimed, absent evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claim 3, given that Sato teaches a composition comprising materials and structure identical to that presently claimed, the composition of Sato et al. would necessarily have an Izod impact strength as presently claimed, absent evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claim 4, given that Sato teaches a composition comprising materials and structure identical to that presently claimed, the composition of Sato et al. would necessarily satisfy formulas (1) and (2) as presently claimed, absent evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claim 9, given that Sato teaches a composition comprising materials and structure identical to that presently claimed, the composition of Sato et al. would necessarily have a 5% pyrolysis temperature as presently claimed, absent evidence to the contrary.
Claim(s) 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al. (US 2019/0055390) in view of Kose et al. (WO 2009/119202).
Sato et al. is relied upon as disclosed above.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Sato et al. fails to teach wherein the fluorinated polymer has a polar group.
However, Kose et al. teaches a fluorine-containing elastic copolymer containing an iodine atom (page 3), i.e. polar group.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include an iodine atom in the fluorinated polymer of Sato et al. in order to enhance crosslinking (Kose et al., page 2).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHENG HUANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7387. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday from 7 AM to 5 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Callie Shosho, can be reached at 571-272-1123. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHENG YUAN HUANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787