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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Table 3 in para 89, the text is blurry and unclear.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 7, 8, 20 , and 21, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the…alkyne monomer unit" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites a “TGTB’…TGTGTG or TG’TG’TG’ conformation...” However, it is unclear what the symbols of “T” and “G” represent. It appears “T” stands for “trans” and “G” stands for “gauche.”
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the…vinylfluoride monomer unit" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 21 recites a “TGTB’…TGTGTG or TG’TG’TG’ conformation...” However, it is unclear what the symbols of “T” and “G” represent. It appears “T” stands for “trans” and “G” stands for “gauche.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-8, 11-21, and 24, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by WO 2021/116618 A1 in which US 2023/0022870 A1 to Domingues Dos Santos et al. is used below as the US Equivalent. (hereinafter Santos).
Regarding claims 1-8, 11-21, and 24 , Santos teaches a P(VDF-TrFE-CFE) terpolymer with a molar composition of 66/27/7 (para 196), is dissolved in DMSO and mixed with triethylamine (TEA) and reacted to form a content of 1.9 mol% or 2.5 mol% of double bonds in the terpolymer as shown by Ramen spectrum shown signals of the -C=C- double bond and -CF=CH- (para 196-201), which meets the claimed fluorinated alkyne of claims 1 and 14, i.e. FA. Santos further teaches the mol% of ethylenic units ranges from preferable 1-2 mol% in the P(VDF-TrFE-CFE) terpolymer (para 102 and 104). The resulting terpolymer would be P(VDF-TrFE-CFE-FA), in a molar ratio of 66/27/5.1/1.9 and meets the claimed VDF, TrFE, and CFE mol% amounts in claims 2-7 and 15-20. Santos further teaches the polymers are crystalline and relaxor ferroelectric (para 124) can be formulated in a composition, exhibits electrocaloric effect, and formed into a film that can be stretched 10-700% to increase crystallinity, and can be formed to a thickness of 1-100 microns, preferably 1-10 micron for optimum electrocaloric effect. (para 155-169) and specifically 14 microns thick. (para 191).
In regard to the claimed properties of thickness strain, trans or TG conformation, elastic modulus, actuation, strain response, electromechanical coupling factor, and/or piezoelectric coefficient, one skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation for the polymer composition of Santos to have the claimed properties of the claimed invention because Santos teaches a substantially identical P(VDF-TrFE-CFE-FA) terpolymer, in mol% all within the claimed ratio, specifically 1.9 mol% of the double bond, i.e. FA, and similarly, the Applicant teaches the same P(VDF-TrFE-CFE-FA) terpolymer and mol% ranges, and the Applicant further states in their specification that it is the addition of the FA at 1.9 mol% in the P(VDF-TrFE-CFE-FA) terpolymer that results having all the claimed properties, and these properties are also directly related to the configuration of all-trans bonds, and/or TGTG’ bonds. (See para 56, 77, 78, 84-86, Table 1 and 2, of Applicant’s US publication). See MPEP 2112.01. (Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HA S NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7395. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, Flex schedule 7:30am-4:00pm.
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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at (571)272-1302. 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.
/HA S NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Prosecution Insights