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 .
The response of the applicant to the restriction/election has been received and made of record. The restriction/election requirement is repeated below and made final.
Claims 1-20 are generic to the following disclosed patentably distinct species: resin mixtures of polymers with other polymers or compounds with one polymer or compound having halogen substituents and the other polymer or compound having thioether linkages, thiourethane linkages or halogen substituents. The species are independent or distinct because as disclosed the different species have mutually exclusive characteristics for each identified species. In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
Applicant is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 to elect a single disclosed species, or a single grouping of patentably indistinct species, for prosecution on the merits to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable.
There is a serious search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because at least the following reason(s) apply:
The breadth of the claims embraces thousands and perhaps millions of mixtures which would be classified in different areas. The applicant should identify a specific (complete) polymer and a specific (second, complete) polymer or specific (complete) compound as a starting point for examination of the claims. Responses specifying only a partial structure will be considered non-responsive.
The applicant should also identify the claims which the elected species are embodiments of.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a species or a grouping of patentably indistinct species to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species, including any claims subsequently added. An argument that a claim is allowable or that all claims are generic is considered nonresponsive unless accompanied by an election.
The election may be made with or without traverse. To preserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the election of species requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the species, or groupings of patentably indistinct species from which election is required, are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the species to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the species unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other species.
Upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species which depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable generic claim as provided by 37 CFR 1.141.
A telephone call was made to Tae-Woong KOO ( 59,649) on August 14, 2024 to request an oral election to the above restriction requirement, but did not result in an election being made. A phone message was left.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
Claims 3-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/18/2024.
The applicant has elected the embodiment of a mixture of homopolymers of 2,2-difluoropropane-1,3-diol and m-xylene dithiol as illustrated below
PNG
media_image1.png
144
180
media_image1.png
Greyscale
. This election exclude the case where the composition is a mixture of a resin and a non-polymeric compound. Claims 3-15 are to the combination of a polymer and a polymer precursor compounds, noting that none of the compounds in claim 3 are polymers and claims 14-15 and 17 describes these as polymer precursors, claim 10-12 recite polymerizable groups/moieties on these compounds.
The examiner notes that claim 16 requires these to be at least partially polymerized.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1,2 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
The position of the examiner is that the specification does not enable one skilled in the art to make the elected polymer mixture which is able to function as a volume Bragg grating recording material, which is a mixture of a homopolymer of 2,2-difluoropropane-1,3-diol and a homopolymer of m-xylene dithiol. Specifically, the applicant has failed to teach how to make either of the homopolymers of the elected repeating units. Polymers of either of the elected repeating units bonded directly to each other without intervening moieties are not known in the art based on a chemical abstracts search.
The Wands factors are:
(A) The breadth of the claims;
(B) The nature of the invention;
(C) The state of the prior art;
(D) The level of one of ordinary skill;
(E) The level of predictability in the art;
(F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor;
(G) The existence of working examples; and
(H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure.
A The breadth of the claim 1 is extensive,
PNG
media_image2.png
140
403
media_image2.png
Greyscale
and seeks coverage for a mixture of polymers or a mixture of a polymer and a compounds with each having one of the recited atoms/moieties. The elected species is more limited being homopolymers of the recited repeating units:
PNG
media_image3.png
139
177
media_image3.png
Greyscale
B The nature of the elected invention is to a combination of polymers. Specific embodiments include the case where the distribution of the polymers in the layer encodes holographic (phase) information.
C The state of the art of polymeric holograms is fairly advanced with patents with patent US 3658526 having been issued in 1972. Various assignees, including DuPont, Bayer, Facebook and Fujifilm have patented their work in the US and other countries. The field of polymer synthesis is also vary developed.
Attached the office action as part of the search notes are Chemical Abstracts (CAS scifinder) searches for polymers having repeating units of
PNG
media_image4.png
123
234
media_image4.png
Greyscale
or
PNG
media_image5.png
74
175
media_image5.png
Greyscale
.
None of the polymers found in the searches for these two repeating units are homopolymers of the recited repeating groups. According to CAS information, SciFinder covers chemical information from approximately 1830 to the present with patents and chemical journals being abstracted and indexed.
D The skill level of one in holography or polymer synthesis tends to be someone with a master or doctorate degree and often years of experience in these arts.
E The level of predictability in the holographic arts and in polymer synthesis is fairly high.
F The instant application does not teach how to make homopolymers of the elected repeating units. The specification instead describes how to make polyurethanes by the reaction of isocyanate reactive compounds (polyhydroxy compounds including diols, thiols and the like are exemplified) and (poly)isocyanates.
G There are no working examples in the instant specification. There are also no examples of synthesis of polymers beyond the reaction of (poly)isocyanates and isocyanate reactive compounds, which do not result in homopolymers, let alone homopolymers with the elected repeating units.
H based upon the lack of any disclosure of the homopolymers of these repeating units in the chemical literature as evidenced by the CAS scifinder search of the chemical literature over the periods of 1830 to the present and the lack of any examples or synthesis teachings of the formation of homopolymers of these repeating units in the instant specification, the examiner holds that there would need to be extensive experimentation to synthesize the elected polymers and the recited mixture of them
The applicant argues that merely amending the language “recording material for writing a volume Bragg grating, the material comprising a resin mixture…” is sufficient to obviate the 112 rejection. The applicant provides no discussion of how to make the elected co-polymer or how to make record a grating in the elected copolymer. The rejection stands.
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. 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 2 and 16-17 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.
The preambles of claims 2,16,17 should recite - - the recording material- - , not a resin mixture or polymeric material.
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.
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.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasakawa et al. KR 920001650, in view of Schneider et al. 20060167153.
Sasakawa et al. KR 920001650 (machine translation attached) teaches in example 2, a composition including 100 parts of p-xylene diisocyanate, 90 parts of m-xylene dithiol, 0.1 parts of dibutyltin dilaurate and Q2-120A prototype of Dow U.S.A. in a mold combining two glass lens models and a polythiol type gasket. 120 A 150 ppm of a homogeneous mixed solution is injected, heated at 50 ° C. for 6 hours, 80 ° C. for 2 hours, 90 ° C. for 2 hours, and 110 ° C. for 2 hours to polymerize (forming a thiourethane polymer), cooled, and released from a mold. Obtained the lens. No releasing occurred during polymerization, releasing from the glass model lens of the lens after cooling was easy, and the surface of the obtained lens maintained high transparency and had good surface accuracy. Example 3 is a composition which is polymerized including 188 parts of m-xylene diisocyanurate, 1, 3, 5-tris (3-mercaptopropyl) isocyanurate 140 parts, m-k in the mold which combined two glass lens models and polyethylene gaskets 68 parts of silylene dithiol, 0.1 part of dibutyltin dilaurate, 50 ppm of United (sic, Unidyne) DS-403 (manufactured by Daishin Industrial Co., Ltd.) and 100 ppm of Dow's prototype Q2-120A in the USA were injected, and 50 ° C 6 hours, 2 hours at 80 ° C, 2 hours at 90 ° C, and 2 hours at 100 ° C for polymerization, followed by cooling to release from the mold to obtain a lens made of sulfur-containing urethane resin. No release occurred during polymerization, release from the glass model lens of the lens after cooling was easy, and the surface of the obtained lens maintained high transparency (page 7-3). the fluorine nonionic surfactant and silicone nonionic surfactant used by this invention are compounds which have a pafluoroalkyl group or a dimethylpolysiloxane group in a molecule, and have a hydroxyalkyl group and a phosphate ester group, As an former fluorine-type nonionic surfactant, United (sic, Unidyne) DS-401 (made in Japan, Daishin Kogyo Co., Ltd.), United (sic, Unidyne) DS-403 (made in Japan, Daikin Kogyo Co., Ltd.), F EF 122A (made in Japan, Shinagawa Kasei Co., Ltd.) There is EF 126 (product made in Japan, Shinagawa Kasei Co., Ltd.), F EF 301 (product made in Japan, Shinkada Kasei Co., Ltd.), and as the latter silicone type nonionic surfactant, Q2-120A which is a prototype of the US Dow Corporation is have. (page 7-2).
Schneider et al. 20060167153 establishes that Unidyne DS-403 (RTM) (Daikin, Japan) is a fluorine containing surfactant of the formula II (II)
PNG
media_image6.png
109
380
media_image6.png
Greyscale
where R.sub.2 is hydroxyl, m is 7, n is 1 to 10, and p is 2 [0070].
Sasakawa et al. KR 920001650 does not exemplify a mixture of homopolymers of 2,2-difluoropropane-1,3-diol and m-xylene dithiol or a mixture of copolymer derived from m-xylene dithiol together with a fluorinated alkyl polymer.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify example 2 of Sasakawa et al. KR 920001650, which teaches the copolymerization of m-xylene dithiol and p-xylene diisocyanate in the presence of the surfactant Q2-120A prototype of Dow U.S.A, by replacing the surfactant with United (sic, Unidyne) DS-403 based upon the disclosed equivalence at page 7-2 of Sasakawa et al. KR 920001650, with the structure of that polymeric fluorinated surfactant being evidenced at [0070] of Schneider et al. 20060167153.
The applicant’s arguments are a bald statement that each element of the claims has not been taught. The examiner points to the references and the teachings above as a response.
Claims 1,2,16,17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dhar et al. 20030087104, in view of Chemical on-line, “OMNOVA Solutions introduces proprietary PolyFox fluorochemicals for coatings and inks”, (03/2001)
Dhar et al. 20030087104 in example 1 in Tank A contains Biuret Trimer of HDI 292.0 gm HDI 97.4 gm Tribromophenylacrylate 64.22 gm Irgacure-784 14.0 gm BHT 210 mg Component 2, and in Tank B contains PolyFox .TM. T 817.9 gm Polypropylene Oxide Triol 517.9 gm t-Butylhydroperoxide 580 .mu.l Dibutyltindilaurate 10.2 gm, which is mixed and the polyfox (fluorinated polyol), and propylene oxide triol react with the trimer or hexamethylenediisocyanate (HDI) to form a fluorinated urethane [0091-0092) and were used to form a holographic recording medium with a thickness of 750 microns [0096]. The use of spacers control the thickness to any desired [0060]. Useful photoreactive monomers include 2,4,6-tribromophenylacrylate, pentabromoacrylate, isobornylacrylate, phenylthioethyl acrylate tetrahydrofurfurylacrylate, 1-vinyl-2-pyrrolidinone, asymmetric bis thionapthyl acrylate, 2-phenoxyethylacrylate, and the like [0030].
Chemical on-line, “OMNOVA Solutions introduces proprietary PolyFox fluorochemicals for coatings and inks”, (03/2001) teaches that OMNOVA Solutions is pleased to announce the introduction of an exciting, new line of fluorochemicals for use as additives and reactants in coatings, inks and related applications. "PolyFox T" and "PolyFox TB" materials are the first in a family of polymeric fluorochemicals that will be commercialized under the PolyFox™ trademark.
PolyFox T material, a fluorinated diol, can be used unreacted as an additive in many coating systems and in polyurethanes or polyesters as a synthetic intermediate. The PolyFox TB fluoropolymer is based on the same chemistry but with diacrylate termination, making it useful as a comonomer or crosslinker in UV/EB acrylic systems.
These unique materials were initially developed for internal use at OMNOVA Solutions and are the key components in a number of commercially successful coated products. Foremost among these new products is OMNOVA's MemErase™ dry erasable vinyl wallcovering, a functional wall finish that delivers unsurpassed performance and architectural flexibility in applications such as laminated wall panels for modern office environments.
Technology behind the PolyFox brand materials also provides distinctive performance attributes to OMNOVA's Radiance™ ultragloss laminate, a rigid vinyl with a high gloss and durable coated surface. This decorative product is flat laminated to create finished surfaces for residential furniture that mimic wood, faux and solid designs with polyester lacquer finishes.
In both cases, coating technology including PolyFox materials contributes to improved wetting, flow and leveling, clarity, mar, scratch and superior stain resistance. Recent work has indicated that these same benefits may be derived from using PolyFox T and PolyFox TB modifiers in a wide variety of coating and ink applications. For more information on PolyFox materials for coatings and inks, contact Russ Craig at 330-794-6371 or Russ.Craig@OMNOVA.com. For more information on MemErase wall finishes, visit the website at www.memerase.com.
Dhar et al. 20030087104 does not exemplify a mixture of homopolymers of 2,2-difluoropropane-1,3-diol and m-xylene dithiol or a mixture of copolymer derived from a thiol together with a fluorinated alkyl polymer.
It would have been obvious to modify the composition of example 1 by replacing the Tribromophenylacrylate with a sulfur containing monomer such as phenylthioethyl acrylate or asymmetric bis thionapthyl acrylate and recording holograms in the result to yield a composite polymer layer of the (fully or partially) polymerized sulfur monomer and the fluorinated polyurethane matrix with a thickness of 750 microns between two transparent glass substrates with a reasonable expectation of forming useful holograms.
This would meet an embodiment where the composition includes a thio linkage containing polymer and a fluorine containing polymer.
The applicant’s arguments are a bald statement that each element of the claims has not been taught. The examiner points to the references and the teachings above as a response.
Claims 1,2,16,17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dhar et al. 20030087104, in view of Chemical on-line, “OMNOVA Solutions introduces proprietary PolyFox fluorochemicals for coatings and inks”, (03/2001) and Schwalker et al. 3016360.
Schwalker et al. 3016360 establishes that the use of 2,2-difluoropropanediol and other fluorinated diols in forming condensation polymers is old and well known (col 7/line 22).
It would have been obvious to modify the composition of example 1 by replacing the Tribromophenylacrylate with a sulfur containing monomer such as phenylthioethyl acrylate or asymmetric bis thionapthyl acrylate and replacing the Polyfox T fluorinated diol with othere diols known to be useful in condensation polymerization reactions, such as 2,2-difluoropropanediol which is taught by Schwalker et al. 3016360 and recording holograms in the result to yield a composite polymer layer of the (fully or partially) polymerized sulfur monomer and the fluorinated polyurethane matrix with a thickness of 750 microns between two transparent glass substrates with a reasonable expectation of forming useful holograms.
This would meet an embodiment where the composition includes a thio linkage containing polymer and a
PNG
media_image5.png
74
175
media_image5.png
Greyscale
containing polymer.
The applicant’s arguments are a bald statement that each element of the claims has not been taught. The examiner points to the references and the teachings above as a response.
Claims 1,2,16,17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dhar et al. 20030087104, in view of Chemical on-line, “OMNOVA Solutions introduces proprietary PolyFox fluorochemicals for coatings and inks”, (03/2001) and Dhar et al. 20020142227.
Dhar et al. 20020142227 teaches holographic recording composition having thicknesses of 300 to more than 500 microns [0010]. Examples are 270-290 microns [0046], 200 microns [0053] , 940 microns [0055] and 250 microns [0056].
Dhar et al. 20030087104 does not teach thicknesses other than 750 microns.
It would have been obvious to modify the holographic recording media rendered obvious by the combination of Dhar et al. 20030087104, in view of Chemical on-line, “OMNOVA Solutions introduces proprietary PolyFox fluorochemicals for coatings and inks”, (03/2001) as discussed above by forming the recording media with spacers yielding other thicknesses of the recording composition, such as 500 and 940 microns as taught by Dhar et al. 20020142227 with a reasonable expectation of forming useful holograms.
This would meet an embodiment where the composition includes a thio linkage containing polymer and a fluorine containing polyurethane polymer with a thickness of 500-940 microns.
The applicant’s arguments are a bald statement that each element of the claims has not been taught. The examiner points to the references and the teachings above as a response.
Claims 1,2,16,17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dhar et al. 20030087104, in view of Chemical on-line, “OMNOVA Solutions introduces proprietary PolyFox fluorochemicals for coatings and inks”, (03/2001) and Schwalker et al. 3016360, further in view of Yanagida JP 2013205768, Izumi et al. KR 20120102593 and/or Keita et al. EP 745620.
Yanagida JP 2013205768 (machine translation attached) teaches monomers useful for forming lenses, which are a monomer having an L scale Rockwell hardness of more than 40 and less than 60 (sometimes referred to as a medium hardness monomer), for example, having an average molecular weight of 650 Polytetramethylene glycol dimethacrylate, polytetramethylene glycol dimethacrylate having an average molecular weight of 1,400, bifunctional (meth) acrylates such as bis (2-methacryloyloxyethylthioethyl) sulfide; diallyl phthalate, diallyl isophthalate, diallyl tartrate Polyallyl compounds such as epoxy succinate diallyl, diallyl fumarate, diallyl chlorendate, diallyl hexaphthalate, allyl diglycol carbonate; 1,2-bis (methacryloylthio) ethane, bis (2-acryloylthioethyl) ether, 1,4 -Polyvalent thioacrylic acid and polyvalent thiomethacrylic acid ester compounds such as bis (methacryloylthiomethyl) benzene; unsaturated carboxylic acids such as acrylic acid, methacrylic acid, and maleic anhydride; methyl methacrylate, butyl methacrylate, methacrylic acid Acrylic acid and methacrylic acid ester compounds such as benzyl, phenyl methacrylate, 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate, biphenyl methacrylate; fumaric acid ester compounds such as diethyl fumarate and diphenyl fumarate; methylthioacrylate, benzylthioacrylate, benzylthiomethacrylate, etc. Thioacrylic acid and thiomethacrylic acid ester compounds; styrene, chlorostyrene, methylstyrene, vinylnaphthalene, α-methylstyrene dimer, bromostyrene, divinylbenzene, Vinyl compounds such as nylpyrrolidone; oleyl methacrylate, nerol methacrylate, geraniol methacrylate, linalool methacrylate, farnesol methacrylate, etc. And radical polymerizable monofunctional monomers [0050].
Izumi et al. KR 20120102593 (machine translation attached) teaches urethane (meth)acrylate monomers. Monomer disclosed as compatible with them include ethylene glycol diacrylate, diethylene glycol dimethacrylate, triethylene glycol dimethacrylate, and tetraethylene glycol dimethacrylate. , Ethylene glycol bis glycidyl methacrylate, bisphenol A dimethacrylate, 2,2-bis (4-methacryloyloxyethoxyphenyl) propane, 2,2-bis (3,5-dibromo Polyhydric acrylic acid and polyhydric methacrylic acid ester compounds such as 4-methacryloyloxyethoxyphenyl) propane; Diallyl phthalate, diallyl terephthalate, diallyl isophthalate, diallyl tartalic acid, diallyl tartaric acid, diallyl epoxy succinate, diallyl fumarate, diallyl chlorate diallyl, diallyl hexaphthalate, diallyl carbonate, allyl dimethyl glycol Polyvalent allyl compounds such as trimethylolpropanetriallyl carbonate; Polyhydric thioacrylic acid and polyhydric thiomethacryl such as 1,2-bis (methacryloylthio) ethane, bis (2-acryloylthioethyl) ether and 1,4-bis (methacryloylthiomethyl) benzene Acid ester compounds; Glycidyl acrylate, glycidyl methacrylate, β-methylglycidyl methacrylate, bisphenol A- monoglycidyl ether-methacrylate, 4-glycidyloxy methacrylate, 3- (gly Cydyl-2-oxyethoxy) -2-hydroxypropylmethacrylate, 3- (glycidyloxy-1-isopropyloxy) -2-hydroxypropylacrylate, 3-glycidyloxy-2 Acrylic acid ester compounds and methacrylic acid ester compounds such as -hydroxypropyloxy) -2-hydroxypropyl acrylate; Monomers, such as divinylbenzene, are mentioned [0149].
Keita et al. EP 745620 (machine translation attached) teaches non-yellowing monomers useful in photopolymerizable compositions, bounded by formula (I),
PNG
media_image7.png
61
112
media_image7.png
Greyscale
, where R represents an aliphatic hydrocarbon radical, linear or branched, monovalent or polyvalent, or a monovalent or polyvalent aromatic group directly linked to the sulfur atom of the thio (meth) acrylate group or groups by an aromatic nucleus or via a linear alkyl chain, the radical R possibly comprising in its chain one or more groups chosen from -O-, -S-, [0002] R .sub.1 represents hydrogen or -CH .sub.3 ; and n is an integer from 1 to 6, preferably from 1 to 3 (2/45-3/7).
PNG
media_image8.png
123
356
media_image8.png
Greyscale
is taught on page 8
It would have been obvious to modify the holographic recording media rendered obvious by the combination of Dhar et al. 20030087104, Chemical on-line, “OMNOVA Solutions introduces proprietary PolyFox fluorochemicals for coatings and inks”, (03/2001) and Schwalker et al. 3016360 as discussed above by replacing the monomer with a 1,4-bis [(meth) acryloylthiomethyl] benzene monomer taught by Yanagida JP 2013205768, Izumi et al. KR 20120102593 and/or Keita et al. EP 745620 with a reasonable expectation of success in forming a useful holograms based upon the direction to sulfur containing monomers in Dhar et al. 20030087104
This would meet an embodiment where the composition includes a xylene disulfide linkage containing acrylate polymer and a fluorine containing polyurethane polymer.
The applicant’s arguments are a bald statement that each element of the claims has not been taught. The examiner points to the references and the teachings above as a response.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Martin J Angebranndt whose telephone number is (571)272-1378. The examiner can normally be reached 7-3:30 pm EST.
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 F Huff can be reached on 571-272-1385. 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.
MARTIN J. ANGEBRANNDT
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1737
/MARTIN J ANGEBRANNDT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1737 October 24, 2025