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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
Applicant’s Request for Continued Examination is acknowledged. Applicants amended claim 1 to limit the composition to only fluorinated monomer and the content of glass fibers has been narrowed. The amendment excluded non-fluorinated polymers such as those of Wang, consequently rejections of record are overcome, consequently applicants amendment are moot.
Updated search resulted in new references which was filed more than one year before applicant’s invention.
Claims 1-8 and 10-20 are pending. Claim 9 is cancelled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 1 requires second polymer to have functionality selected from carboxy, anhydride and perfluoroalkoxy. Claim 14 which depends on claim 1 further includes sulfur based group (monomer 3a), which fails to narrow the scope of claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-8, 12-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Brian (US 2021/0079206).
With respect to claims 1, 8 and 12, O’Brian discloses a composition comprising a matrix polymer which is a fluorinated polymer and 5-20 pbw [0022] of fluoropolymer gr. Grafted with a monomer which is based on carboxylic acid or anhydride [0023]. Fibers are selected from carbon fibers or glass fibers [0008, 0030] which are utilized in an amount of 5-40 pbw, preferably 8-25 pbw [0034].
Additionally with the content of the fluorinated polymer of 5-20 and fibers from 8-25 pbw each, the minimum content of the matrix resin encompasses range of up to 92 pbw which is the balance of the three components thereby meeting the requirement of instant claim 12.
With respect to claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 13 and 14, modified polymer can be the same as the matrix polymer for improved polymer compatibility and includes polymers selected from monomers such as TFE, ETFE, perfluoro vinyl ether which meet the limitation of perfluoroalkoxy [0013]. While more preferred embodiment if PVDF, other polymers are explicitly taught and preferred embodiments do not teach away from other polymers specifically taught in the reference. Specific monomers include perfluoroalkyl vinyl ethers [0013], ethylene and tetrafluoroethylene [0014]. Consequently, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time instant invention was filed to utilize any polymer taught by O’Brian not just preferred embodiments.
With respect to claim 6 the limitation is broad as it includes both polymerized carboxylic group and grafted carboxylic group. Preferred matrix resin if PVDF and PETFE [0014] which meets instant claim 13.
With respect to claims 4 and 7, the anhydrides selected to modify the fluoropolymer include itaconic anhydride [0023] as well as other carboxylic group containing monomers having 2-20 carbon atoms.
With respect to claims 15-18, these claims are directed to a properties that are compared to the properties of the composition without second fluoropolymer. Specifically, flexural strength is 15-40% greater, flexural modulus is 25-60% greater and compressive strength is 10-25% greater. Since these properties depend on claim 1, where the only requirement is matrix fluoropolymer (any fluoropolymer in any amount), any modified fluoropolymer as long as modification is achieved by carboxylic or anhydride group in claimed amount and any glass fiber (any size and type), if the prior art meets the minimum requirement of instant claim 1, under broadest reasonable interpretation, then the composition has to be capable of meeting the claimed properties. Having said that it should be noted that applicants’ claims are not commensurate with the scope of the examples which resulted such properties. Table 1 of applicants’ specification as originally filed discloses only one example comprising 65 pbw of PFA polymer 10 pbw of EA-2000 second polymer and 25 pbw 739DC glass fiber wherein the results are flexural strength at 5150 psi, flexural modulus at 302 ksi, compressive strength at 4250psi, and compressive modulus at 270 ksi, which example does not truly reflect claims 15-18. All testing is than at specific temperature as well. Note: examiner reads ksi as kilo pounds force per square inch.
With respect to claim 20, O’Brien discloses process where the glass fibers are added into the melt mixture of polymers downstream to reduce possibility of breakage [0035] or mixed directly into polymer. Example in [0042] matrix polymer is first blended with grafted fluoropolymer then compounded with fibers. While O’Brian does not disclose the specific claimed order where fibers are premixed with graft polymers, following is stated by MPEP:
MPEP 2144.04(IV)(C) states that selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in absence of new or unexpected results. See In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPT 330 (SSPA 1946) and In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 2930).
In summary it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time instant invention was filed to arranged order of mixing as claimed in order to obtain polymer composition with uniform distribution of additives.
This is especially true because O’Brian specifically teaches that the grafted fluoropolymers act as compatibilizers and improve adhesion between fibers.
Claims 1-8, 12-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Brian (US 2021/0079206) in view of and Okuzawa (US 2020/0140682) as evidenced in the microglass specification (previously provided) and Youlu (US .4,749,752)
The discussion of teachings of O’Brian from paragraph 1 of this office action is incorporated here by reference.
As mentioned above, O’Brian discloses matrix polymer which specifically utilizes glass fibers and modified fluoropolymer as compatibilizer or a component that increases adhesion between the matrix polymer and glass fiber itself. However, O’Brian does not focus greatly on the glass fiber, but on the modified fluorinated compatibilizer.
O’Brian teaches, however, that the glass fibers have to have a smaller in size such as in form of chopped fibers or rovings because free fibers as well as fibers that are too long cannot be effectively mixed with the fluoropolymers [0006]. The efficiency of making uniformly distributed glass fiber throughout the fluoropolymer matrix decreases with increasing length of a fiber.
It should be noted that while matrix polymer of Okuzawa is polycarbonate, the reference does not rely on polycarbonate and does not bodily incorporate the matrix of Okuzawa into teachings of O’Brian at all. Okuzawa is relied upon to teach smaller glass fiber that would be more than suitable in its use with fluoropolymers of O’Brian.
With respect to claims 10 and 11 Okuzawa discloses milled glass fiber which have diameter of 9 microns and length of 30 microns [0232]. While the bulk density of these fibers is not disclosed the attached in the last office action evidentiary reference shows bulk density of 0.93 g/cc.
In the light of the above disclosure, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to utilize smaller glass fibers such as those of Okuzawa to ensure that the fibers are efficiently mixed with the fluoropolymer matrix. As evidenced by Youlu concept of utilizing fluoropolymer alloys with milled glass fibers is already known in the art and additionally these fibers do not have to be treated with sizing or coupling agents.
Okuzawa further teaches various types of glass fibers. While O’Brian focuses his examples on carbon fibers, Okuzawa further defines glass fibers (milled glass fibers) that while fibers can be treated with coupling agents or sizing agents that treatment is not necessarily necessary as is for the carbon fibers of O’Brian.
Okuzawa teaches glass fibers known as A-glass or E-glass which comprise primarily of silica and titania. Fiber glass having silica as main component similarly to silica has pendant -OH groups on its surface consequently, these fibers already comprise functional group that can react with the modified fluoropolymer of O’Brian. One of the ordinary skill in the art would readily understand that.
Consequently, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time instant invention was filed that use of treating agent is not necessary for the right amount of fiber, especially one that by virtue of having silica as major component, will have pendant -OH groups. Pendant -OH groups which will react with the carboxylate group of either carboxylic acid or its anhydride form.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATARZYNA I KOLB whose telephone number is (571)272-1127. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Mark Eashoo can be reached at 5712701046. 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.
/KATARZYNA I KOLB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767 October 13, 2026
