DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/28/2026 has been entered.
An Amendment was filed on 01/28/2026. Claim 1 was amended, and claim 7 was canceled.
Claims 1-6 and 8-20 are pending. Claims 1-6, 8-10 and 13-17 are rejected. Claims 11-12 and 18-20 are withdrawn from consideration.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Mauer et al, US 6365699B1 (Mauer), taken in view of evidence by Shim, KR 102156903 B1 (Shim).
Mauer was cited in the IDS filed 02/13/2026.
The Examiner has provided a machine translation of Shim. The citation of the prior art in this rejection refers to the machine translation.
Regarding claims 1-2 and 4, Mauer discloses a curable composition comprising:
about 30 to 90 percent by weight, based on the weight of resin solids, of a film-forming composition comprising:
an acrylosilane polymer, an acrylic polyol polymer, and optionally an alkylated melamine-formaldehyde crosslinking agent; and
about 10 to 70 percent by weight, based on a total weight of resin solids, of a tricarbamoyl triazine compound of formula: C3N3(NHCOXR)3, wherein X may be oxygen, and R may be a lower alkyl having 1 to 12 carbon atoms, or mixtures of lower alkyl groups (Mauer; col. 1, line 59-col. 2, line 6). These compounds overlap in scope with the compounds of formula (I) as claimed.
In the tricarbamoyl triazine compound, X is most preferably oxygen, and R preferably has one to eight carbon atoms, but is most preferably a mixture of methyl and butyl groups. Such compounds and the preparation thereof are described in U.S. Patent No. 5,084,541 (Jacobs III et al), incorporated by reference (Mauer; col. 7, line 65-col. 8, line 9). These preferred compounds of Mauer fall within the scope of the compounds of formula (I) as claimed when R1, R2 and R3 are C1 or C4 alkyl groups (claim 2).
The acrylic polyol polymer is prepared by polymerizing one or more hydroxyl functional alkyl acrylate or methacrylates monomers and up to 80% by weight ethylenically unsaturated non-hydroxyl functional monomers, based on the weight of the acrylic polyol (i.e., a hydroxyl functional polymer, wherein the hydroxyl functional polymer is a hydroxy functional polyacrylic (claim 4)) (Mauer; col. 2, lines 8-12).
In Table I, Examples 2-4, each comprise a Component A and a Component B which are combined (Mauer; col. 12, lines 50-65 and col. 13, Table 1, lines 22-62).
Non-volatile diluent
Component A comprises the nonvolatile organic solvents ethyl 3-ethoxypropionate and 1-methoxy-2-propanol acetate. Component B also contains the nonvolatile organic solvent ethyl 3-ethoxypropionate. As is evidenced by Shim, ethyl 3-ethoxypropionate has a boiling point of 170oC and 1-methoxy-2-propanol acetate has a boiling point of 146oC, both of which fall within the claimed range of 145-200oC (Shim; page 1, lines 60 and page 2, line 11). Components A and B of Examples 2-4 are free of butanol and water as claimed.
Examples 2-4 also contain the nonvolatile diluents in the claimed amounts. Using Example 2 to demonstrate the calculation of the diluent weight%, Example 2 contains 449.8 total parts by weight, including Components A and B (30+22+2+5++3.7+1.0+2.1+234+23+58+69 = 449.8 total parts by weight). Note that the numbers in parentheses indicate the percent solids by weight within the formulations (Mauer; col. 13, lines 20-21). Components A and B of Example 2 contain a total of 75 parts by weight ethyl 3-ethoxypropionate and 1-methoxy-2-propanol acetate, i.e., nonvolatile diluent (30+22+23=75 parts by weight). Therefore, the mixed composition of Example 2 contains 16.67% by weight nonvolatile diluent, based on the total weight of the composition (75/449.8 * 100 = 16.67%).
Using the same calculation method, Example 3 comprises 13.34% by weight nonvolatile diluent, and Example 4 comprises 22.64% nonvolatile diluent.
16.67%, 13.34% and 22.64% by weight, based on the total weight of the composition, all fall within the claimed about 5% to about 35% by weight of a nonvolatile diluent, based on the ink vehicle composition (claim 1).
Crosslinker compound of formula (I)
Component B of Examples 2-4 of Table 1 comprise the tricarbamoyl triazine having the formula C3N3(NHCOOR)3, wherein R is a mixture of methyl and butyl groups (Mauer; col. 13, lines 41 and 61-62). This compound is equivalent to the compound of formula (I) as claimed wherein R1, R2 and R3 are C1 and C4 alkyl groups (claims 1-2).
Hydroxy functional polyacrylic
Component A of Examples 2-4 of Table 1 comprises acrylic polyol, i.e., a hydroxy functional polyacrylic polymer as claimed (claims 1 and 4) (Mauer; col. 13, lines 35-36 and 56-58).
While there is no disclosure that the curable compositions are an “ink vehicle” as presently claimed, Applicants attention is drawn to MPEP 2111.02 which states that “if the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction”. Further, MPEP 2111.02 states that statements in the preamble reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention must be evaluated to determine whether the purpose or intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists, does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
It is the examiner’s position that the preamble does not state any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations and further that the purpose or intended use, i.e. ink vehicle, recited in the present claims does not result in a structural difference between the presently claimed invention and the prior art and further that the prior art structure which is identical to that set forth in the present claims is capable of performing the recited purpose or intended use.
Alternatively, Mauer teaches adding the tricarbamoyl triazine compound to Examples 2-4 of Table 1 as a percent solids of a formulation (Mauer; col. 13, lines 20-21 and 41).
Mauer does not explicitly teach that the diluent used for the tricarbamoyl triazine formulation is essentially free of water and butanol as claimed.
However, Mauer teaches that the tricarbamoyl triazine may be added to the film-forming composition neat, that is by itself, or with solvents or other diluents (Mauer; col. 8, lines 21-24).
In light of the disclosure of Mauer of the equivalence and interchangeability of using a formulation of tricarbamoyl triazine comprising solvents or other diluents with using tricarbamoyl triazine by itself, i.e., essentially free of butanol and water as presently claimed, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use tricarbamoyl triazine in the neat form in the film-forming compositions of Mauer, and thereby arrive claimed invention.
Regarding claim 9, Mauer is relied upon as set forth above as disclosing the limitations of claims 1 as discussed above. In a preferred embodiment, the film-forming composition (i) has no or only small amounts of basic esterification catalyst such that the composition is stable for a time sufficient to allow formulation of the composition as a single, one package component, i.e., the one-package composition is stable over time (Mauer; col. 5, lines12-17).
Further, given that the curable compositions of Mauer contain the claimed crosslinker compound of formula (I), hydroxy functional polymer, and nonvolatile diluent in the claimed amounts, wherein the composition is essentially free of butanol and water, it is clear that the curable compositions of Mauer would inherently be stable for about 6 to about 24 months at room temperature as claimed.
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). See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this rejection can be found above.
Claims 3, 5, and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mauer taken in view of evidence by Shim.
Regarding claim 3, Mauer is relied upon as set forth above as teaching the limitations of claims 1 as discussed above. Mauer teaches that the tricarbamoyl compound is present in the curable compositions in amounts of about 10% to 70% by weight, based on total weight of the resin solids in the curable composition (Mauer; col. 8, lines 17-21). The curable coating compositions are formulated into high solids content coating compositions, wherein the compositions contain greater than 40%, preferably greater than 50% by weight resin solids (Mauer; col. 8, lines 49-52). Therefore, the compositions preferably comprise greater than 5% to greater than 35% by weight tricarbamoyl compound (50%*0.1=5% and 50%*0.7=35%). Greater than 5% to greater than 35% by weight tricarbamoyl compound overlaps in scope with the crosslinker compound amounts of amount 10% to about 90% by weight of the ink vehicle composition as claimed.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 5, Mauer is relied upon as set forth above as teaching the limitations of claims 1 as discussed above. The acrylic polyol (i.e., a hydroxy functional polymer as claimed) is present in the film-forming composition (i) in amounts of about 10 to 90% by weight, based on the total weight of resin solids in film forming composition (i), wherein film-forming composition (i) comprises about 30 to about 90% by weight of the curable composition (Mauer; claims 1 and 4). Therefore, the acrylic polyol is present in the curable compositions in an amount of about 3-81% by weight of the curable composition (30%*0.1=3% and 90%*0.9=81%). 3-81% by weight acrylic polyol overlaps in scope with the claimed about 20-80% by weight of the ink vehicle composition of hydroxy functional polymer.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 13, Mauer is relied upon as set forth above as teaching the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Mauer teaches that the compositions are curable by heating, i.e., a thermoset heat-curable composition (Mauer; col. 1, lines 60-61 and col. 9, lines 2-6). Organic and inorganic pigments (i.e., colorants) may be formulated into the curable compositions in art-recognized amounts (Mauer; col. 8, lines 43-47). Mauer further exemplifies a composition comprising a tricarbamoyl triazine and a carbon black dispersion (Mauer; col. 15, Table III, Example 8).
While there is no disclosure that the heat-curable compositions are an “ink” as presently claimed, Applicants attention is drawn to MPEP 2111.02 which states that “if the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction”. Further, MPEP 2111.02 states that statements in the preamble reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention must be evaluated to determine whether the purpose or intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists, does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
It is the examiner’s position that the preamble does not state any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations and further that the purpose or intended use, i.e. ink, recited in the present claims does not result in a structural difference between the presently claimed invention and the prior art and further that the prior art structure which is identical to that set forth in the present claims is capable of performing the recited purpose or intended use.
Regarding claim 14, Mauer is relied upon as set forth above as teaching the limitations of claim 13 as discussed above. In a preferred embodiment, the film-forming composition (i) has no or only small amounts of basic esterification catalyst such that the composition is stable for a time sufficient to allow formulation of the composition as a single, one package component, i.e., the one-package composition is stable over time (Mauer; col. 5, lines12-17).
Further, given that the heat-curable compositions of Mauer contain the claimed crosslinker compound of formula (I), hydroxy functional polymer, and nonvolatile diluent in the claimed amounts, wherein the composition is essentially free of butanol and water, and which may contain a pigment, it is clear that the heat-curable compositions of Mauer would inherently be stable for at least 6 months at room temperature as claimed.
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). See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Regarding claim 15, Mauer is relied upon as set forth above as teaching the limitations of claim 13 as discussed above. Mauer teaches the heat-curable compositions may comprise a pigment (Mauer; col. 8, lines 43-47) in amounts of about 1 to 80% by weight, preferably up to 60% by weight, based on the weight of coating solids (Mauer; col. 11, lines 19-22). Assuming the remaining components make up the heat-curable composition “vehicle,” it is clear that the vehicle amounts of Mauer overlap in scope with the vehicle amounts about 30% to about 60% by weight of the thermoset-curable ink as claimed.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 16, Mauer is relied upon as set forth above as teaching the limitations of claim 13 as discussed above, wherein the curable compositions may comprise a pigment (Mauer; col. 8, lines 43-47). Mauer further teaches appropriate pigment amounts of about 1 to 80% by weight, based on the weight of coating solids, where up to 60% gives better results (Mauer; col. 11, lines 19-22). Up to 60% by weight pigment, based on the weight of coating solids, overlaps in scope with the colorant amounts of about 10% to about 60% by weight of the thermoset heat-curable ink.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 17, Mauer is relied upon as set forth above as teaching the limitations of claim 13 as discussed above. Mauer teaches that the curable compositions may comprise plasticizers (i.e., viscosity, flow or tact modifiers) and flow additives (i.e., flow modifiers) as claimed (Mauer; col. 8, line 35, and col. 13, lines 34 and 55).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mauer taken in view of evidence by Dow, DOWANOLTM DPM Glycol Ether Technical Data Sheet (Dow).
Regarding claim 6, Mauer is relied upon as set forth above as teaching the limitations of claims 1 as discussed above. Mauer exemplifies compositions comprising the solvent DOWANOL DMP, dipropylene glycol monomethyl ether (i.e., a glycol solvent as claimed) (Mauer; col. 14, lines 23 and 47; and col. 15, lines 20-21). As is evidenced by Dow, DOWANOL DPM has a boiling point of 190oC (Dow, page 1, “Typical Physical Properties). 190oC falls within the claimed nonvolatile solvent boiling point range of 145-200oC.
Given that Mauer discloses curable compositions that overlap the presently claimed vehicle compositions, including compositions comprising the glycol solvent DOWANOL DMP, it therefore would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a glycol solvent, which is both disclosed by Mauer and encompassed within the scope of the present claims, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mauer taken in view of evidence by Shim as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mizuno et al, JP 2008-195854 A (Mizuno).
The Examiner has provided a machine translation of Mizuno. The citation of the prior art in this rejection refers to the machine translation.
Regarding claim 8, Mauer is relied upon as teaching the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. The film-forming composition comprises an acrylic polyol polymer (Mauer; col. 5, lines 33-36). In another embodiment, a film-forming composition (iii) is used which may be a single or multi-package comprising a polyisocyanate or isocyanate functional resin or polymer and a polymer having at least one group that is reactive with isocyanate (Mauer; col. 6, lines 41-48).
The compositions are formulated into high solids compositions containing greater than 40%, more preferably greater than 50% by weight resin solids (Mauer; col. 8, lines 49-52).
The compositions can be applied by conventional means such as brushing (Mauer; col. 31-34). There is an increasing concern in many geographic areas for coating resistant to environmental conditions such as acid rain (Mauer; col. 1, lines 19-25). The coating of Mauer have excellent etch resistance, typically evaluated after actual or simulated weathering, as well as goof mar or abrasion resistance (Mauer; col. 12, lines 8-32).
Mauer teaches coatings with various viscosities measured by #4 Ford Cup (Mauer; See Examples of Tables I-V).
Mauer does not explicitly teach a composition having a viscosity of about 200 to about 500 poise as claimed.
With respect to the difference, Mizuno teaches a new resin composition suitable for coating, which can form a coated film having excellent water resistance, weatherability and flexibility (Mizuno; Abstract and [0001]).
Typical two-component paint needs to be mixed with a hydroxyl group-containing acrylic resin (coating main ingredient) and a polyisocyanate (curing agent) at the time of use (Mizuno; [0003]).
For a resin composition adjusted to a resin solids content of 50% using a solvent, the viscosity is preferably 300 poise or less. If it exceeds 300 poise the viscosity is too high so that it may not be applied by a general brush or roller coating at normal temperature, and if it is less than 1 poise the viscosity is too low to be applied (Mizuno; [0036]).
Mizuno is analogous art as it teaches a resin composition having the claimed viscosities.
In light of the motivation provided by Mizuno to adjust the viscosity of a high- solids content coating composition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the high-solids, curable coating compositions of Mauer to within the range of 1 to 300 poise in order to obtain a coating that can applied effectively by a general brush or roller coating at normal temperature, and in order to obtain a coating composition with optimized weather resistance properties. 1 to 300 poise overlaps in scope with the claimed viscosity range of about 200-500 poise.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mauer taken in view of evidence by Shim as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dhein et al, US 5,552,477 (Dhein).
Regarding claim 10, Mauer is relied upon as teaching the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Mauer teaches in embodiment (iii) the curable composition is a single- or multi-package comprising a polyisocyanate or isocyanate functional resin or polymer, and a polymer having at least one group that is reactive with isocyanate. The film-forming composition may further include active hydrogen-containing reactive diluents known to those skilled in the art (Mauer; col. 6, lines 41-48). Suitable polymers having at least one group that is reactive with isocyanate preferably include those having hydroxyl groups. The polymer may be acrylic, polyester, and mixtures thereof (Mauer; col. 7, lines 25-35).
An example of a suitable film-forming composition (iii) is a reaction product of uncapped, partially, or completely capped polyisocyanates which contain isocyanate groups with, as a polyol mixture, hydroxyl-containing polyacrylates and polyesterols which are soluble in organic solvents (i.e., hydroxy functional polyesters) (Mauer; col. 7, lines 41-64).
The tricarbamoyl triazine has the formula: C3N3(NHCOXR)3, wherein X is preferably oxygen, and R is preferably a mixture of methyl and butyl groups (Mauer; col. 7, line 65-col. 8, line 7). Mauer further exemplifies using a tricarbamoyl triazine wherein X is oxygen, and R is a mixture of methyl and butyl groups (i.e., wherein R1, R2 and R3 are each independently methyl or n-butyl as claimed) (Mauer; see, e.g., col. 13, Table I, lines 41 and 61-62).
Given that Mauer discloses film-forming, curable compositions that overlap the presently claimed ink vehicle compositions, including those comprising a hydroxyl functional polyester, a compound of formula (I) wherein R1, R2 and R3 are each methyl or n-butyl, and a reactive diluent, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use compositions comprising a hydroxyl functional polyester, a compound of formula (I) wherein R1, R2 and R3 are each methyl or n-butyl, and a reactive diluent, which is both disclosed by Mauer and encompassed within the scope of the present claims.
Mauer teaches that the compositions are curable by heating to 160-350oC, but if needed higher or lower temperatures may be used (Mauer; col. 9, lines 2-6). The coatings have good mar and abrasion resistance (col. 12, lines 23-26).
Mauer does not explicitly teach wherein the reactive diluent is the nonvolatile diluent polyalkylene glycol as claimed.
With respect to the difference, Dhein teaches coating agents whose binder consists essentially of a combination of: a) a polyol component dissolved or dispersed in water, and b) a polyisocyanate component dissolved or dispersed in a) (Dhein; col. 1, line 66-col. 2, line 9). Component a) consists essentially of a combination of: a1) a high-molecular polyol component with a molecular weight Mn of over 500 possessing hydroxyl groups, and a2) 5 to 70% by weight, relative to the weight of a1), of a reactive diluent that has a boiling point of at least 150oC with a molecular weight Mn of under 500, and having at least one group capable of reacting with isocyanate groups (Dhein; col. 2, lines 16-22).
A diluent having a boiling point of at least 150oC overlaps in scope with the nonvolatile diluents having a boiling point of about 145-200oC as claimed.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Suitable component a1) includes, for example, hydroxy functional polyacrylic resins or hydroxy functional urethane-modified polyesters (Dhein; col. 2, lines 46-64 and col. 5, lines 39-45).
The polyol component a2), i.e., the reactive diluent, is preferably at least divalent, with a molecular weight under 500, in particular under 300, and includes polyethylene glycols and polypropylene glycols (col. 5, line 58-col.6, line 9).
The properties of the lacquers may be influenced by selection of the reactive diluent. Coatings that are brittle may be made more elastic by the elasticizing action of reactive diluents. On the other hand, binding agents systems with relatively low cross-linking density may be made harder and more resistant using trifunctional or polyfunctional reactive diluents (Dhein; col. 7, line 66-col. 8, line 12).
The hardening of the coatings (i.e., curing) may take place under normal baking conditions. At higher baking temperatures, less volatile reactive diluents are recommended ((Dhein; col. 8, lines 13-22).
Dhein is analogous art as it teaches compositions comprising hydroxy functional polymers, including polyacrylics and polyesters, which contain a polyalkylene glycol diluent of the claimed boiling points.
In light of the motivation provided by Dhein to use a reactive diluent in curable coating compositions comprising a hydroxyl-containing polymer and a polyisocyanate component, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a polyfunctional reactive diluent, such as polyethylene glycol or polypropylene glycol, to the curable, film-forming compositions of Mauer, in order to obtain a coating with improved hardness, and therefore improved mar and abrasion resistance, and thereby result in the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, page 7, filed 01/28/2026, with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 1-7, 9, and 13-17 as being unpatentable over US 6,300,422 (Wu) in view of JP 2019-112476 (Hayashi) as evidenced by US 2018/0118965 (Tabuchi); of claim 8 over Wu in view of Hayashi, and in further view of US 5,639,514 (Jones); and of claim 10 over Wu in view of Hayashi and further in view of US 2015/0077488 (Mozel), have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn.
Specifically, Wu in view of Hayashi, alone or in combination with Tabuchi, Jones and Mozel, do not teach compositions which are essentially free of butanol and water, and which comprise about 5% to about 35% by weight of the ink vehicle composition of a nonvolatile diluent having a boiling point of about 145oC to about 200oC as presently claimed.
However, upon further consideration and search, new grounds of rejection are made over Mauer taken in view of evidence of Shim; over Mauer taken in view of evidence of Shim and further in view of Mizuno or Dhein; and over Mauer taken in view of evidence by Dow, as set forth above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jacobs, III et al, US 2015/0376148 A1, teaches a process for preparing triazine carbamates, which can be used to form crosslinked inks, as well as many other thermosetting applications (Abstract and [0022]).
Jacobs, III et al, U.S. Patent No. 5,084,541, cited in the PTO-892 mailed 05/05/2025, and incorporated herein by Mauer (relied upon in the above rejections), teaches propylene glycol monomethyl ether acetate as an appropriate solvent for providing formulations of the triazine compounds (col. 2, line 50-col. 3, line 33; col. 10, Examples 7 and 8). Jacobs III does not teach or suggest water or butanol as a diluent.-
Bartol et al, US 6143367 (Bartol), cited in the IDS filed 2/13/2026, teaches two-component systems comprising a hydroxy-functional binder and a tris(alkoxycarbonylamino)triazine (col. 1, lines 6-11 and col. 2, lines 40-44). The tris(alkoxycarbonylamino)triazines are of the formula shown, which overlap with those of formula (I) as claimed (col. 5, line 50-col. 6, line 2). The compositions may comprise color pigments and are thermally cured (col. 8, lines 39-47 and col. 9, lines 62-64). The components may be free from water (col. 8, line 60col. 9, line 2).
Bartol exemplifies Comp. 1b, 1d and 1F in Table 1 (col. 11, lines 16-49). These compositions comprise a triazine crosslinker according to US 5084541 in amounts ranging from 10-13 wt%, hydroxy-functional acrylate polymers in amounts ranging from 50-62 wt%, and butylglycol acetate + methoxypropyl acetate (i.e., nonvolatile diluents having a boiling point of about 145oC to about 200oC) in amounts of 5.5-7.6 wt%, based on the total weight of Component (I). Comp. 1b, 1d and 1F are free from butanol and water.
A rejection over Bartol would be cumulative to the above rejection over Mauer.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAROLINE D LIOTT whose telephone number is (703)756-1836. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5.
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, Coris Fung can be reached at (571)270-5713. 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.
/CDL/Examiner, Art Unit 1732
/CORIS FUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1732