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 .
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-2, 5-6, 9-12, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Louis (U.S. 20200032053).
Louis exemplifies a melt processable fluoropolymer and poly(aryl ether ketone – PEEK exemplified) with magnesium oxide (0.3 pph exemplified is ~0.3 wt%). See ¶[0164-0165] The magnesium oxide exemplified is Kyowamag MF-150.
The fluoropolymers anticipate the fluorinated polymer of Claim 1.
The PEEK anticipates the non-fluorinated thermoplastic resin of Claim 1, Claim 5 and Claim 6.
The 0.3 wt% of Kyowamag MF-150 anticipates the inorganic oxide and particle size of Claim 1, amount of inorganic oxide of Claim 2 and the properties and magnesium oxide of Claim 9 and Claim 10 as the as-filed specification details these properties of Kyowamag MF-0.
In Example E10, Louis exemplifies a composition with 2.7 wt% fluorinated ionomer + 27.3 fluorinated polymer = 30 wt% of fluorinated polymer anticipating Claim 11. This composition includes 0.3 pph MgO Kyowamag 150. (¶[0180])
Louis does not test the HF generation amount, however, the examples of Applicant’s as-filed specification demonstrate that 0.3 to 3 wt% of Kyomawag MF-150 in a PEEK/fluorinated polymer composition similar to Louis which exemplifies 0.3 wt% Kyowamag MF-150 have less than 200 ppm of HF under the recited test conditions. Considering the similarity of the compositions of Louis and the as-filed specification in light of the use of 0.3 wt% of Kyowamag MF-150, one of ordinary skill in the art is reasonably suggested, when tested appropriately especially the exemplified compositions of Louis containing Kyowamag MF-150, the compositions using 0.3 wt% Kyowamag MF-150 must have the HF generation according to Claim 12. This anticipates Claim 12.
Louis teaches in ¶[0146-161] making jackets of cables out the compositions which are extruded onto a core of optical fiber or wire. This anticipates the formed product (extruded jacket) of Claim 14 and the composite as the wire or optical fiber is combined with the formed product (extruded jacket) or, in other words, the extruded jacket is laminated on the wire/fiber core. This anticipates Claim 15.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Louis (U.S. 20200032053) as evidence by Hyflon PFA P420 and Hyflon PFA M620 datasheets.
Louis is applied as above under §102.
Louis does not teach the melting temperature of the melt processable fluoropolymers or compositions.
As evidenced by Hyflon PFA P420 and Hyflon PFA M620 datasheets, which are both exemplified by Louis, they are melt-processable and the melting temperature of P420 is 300 to 310 oC and the melting temperature of M620 is 280 to 290 oC which anticipates the composition comprising a melt formable fluorinated resin with a melting temp of more than 230 oC claimed by Claim 3.
Claim 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Louis (U.S. 20200032053) as evidence by Louis (U.S. 20190031908) and Louis (U.S. 20210179777)
Louis is applied as above under §102.
Louis does not teach the melting temperature of the non-fluoropolymers of the composition.
The exemplified KT-880P of Louis ‘053 has a melting temperature of 344 oC as evidenced by Louis ‘908 ¶[0167].
The exemplified KT-820P of Louis ‘053 has a melting temperature of 339 oC as evidenced by Louis ‘777 in Table 4 and ¶[0161] and ¶[0171].
Therefore KT-880P and KT-820P anticipate the melting temperatures of Claim 7 and Claim 8.
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.
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Louis (U.S. 20200032053) in view of Permeability Properties of Plastics and Elastomers Chapter 12 Elastomers and Rubbers, page 274 – 277 (hereinafter Chapter 12).
Louis is applied as above under §102.
Louis does not specifically teach or suggest the fluoropolymers are fluoroelastomers, however, Louis does teach in ¶[0105] -¶[0114] the monomers of the fluoropolymers of the invention can include teterafluoroethylene (TFE), vinylidene fluoride (VDF), hexafluoropropylene (HFP) and various PAVEs such as perfluoromethylvinyl ethers (¶[0114]).
In ¶[0036] Louis also teaches additional polymers may be added to the compositions including various non-fluorinated rubbers.
Chapter 12 of Permeability Properties of Plastics and Elastomers (pages 274-277) establishes fluoroelastomers can be made from TFE, HFP, VDF and PAVE like perfluoromethylvinyl ethers. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art with the understanding of fluoropolymers practicing Louis realizes fluoroelastomers are in within the four corners of Louis as the above Chapter 12 material establishes fluoroelastomers are made from the above momoners specifically taught by Louis.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to practice the invention of Louis, in particular the examples of Louis, such that the fluoropolymer used is a fluoroelastomer and / or a fluoroelastomer is added to the compositions as Louis reasonable suggests the addition of various rubber materials to the compositions in ¶[0036] and/or Chapter 12 teaches the above four monomers already taught by Louis are capable of being fluoroelastomer materials.
This reads over the fluoroelastomer of Claim 4.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Louis (U.S. 20200032053).
Louis is applied as above under §102.
Louis exemplifies multiple PEEK / fluorinated polymer compositions but it is unclear if any explicitly meet the claimed range of fluorinated polymer due to Louis using multiple fluorinated polymers and / or additionally using mixtures of PEEK/fluorinated polymers in addition to the separate PEEK / fluorinated polymers separately in the same composition.
In ¶[0021]-¶[0024] Louis teaches 20 to 59 wt% of polymer F (a fluoroinated polymer), 40 to 79 wt% of PAEK (PEEK exemplified) and preferably 0.1 to 5 wt% of polymer I (a -SO2F containing fluorinated polymer exemplified).
The exemplified compositions generally have ~2 wt% of Polymer I.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to practice the invention of Louis, in particular the exemplified formulations comprising 0.3 wt% Kyowamag MF 150 MgO, such that the amount of polymer F is 20 to 59 wt% and the amount of PEEK is 40 to 79 wt% and the amount of polymer I is 0.1 to 5 wt% as these are the ranges for these components taught in the composition and the ~ wt% of polymer I exemplified reasonably suggests the preferred range of polymer I of 0.1 to 5 wt%.
This would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to fluorinated polymer amounts of 20.1 to 64 wt % (sum of polymer I and F) with respect to the total of the polymer component (as suggested in ¶[0021]-¶[0024]. This overlaps the range of Claim 11 rendering it obvious.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The closest prior art is Louis (U.S. 20200032053) which teaches fluorinated polymer / PEEK compositions comprising 0.3 wt% MgO Kyowamag MF-150. Claim 13 recites two heat loss temperatures and both must be met to meet the claim. Louis is silent on these temperatures. The as-filed specification only demonstrates one composition with PEEK / fluorinated polymer capable of meeting both temperatures simultaneously; one in which 1 wt% of MgO Kyowamag 150 is present and 3 wt% is too much of this component and 0.3 wt% is too little to meet the recited condition. There is no teaching or motivation present in the prior art that would motivate one of ordinary skill in the art to practice Louis to arrive at the claimed temperatures simultaneously recited by Claim 13 nor use specifically 1 wt% of MgO Kyowamag 150 to arrive at said limitations without the benefit of hindsight.
With respect to other compositions such as those with polyphenylene sulfide (PPS) and a fluorinated polymer, the as-filed specification only one composition using PPS which has the combined heat loss limitations of Claim 13. This composition uses a specific MgO (Kyowamag MF-150 as opposed to other MgO with slightly different D50, purity and BET) and compositional amounts of all three components. The prior art is silent on arrive at the specific combination of PPS, fluorinated polymer, and MgO with the specific characteristics to arrive such a composition thereby having the recited heat loss temperature of Claim 13. Therefore, as above, one of ordinary skill in the art would only arrive at Claim 13 using PPS or any composition of Claim 1 from which it depends through the benefit of hindsight.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER M RODD whose telephone number is (571)270-1299. The examiner can normally be reached 7 am - 3:30 pm (Pacific).
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.
/Christopher M Rodd/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766
