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 without traverse of Group I, VDF homopolymer 80% hydrolyzation value in the reply filed on 6/22/26 is acknowledged.
Claims 8-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group/species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6/22/26.
Priority
The claims have an effective date of the foreign priority: 4/29/21, it is noted that the Reynolds number of withdrawn claim 10 is not found in the foreign priority.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/26/23 has 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.
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyashita (EP 3786193A).
Miyashita discloses particles (title). Said particles are made from vinylidene fluoride (abstract). The particles have a pore volume of 0.9-1.3 mL/g [0027] measured by a mercury porosimeter, completely within that of instant claim 1 [meeting the pore volume of claim 1]. The particles have an average particle size (also known as d50) of 50-300 microns [0028]. This range embraces the 50 microns endpoint of claim 1. Since the average particle size would be for that of the entirety of identifiably particles of a composition, such meets the primary particle requirement of claim 1. There is no evidence of other, distinctly measured, particles in the composition of the instant specification.
In light of the overlapping nature of the particle size range of Miyashita and that of claim 1, a prima facie case of obviousness exists over the claim.
Further, the vinylidene fluoride polymer may be a homopolymer [0013].
Elements above thusly embrace and render obvious all the requirements of claim 1. Miyashita uses suspension polymerization and does not further grind or mill the particles, thus the roundness of claim 2 is deemed to be met (suspension polymerization implicitly forms round particles), and, the roundness ratio is deemed to be inherently met. if there is any difference between the above composition and the composition of the instant claims the difference would have been minor and obvious. "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." 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. See MPEP 2112.01(I) , In re Best, 562 F2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433, Titanium Metals Corp v Banner, 778 F2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed Cir 1985), In re Ludtke, 441 F2d 660, 169 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1971) and Northam Warren Corp v D F Newfield Co, 7 F Supp 773, 22 USPQ 313 (EDNY 1934).
Elements above meet claim 4. The optional monomers of claims 5-7 are not elected and these claims are thusly rejected.
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyashita in view of Lannuzel (US 2003/0176608) and Sharma (Tailoring the particle size distribution in suspension polymerization of poly(MMA-co-EGDMA): Role of stabilizer and agitation rate, Macromol Symp 2017, 376, 1600191).
Miyashita includes elements as set forth above. Miyashita discloses polyvinylidene fluoride particles that may have an average particle size from 50-300 microns [0028]. Miyashita does not disclose a lower particle size than 50 microns.
Miyashita does disclose that the average particle size can be adjusted by the intensity of agitation during suspension polymerization [0028]. Sharma discloses that it is known to tailor the particle size of a suspension polymerized particle via agitation rate. See Figure 4 therein wherein increasing the agitation rate decreased the overall particle size. Lannuzel discloses that it is known to make vinylidene fluoride polymers (abstract) using suspension polymerization [0028] having a mean particle size (e.g. d50) of at least 10 microns [0018].
Miyashita recognizes that particle size can be adjusted and uses the describing language of “may be from 50 to 300” leaving it open for the particle size to be outside this range. Thus, in light of the teachings of Miyashita, Sharma and Lannuzel, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include in Miyashita the use of adjusting the particle size by increasing the agitation rate, as taught by Sharma, to obtain other known particle sizes, e.g. particles sizes of at least 10 microns taught by Lannuzel, known to be useful for polyvinylidene fluoride particles. See MPEP 2143 A, E, G wherein it is prima facie obvious to combine prior art elements (increased agitation rate) according to known methods (for solution polymerization) to yield the predictable results of a smaller particle size, if one desired a smaller particle size. Such is also obvious to try, since Miyashita discloses it is known that agitation rate affects the particle size and since Miyashita merely prefers, and doesn’t limit, the reference to a range of 50-300 (e.g. the “may be” language).
Elements above thusly meet claim 1. Elements discussed above in Miyashita also meet claims 2-7.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALICIA BLAND whose telephone number is (571)272-2451. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00 am -3:00 pm EST.
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, Curt Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/ALICIA BLAND/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights