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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2,4-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carlson, U.S. Patent No. 4,029,868 in view of Chandler et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0009075.
Carlson discloses a terpolymer comprising tetrafluoroethylene, hexafluoropropylene and either perfluoro propyl vinyl ether or per fluor ethyl vinyl ether. The terpolymers are melt processible and are useful as films, fiber or tubes. The hexafluoropropylene is present in amounts of between about 4-12 weight percent. The perfluoro ethyl vinyl ether or perfluoro propyl vinyl ether is present in amounts of between about 0.5-3 weight percent. A range of about 0.5-3 weight percent would encompass values of 0.3 weight percent. The balance is tetrafluoroethylene. See col. 2, lines 15-34. The terpolymers have high thermal stability, good tensile strength at high temperatures, good flex life, low flammability, chemical inertness, anti-stick properties and low friction properties. See col. 3, lines 60-65. The terpolymer of Carlson could be used to form extruded, molded and powder coated materials since it is melt processible.
Carlson differs from the claimed invention because it does not disclose that the composition has the claimed melt flow rate or the total number of a carbonyl group-containing terminal group of 50 or less.
However, Chandler et al discloses suitable melt flow rates of fluoropolymers should be 1-20 g/10 min. See paragraph 0012. Chandler also teaches reducing the number of unstable end groups by contacting the polymer with fluorine gas in order to remove most or all unstable end groups. See paragraph 0021.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected a melt flow rate of 1-20 g/10 as taught by Chandler and to have treated the terpolymer of Carson as taught by Chandler in order to form a more stable composition.
Claim(s) 3, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carlson in view of Chandler as applied to claims above, and further in view of Blair, U.S. Patent No. 5,677,404.
Carlson differs from the claimed invention because it does not teach 0-0.1% by mass of the fluoro alkyl vinyl ether and does not teach employing the terpolymer as a wire insulation.
However, Blair teaches amounts of about 9-17 weight percent hexafluoropropylene and 0.2 wt % perfluoro propylene vinyl ether. See col. 1, lies 31-50. Blair teaches that one of ordinary skill would be able to vary the percentage of each component in order to control the properties of the composition. See col. 2 lines 61-65. Blair teaches the composition is useful for forming films and wire insulation. See col. 3, lines 9-10.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected lower values of the perfluoro propylene vinyl ether as taught by Blair in order to vary the properties of the composition of Carlson and to have used the composition as a wire insulation in view of its art recognized suitability for this intended purpose.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH M IMANI whose telephone number is (571)272-1475. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Wednesday 7AM-7:30; Thursday 10AM -2 PM.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
/ELIZABETH M IMANI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights