6DETAILED ACTION
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
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 9/24/2026 has been entered.
Drawings
The drawings filed 12/1/2022 are accepted.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 10-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rukavina (US 2020/071451).
Rukavina discloses a hard coat composition comprising a thermoplastic polyurethane having a hard segment content of 70-100wt% (0420-herien understood to read on a “hard coat composition”) wherein the thermoplastic polyurethane is a reaction product of:
a) a diisocyanate, such as 4,4’-methylene-bis-(cyclohexyl isocyanate (0014; 0020) ; alternatively, the polyurethane may comprise oligomeric or polymeric polyols having an average molecular with of at least 400g.mol (0547)
b) a polyol which may comprise a polycaprolactone polyol (0509) having two hydroxyl groups (0009-0010; 0509), said polyol may have a number average molecular weight of about 500g/mole or more (0509;); said diol also may be branched (0509-1,2 propanediol; herein understood to read on the claimed “side chain”). Rukavina further teaches at least one of the isocyanate or the polyol is branched (0414) as branching increases the free volume within the polymer matrix resulting in good impact resistance and higher modulus of elasticity (0414). The thermoplastic polyurethane further comprises:
c) a chain extender, such as cyclohexane dimethanol (CHDM) (e.g. 0691),
wherein the at least one of the diisocyanate or the chain extender comprises a cyclic structure (the chain extender is cyclohexanedimethanol ).
With regard to claim 2, the hard segment content may be 90 percent by eight or greater (0420; table 1109).
With regards to claim 3, the diisocyanate may comprise 4,4’-methylene-bis-(cyclohexyl isocyanate.
With regards to claim 4, the diisocyanate may be 4,4’-methylene-bis-(cyclohexyl isocyanate.
With regards to claims 5 and 6, the chain extent may comprise cyclohexane dimethanol.
With regards to claims 7, the polyol comprises polycaprolactone polyols.
With regards to claims 10-14, Rukavina discloses also (see D1, pages 9-10, par. 0309 - 0315) that the above mentioned hard coat compositions are providing laminates by applying the composition on at least one layer of a substrate selected from the group consisting of paper, glass, ceramic, wood, masonry, textile, metal or organic polymeric material and combinations thereof. Rukavina additionally discloses (see pages 56-57, par. 0894- 0897) the possible use of adhesive layers: “the layers within the multilayered article can be laminated by heat and/ or pressure, bonded by one or more adhesive materials or one or more layers in between having adhering properties, have one or more interlayers in between layers, or merely placed adjacent to another layer”. The laminate may further comprise a color layer (0677; 0892).
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 9-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rukavina (US 2020/071451) in view of Ohmori et al (US 2002/0016436).
Rukavina discloses a hard coat composition comprising a thermoplastic polyurethane having a hard segment content of 70-100wt% (0420-herien understood to read on a “hard coat composition”) wherein the thermoplastic polyurethane is a reaction product of:
a) a diisocyanate, such as 4,4’-methylene-bis-(cyclohexyl isocyanate (0014; 0020) ; alternatively, the polyurethane may comprise oligomeric or polymeric polyols having an average molecular with of at least 400g.mol (0547)
b) a polyol which may comprise a polycaprolactone polyol (0509) having two hydroxyl groups (0009-0010; 0509), said polyol may have a number average molecular weight of about 500g/mole or more (0509;); said diol also may be branched (0509-1,2 propanediol; herein understood to read on the claimed “side chain”). Rukavina teaches at least one of the isocyanate or the polyol is branched (0414) as branching increases the free volume within the polymer matrix resulting in good impact resistance and higher modulus of elasticity (0414). The thermoplastic polyurethane further comprises:
c) a chain extender, such as cyclohexane dimethanol (CHDM) (e.g. 0691),
wherein the at least one of the diisocyanate or the chain extender comprises a cyclic structure (the chain extender is cyclohexanedimethanol ).
With regard to claim 2, the hard segment content may be 90 percent by eight or greater (0420; table 1109).
With regards to claim 3, the diisocyanate may comprise 4,4’-methylene-bis-(cyclohexyl isocyanate.
With regards to claim 4, the diisocyanate may be 4,4’-methylene-bis-(cyclohexyl isocyanate.
With regards to claims 5 and 6, the chain extent may comprise cyclohexane dimethanol.
With regards to claims 7, the polyol comprises polycaprolactone polyols.
With regards to claims 10-14, Rukavina discloses also (see D1, pages 9-10, par. 0309 - 0315) that the above mentioned hard coat compositions are providing laminates by applying the composition on at least one layer of a substrate selected from the group consisting of paper, glass, ceramic, wood, masonry, textile, metal or organic polymeric material and combinations thereof. Rukavina additionally discloses (see pages 56-57, par. 0894- 0897) the possible use of adhesive layers: “the layers within the multilayered article can be laminated by heat and/ or pressure, bonded by one or more adhesive materials or one or more layers in between having adhering properties, have one or more interlayers in between layers, or merely placed adjacent to another layer”. The laminate may further comprise a color layer (0677; 0892).
Rukavina teaches the polyol may comprise a polyester polyol (0509) but does not teach the claimed polyol. However, Ohmori teaches a polyurethane composition comprising a polyester polyol. Ohmori teaches the polyester diols are preferably condensed polyester diols derived from dihydric alcohol and at least one aromatic dicarboxylic acid and have an Mn of 500 to 10,000, preferably 800 to 5,000, more preferably 1,000 to 3,000 (0018-0019). The polyhydric alcohol may comprise branched diols (0010). Soft touch is not obtained in case the number average molecular weight is lower than 500, while the required strength is not attained when it is higher than 10,000. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize the polyester diol of Ohmori as the polyester polyol disclosed in Rukavina. The motivation for doing so would have been to control the soft touch and strength characteristics of said composition.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are considered moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN R KRUER whose telephone number is (571)272-1510. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Callie Shosho can be reached at (571) 272-1123. 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.
/KEVIN R KRUER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
