DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The new grounds of rejection set forth below are necessitated by applicant’s amendment filed on 7/21/2026. In particular, claim 1 has been amended to include the limitations of claims 2 and 8 and new claim 21 has been added. This presents the claims in a manner with a scope not previously examined. Thus, the following action is properly made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1, 3-9, 11-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abusleme (US 2009/0171004).
Abusleme teaches a thermoplastic composition comprising at least one fluoropolymer A, 0.05-5 wt% (per)fluoropolyether polymer B, and 0-10 wt% per(halo)fluoropolymer C (abstract, ¶7).
Abusleme teaches the fluoropolymer A can be derived from monomers such as vinylidene fluoride and can either be a homopolymer or copolymer (¶ 45, 48, 64, 94). When fluoropolymer A is a homopolymer, this embodiment meets the limitation of 100 wt% recited in claims 1 and 21.
Abusleme does not explicitly provide an example where only a homopolymer is used. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a homopolymer of VdF because Abusleme teaches VdF homopolymers are suitable (¶ 64, 94) and because “a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art…” Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See MPEP 2123. As an example of a VdF homopolymer, Absuleme teaches SOLEF 6015 (¶ 300, 304). The instant specification states that SOLEF 6015 has a MFI of 3-4 g/10 min at 230˚C/21.6 kg. See instant specification ¶ 92. This meets claims 4 and 16.
Abusleme teaches examples where the only components are components (A), (B),and (C) (Table 6) which meets the range of at least 80% being A, B, and C.
To the extent that Abusleme teaches homopolymers, Abusleme meets the optional component of claims 4 and 17.
Abusleme teaches (per)fluoropolyethers that contain the recurring structure of claim 5 and meet the structures of claims 6-8, 18 (¶ 138-142). Abusleme teaches the Mw of the (per)fluoropolyether is 400-100,000 (¶125) which meets claim 9.
Abusleme teaches the polymer (C) includes TFE copolymesr having 2-20 wt% of a perfluoroalkylvinylether (¶176) indicating the TFE is 80-98 wt% and gives examples of TFE/PMVE copolymers (¶183). This meets claims 11, 19-20.
Abusleme teaches a plasticizer can be present such as dibutyl sebacate (¶ 201-202) which meets claim 12.
Abusleme teaches the process of making the composition includes mixing components (A)-(C) and melt compounding in continuous or batch devices (¶ 207-210) which meets claim 13.
Abusleme teaches forming an article from the composition which includes an injection molded article, an extrusion molded article, a machined article, a coated article or a casted article and includes pipes and fittings (¶ 276-278) and meets claims 14-15.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claimed invention exhibits unexpectedly superior mechanical properties at a high temperature which are not present in a composition comprising a VDF copolymer in an amount greater than 10 wt%. Specifically, the examples of the instant invention have improved mechanical properties at 150˚C according to Table 3.
Table 3 provides four inventive examples and one comparative example where the inventive examples are a composition of a polymer blend (SOLEF 6015 and Polymer 1), fluoropolyether F, perfluoropolymer T in amounts 100pbw/0.35wt%/0.77wt% (Example 1) or 100pbw/0.35wt%/1.2 wt% (Examples 2-5) and where the components of the polymer blend are varied: 97/3 (Examples 1 and 2), 92/8 (Example 3), 100/0 (Example 4), and 80/20 (Comparative Example 5).
Applicant notes that comparative Example 5 (having 80/20 SOLEF 6015 and Polymer 1) is the most similar to the prior art examples which use a 67/33 blend of SOLEF 6015 and VDF copolymer.
Table 3 of the instant specification shows that Comparative Example 5 has lower elastic modulus, stress at yield, and strain at break at 150˚C than the inventive examples.
Whether the unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the “objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support.” See MPEP 716.02(d).
In this case, the claims are not commensurate in scope with the data. Regarding the amounts, the claim recites a range of 0.02-2 wt% of the component B (fluoropolyether) but only provides examples with 0.35wt%. The claim recites a range of 0.1-10wt% polymer component C (perfluoropolymer) but only provides examples with 0.77 wt% or 1.2 wt%. The amounts in the examples are not commensurate in scope with the claimed ranges and are not sufficient to determine a trend that could extend the probative value thereof.
Regarding the claimed genuses, the data presents specific species of polymer component B (fluoropolyether F), polymer component C (perfluoropolymer T), and copolymer of component A (VDF-HFP). However, the claimed genus of polymer B is (per)fluoropolyethers, the claimed genus of polymer C is a per(halo)fluoropolymer of a copolymer of TFE and 2-30 wt% copolymer with pefluoroalkylvinylether, perfluorooxyalkylvinylether or perfluoroolefin. The species provided in the data are not representative of the claimed genus.
Because the data is not commensurate in scope with the claims, the allegations of unexpected results are not persuasive and the obviousness rejection is maintained.
Regarding claim 21, Applicant argues that the prior art teaches a blend of VDF with the copolymer in an amount of at least 25 wt% and the range of 10% or less is not taught. This is not persuasive. While the examples use a blend, the examples are a preferred embodiment. A preferred embodiment is not controlling, rather, all disclosures “including unpreferred embodiments” must be considered. See MPEP 2123 and In re Lamberti 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976) citing In re Mills 176 USPQ 196 (CCPA 1972). In this case, Abusleme teaches the fluoropolymer A can be derived from monomers such as vinylidene fluoride and can either be a homopolymer or copolymer (¶ 45, 48, 64, 94). When fluoropolymer A is a homopolymer, this embodiment meets the limitation of 100 wt% recited in claims 1 and 21.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ROBERT C BOYLE whose telephone number is (571)270-7347. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 10am-4pm.
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.
/ROBERT C BOYLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights