DETAILED 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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, lines 6-7: “hydroxypropyl methacrylate, hydroxyethyl acrylate and hydroxypropyl acrylate” should read “hydroxypropyl methacrylate, hydroxyethyl acrylate, and hydroxypropyl acrylate”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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 1-4, 6-7, 9, 11, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schaefer et al. (US 2010/0183883 A1, “Schaefer”) in view of Li (CN 110054722 A). The disclosure of Li is based off a machine translation of the reference included with the action mailed 29 July 2025.
With respect to claims 1-3, 9, 11, and 16, Schaefer discloses water-dispersible polyisocyanates ([0001], [0015]) used for coating wood ([0164]) and is a primer ([0167]) and sealant ([0168-0169]) (i.e., is a sealing primer for woodware). The dispersions have a solids content of 10-85% ([0153]), which overlaps the presently claimed range. 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). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a solids content, including values presently claimed, in order to provide a coating having desired solids content. The isocyanates include hexamethylene diisocyanate (HDI), 1,4-diisocyanatocyclohexane (i.e., cyclohexane-1,4-diisocyanate), isophorone diisocyanate (IPDI) ([0025]), and dicyclohexylmethane-4,4’-diisocyanate ([0029]). The polyisocyanate further includes hydroxyalkyl (meth)acrylates ([0051]). Because the coating is water dispersed, the hydroxyalkyl (meth)acrylates would inherently be water soluble, absent evidence to the contrary. Schaefer does not disclose the use of a film-forming resin, and thus the sealing primer is substantially free of film-forming resins.
However, while Schaefer discloses the use of a water-based wood sealing primer containing hydroxyalkyl (meth)acrylates as set forth above, Schaefer does not disclose wherein the at least one hydroxyalkyl (meth)acrylate is selected from one or more of hydroxyethyl methacrylate, hydroxypropyl methacrylate, hydroxyethyl acrylate, and hydroxypropyl acrylate.
Li teaches an aqueous dispersion ([0009]) having an aqueous hydroxylated acrylic dispersion ([0010]) and a water dispersible polyisocyanate ([0043]). The aqueous hydroxylated dispersion includes hydroxyethyl methacrylate, hydroxypropyl methacrylate, hydroxyethyl acrylate, and hydroxypropyl acrylate ([0016]). The dispersion has excellent heat resistance, chemical resistance, and aging resistance ([0009]). Li further teaches the construction solid content is 47.5 wt% ([0103]) in order to provide for improved appearance and coating efficiency ([0009]).
Schaefer and Li are analogous inventions in the field of aqueous dispersions of polyisocyanates and hydroxyalkyl (meth)acrylates.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hydroxyalkyl (meth)acrylates of Schaefer to be hydroxyethyl methacrylate, hydroxypropyl methacrylate, hydroxyethyl acrylate, and hydroxypropyl acrylate, and to modify the coating to have a construction solid content of 47.5 wt% as taught by Li in order to provide a coating dispersion having excellent heat resistance, chemical resistance, and aging resistance, as well as improved appearance and coating efficiency (Li, [0009]).
With respect to claim 4, Schaefer discloses sulfonate groups are incorporated into the polyisocyanate ([0109]) (i.e., the at least one water-dispersible isocyanate contains a sulfonate group).
With respect to claims 6-7, Schaefer discloses the use of solvent ([0129]), where the solvents include esters including ethyl acetate and n-butyl acetate ([0130-0131]).
With respect to claim 14, Schaefer discloses the water-dispersible polyisocyanates ([0001], [0015]) is used for coating wood ([0164]) (corresponding to the claimed wood substrate having at least one main surface); the coating is a primer ([0167]) and sealant ([0168-0169]) and therefore corresponds to the claimed sealing primer layer at least partially coated on the main surface.
With respect to claim 15, while there may be no disclosure in Schaefer regarding the sealing primer having a coating amount ranging from 30-100 g/m2, given that Schaefer discloses its use as a coating, adhesive, and sealant ([0168-0169]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a coating amount, including values presently claimed, in order to provide a coating having sufficient adhesive or sealant properties.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schaefer et al. (US 2010/0183883 A1, “Schaefer”) in view of Li (CN 110054722 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kanetani (JP H08-048738 A). The disclosures of Li and Kanetani are based off machine translations of the references included with the action mailed 29 July 2025.
With respect to claim 10, while Schaefer in view of Li discloses the use of a polyisocyanate (corresponding to the claimed component A) and a hydroxyalkyl (meth)acrylate (corresponding to the claimed component B) as set forth in the above rejection of claim 1, Schaefer in view of Li does not disclose wherein the weight ratio of component A to component B is in the range of 1.5:1 to 3:1.
Kanetani teaches a water dispersible polyisocyanate and an ethylenically unsaturated monomer ([0001], [0005]). The ethylenically unsaturated monomer includes vinyl monomers ([0008]) including 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate, which is blended in an amount of 20-200 parts by weight per 100 parts by weight polyisocyanate in order to provide a dispersion having a sufficient NCO content ([0012]). Thus, the weight ratio of polyisocyanate to hydroxyalkyl (meth)acrylate is 0.5:1 (100/200 = 0.5/1) to 5:1 (100/20 = 5/1), which overlaps the presently claimed range.
Schaefer in view of Li and Kanetani are analogous inventions in the field of aqueous dispersions of polyisocyanates and hydroxyalkyl (meth)acrylates.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the amount of hydroxyalkyl (meth)acrylate in Schaefer in view of Li to be amounts taught by Kanetani, resulting in a ratio of isocyanate:hydroxyalkyl (meth)acrylate of 0.5:1 to 5:1, in order to provide a dispersion having sufficient NCO content (Kanetani, [0012]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schaefer et al. (US 2010/0183883 A1, “Schaefer”) in view of Li (CN 110054722 A) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Kirimoto (US 6,261,695 B1). The disclosure of Li is based off a machine translation of the reference included with the action mailed 29 July 2025.
With respect to claim 15, Schaefer in view of Li does not disclose wherein the sealing primer has a coating amount ranging from 30-100 g/m2.
Kirimoto teaches applying a coating composition to a substrate in an amount of 0.001-100 g/m2 in order to not unnecessarily waste the coating material (Col. 6, lines 60-67). The coating is made from a polyisocyanate and is an aqueous dispersion (Col. 1, lines 12-20).
Schaefer in view of Li and Kirimoto are analogous inventions in the field of coatings made from aqueous dispersions of polyisocyanates.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the coating of Schaefer in view of Li to have a coating amount of 0.001-100 g/m2 (including values presently claimed) as taught by Kirimoto in order to not unnecessarily waste the coating material (Kirimoto, Col. 6, lines 60-67).
Claims 1-7, 9, 11, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nennemann et al. (US 2012/0041142 A1, “Nennemann”) in view of Li (CN 110054722 A). The disclosure of Li is based off a machine translation of the reference included with the action mailed 29 July 2025.
With respect to claims 1-3, 9, 11, and 16, Nennemann discloses water-dispersible compositions made from hydrophilic polyisocyanates modified with nanoparticles ([0001], [0007]). The solids content of the polyisocyanates (PIC’s) is 20-100 wt% ([0095]), which overlaps the presently claimed range. 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). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a solids content, including values presently claimed, in order to provide a coating having desired solids content. The polyisocyanates include 1,4-diisocyanatobutane (i.e., 1,4-butane diisocyanate), 1,6-diisocyanatohexane (HDI), 1,10-diisocyanatodecane (i.e., 1,10-decane diisocyanate), 1,3-diisocyanatocyclohexane (i.e., cyclohexane-1,3-diisocyanate), 1,4-diisocyanatocyclohexane (i.e., cyclohexane-1,4-diisocyanate), and isophorone diisocyanate (IPDI) ([0030]). The polyisocyanates form a coating ([0104]) and are primers ([0098]); the coating is applied to substrates including wood ([0111]). The polyisocyanates are used with lacquer binders dispersed in water, including hydroxyl-group-containing polyacrylates ([0106], [0108]) (i.e., hydroxyalkyl (meth)acrylates). Because they are dispersed in water, they are inherently water soluble. Because Nennemann does not disclose the use of a film forming resin with the polyisocyanates, then the sealing primer is substantially free of film-forming resins.
However, while Nennemann discloses the use of hydroxyl-group-containing polyacrylates as set forth above, Nennemann does not disclose wherein the at least one hydroxyalkyl (meth)acrylate is selected from one or more of hydroxyethyl methacrylate, hydroxypropyl methacrylate, hydroxyethyl acrylate, and hydroxypropyl acrylate.
Li teaches an aqueous dispersion ([0009]) having an aqueous hydroxylated acrylic dispersion ([0010]) and a water dispersible polyisocyanate ([0043]). The aqueous hydroxylated dispersion includes hydroxyethyl methacrylate, hydroxypropyl methacrylate, hydroxyethyl acrylate, and hydroxypropyl acrylate ([0016]). The dispersion has excellent heat resistance, chemical resistance, and aging resistance ([0009]). Li further teaches the construction solid content is 47.5 wt% ([0103]) in order to provide for improved appearance and coating efficiency ([0009]).
Nennemann and Li are analogous inventions in the field of aqueous dispersions of polyisocyanates and hydroxyalkyl (meth)acrylates.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hydroxyalkyl (meth)acrylates of Nennemann to be hydroxyethyl methacrylate, hydroxypropyl methacrylate, hydroxyethyl acrylate, and hydroxypropyl acrylate, and to modify the coating to have a construction solid content of 47.5 wt% as taught by Li in order to provide a coating dispersion having excellent heat resistance, chemical resistance, and aging resistance, as well as improved appearance and coating efficiency (Li, [0009]).
With respect to claim 4, Nennemann discloses the polyisocyanates have a structure including at least one polyether of formula (II) shown below, where R represent H or a C1-C10 alkyl radical, p is an integer from 1-1000, and q represents an integer from 1-3 or sulfonate groups ([0050-0055]). Thus, the isocyanate contains a sulfonate group.
PNG
media_image1.png
188
668
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Formula (II)
With respect to claim 5, Nennemann discloses the polyisocyanates A) are reacted with alkoxysilanes B) ([0007-0023], claim 15) and thus the at least one water-dispersible isocyanate contains an alkoxysilane group.
With respect to claims 6-7, Nennemann discloses the use of solvents including ethyl acetate, butyl acetate, xylylene, toluene, N-methylpyrrolidone, and acetone ([0058]).
With respect to claim 14, Nennemann discloses the polyisocyanates form a coating ([0104]) and are primers ([0098]), and that the coating is applied to substrates including wood ([0111]). Thus, the coating is at least partially coated on a main surface of the wood.
With respect to claim 15, while there may be no disclosure from Nennemann regarding the sealing primer having a coating amount ranging from 30-100 g/m2, given that Nennemann discloses its use as an adhesive ([0115]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a coating amount, including values presently claimed, in order to provide a coating having sufficient adhesive properties.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nennemann et al. (US 2012/0041142 A1, “Nennemann”) in view of Li (CN 110054722 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kanetani (JP H08-048738 A). The disclosures of Li and Kanetani are based off machine translations of the references included with the action mailed 29 July 2025.
With respect to claim 10, while Nennemann in view of Li discloses the use of hydroxy-group-containing polyacrylates (i.e., hydroxyalkyl (meth)acrylates, corresponding to the claimed component B) along with the polyisocyanates (corresponding to the claimed component A) as set forth in the above rejection of claim 1, Nennemann in view of Li does not disclose wherein the weight ratio of component A to component B is in the range of 1.5:1 to 3:1.
Kanetani teaches a water dispersible polyisocyanate and an ethylenically unsaturated monomer ([0001], [0005]). The ethylenically unsaturated monomer includes vinyl monomers ([0008]) including 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate, which is blended in an amount of 20-200 parts by weight per 100 parts by weight polyisocyanate in order to provide a dispersion having a sufficient NCO content ([0012]). Thus, the weight ratio of polyisocyanate to hydroxyalkyl (meth)acrylate is 0.5:1 (100/200 = 0.5/1) to 5:1 (100/20 = 5/1), which overlaps the presently claimed range.
Nennemann in view of Li and Kanetani are analogous inventions in the field of aqueous dispersions of polyisocyanates and hydroxyalkyl (meth)acrylates.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the amount of hydroxyalkyl (meth)acrylate in Nennemann in view of Li to be amounts taught by Kanetani, resulting in a ratio of isocyanate:hydroxyalkyl (meth)acrylate of 0.5:1 to 5:1, in order to provide a dispersion having sufficient NCO content (Kanetani, [0012]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nennemann et al. (US 2012/0041142 A1, “Nennemann”) in view of Li (CN 110054722 A) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Kirimoto (US 6,261,695 B1). The disclosure of Li is based off a machine translation of the reference included with the action mailed 29 July 2025.
With respect to claim 15, Nennemann in view of Li does not disclose wherein the sealing primer has a coating amount ranging from 30-100 g/m2.
Kirimoto teaches applying a coating composition to a substrate in an amount of 0.001-100 g/m2 in order to not unnecessarily waste the coating material (Col. 6, lines 60-67). The coating is made from a polyisocyanate and is an aqueous dispersion (Col. 1, lines 12-20).
Nennemann in view of Li and Kirimoto are analogous inventions in the field of coatings made from aqueous dispersions of polyisocyanates.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the coating of Nennemann in view of Li to have a coating amount of 0.001-100 g/m2 (including values presently claimed) as taught by Kirimoto in order to not unnecessarily waste the coating material (Kirimoto, Col. 6, lines 60-67).
Response to Arguments
Due to the cancellation of claims 8 and 12-13, the objection to claim 12 and the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 8 and 12-13 are withdrawn.
Due to the amendments to claims 3, 7, and 14, the objections to claims 3, 7, and 14 are withdrawn. However, claim 1 is newly objected to for the reasons set forth above.
Due to the amendments to claims 3 and 11, the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 3 and 11 are withdrawn.
It is noted that due to the amendments filed 28 October 2025: claims 1-4, 6-7, 9, 11, and 14-16 are now rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schaefer in view of Li; claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schaefer in view of Li and Kanetani; claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schaefer in view of Li and Kirimoto; claims 1-7, 9, 11, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nennemann in view of Li; claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nennemann in view of Li and Kanetani; and claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nennemann in view of Li and Kirimoto.
Applicant’s arguments filed 28 October 2025 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections, Applicant argues Schaefer requires the use of at least one monofunctional polyalkylene glycol, and that the claimed composition does not use a monofunctional polyalkylene glycol. Applicant further argues Schaefer does not disclose the use of hydroxyalkyl (meth)acrylates as presently claimed, and that the examples of Schaefer were carried out on glass instead of wood, and that there is no disclosure or suggestion of using a two-component coating composition used as a primer on wood. Applicant additionally argues Nennemann fails to disclose the use of hydroxyalkyl (meth)acrylates as presently claimed. Applicant further argues that Li discloses the use of film-forming aids, which are excluded in the present claims, and that removing the film-forming aids would defeat Li’s stated purpose of forming a continuous film. The examiner respectfully disagrees for the following reasons.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Schaefer requires the use of at least one monofunctional polyalkylene glycol while the presently claimed invention does not use a monofunctional polyalkylene glycol, this is not found persuasive. While the examiner acknowledges that Schaefer may require the use of at least one monofunctional polyalkylene glycol, a monofunctional polyalkylene glycol is not excluded in the present claims in light of the open-ended transitional language (i.e., “comprising”), and thus the use of Schaefer as a reference is proper.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Schaefer does not disclose the use of hydroxyalkyl (meth)acrylates as presently claimed, it is first noted that Schaefer discloses the polyisocyanate further includes hydroxyalkyl (meth)acrylates ([0051]). While Schaefer discloses the use of a water-based wood sealing primer containing hydroxyalkyl (meth)acrylates as set forth above, Schaefer does not disclose wherein the at least one hydroxyalkyl (meth)acrylate is selected from one or more of hydroxyethyl methacrylate, hydroxypropyl methacrylate, hydroxyethyl acrylate, and hydroxypropyl acrylate. However, Schaefer is not being used to meet the specific hydroxyalkyl (meth)acrylates presently claimed; rather, Li is used. As set forth above, Li teaches an aqueous dispersion ([0009]) having an aqueous hydroxylated acrylic dispersion ([0010]) and a water dispersible polyisocyanate ([0043]). The aqueous hydroxylated dispersion includes hydroxyethyl methacrylate, hydroxypropyl methacrylate, hydroxyethyl acrylate, and hydroxypropyl acrylate ([0016]). The dispersion has excellent heat resistance, chemical resistance, and aging resistance ([0009]). Li further teaches the construction solid content is 47.5 wt% ([0103]) in order to provide for improved appearance and coating efficiency ([0009]). Schaefer and Li are analogous inventions in the field of aqueous dispersions of polyisocyanates and hydroxyalkyl (meth)acrylates. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hydroxyalkyl (meth)acrylates of Schaefer to be hydroxyethyl methacrylate, hydroxypropyl methacrylate, hydroxyethyl acrylate, and hydroxypropyl acrylate, and to modify the coating to have a construction solid content of 47.5 wt% as taught by Li in order to provide a coating dispersion having excellent heat resistance, chemical resistance, and aging resistance, as well as improved appearance and coating efficiency (Li, [0009]).
In response to Applicant’s argument that Schaefer’s examples use glass instead of wood, this is not found persuasive. While the examples of Schaefer may not use wood, “applicant must look to the whole reference for what it teaches. Applicant cannot merely rely on the examples and argue that the reference did not teach others.” In re Courtright, 377 F.2d 647, 153 USPQ 735, 739 (CCPA 1967). The examples are not the only disclosure of a substrate in Schaefer. Instead, Schaefer discloses water-dispersible polyisocyanates ([0001], [0015]) used for coating wood ([0164]) and is a primer ([0167]) and sealant ([0168-0169]) (i.e., is a sealing primer for woodware). Thus, in combination with Li, Schaefer discloses the two-component sealing primer for wood as claimed in claim 1.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Nennemann fails to disclose the use of hydroxyalkyl (meth)acrylates as presently claimed, this is not found persuasive. Nennemann discloses the polyisocyanates are used with lacquer binders dispersed in water, including hydroxyl-group-containing polyacrylates ([0106], [0108]) (i.e., hydroxyalkyl (meth)acrylates). While Nennemann discloses the use of hydroxyl-group-containing polyacrylates as set forth above, Nennemann does not disclose wherein the at least one hydroxyalkyl (meth)acrylate is selected from one or more of hydroxyethyl methacrylate, hydroxypropyl methacrylate, hydroxyethyl acrylate, and hydroxypropyl acrylate. However, Nennemann is not being used to meet this limitation; rather, Li is used. Li teaches an aqueous dispersion ([0009]) having an aqueous hydroxylated acrylic dispersion ([0010]) and a water dispersible polyisocyanate ([0043]). The aqueous hydroxylated dispersion includes hydroxyethyl methacrylate, hydroxypropyl methacrylate, hydroxyethyl acrylate, and hydroxypropyl acrylate ([0016]). The dispersion has excellent heat resistance, chemical resistance, and aging resistance ([0009]). Li further teaches the construction solid content is 47.5 wt% ([0103]) in order to provide for improved appearance and coating efficiency ([0009]). Nennemann and Li are analogous inventions in the field of aqueous dispersions of polyisocyanates and hydroxyalkyl (meth)acrylates. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hydroxyalkyl (meth)acrylates of Nennemann to be hydroxyethyl methacrylate, hydroxypropyl methacrylate, hydroxyethyl acrylate, and hydroxypropyl acrylate, and to modify the coating to have a construction solid content of 47.5 wt% as taught by Li in order to provide a coating dispersion having excellent heat resistance, chemical resistance, and aging resistance, as well as improved appearance and coating efficiency (Li, [0009]).
In response to Applicant’s argument that Li discloses the use of film-forming aids, which are excluded in the present claims, and that removing the film-forming aids would defeat Li’s stated purpose of forming a continuous film, this is not found persuasive. While Li may disclose the use of film-forming aids, Li is not being used to teach in these compounds into the compositions of either Schaefer or Nennemann. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Here, Li is only being used to teach an aqueous dispersion ([0009]) having an aqueous hydroxylated acrylic dispersion ([0010]) and a water dispersible polyisocyanate ([0043]), where the aqueous hydroxylated dispersion includes hydroxyethyl methacrylate, hydroxypropyl methacrylate, hydroxyethyl acrylate, and hydroxypropyl acrylate ([0016]). The dispersion has excellent heat resistance, chemical resistance, and aging resistance ([0009]). Li further teaches the construction solid content is 47.5 wt% ([0103]) in order to provide for improved appearance and coating efficiency ([0009]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hydroxyalkyl (meth)acrylates of either Schaefer or Nennemann to be hydroxyethyl methacrylate, hydroxypropyl methacrylate, hydroxyethyl acrylate, and hydroxypropyl acrylate, and to modify the coating to have a construction solid content of 47.5 wt% as taught by Li in order to provide a coating dispersion having excellent heat resistance, chemical resistance, and aging resistance, as well as improved appearance and coating efficiency (Li, [0009]).
Conclusion
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 Steven A Rice whose telephone number is (571)272-4450. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 07:30-16:00 Eastern.
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 E 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.
/STEVEN A RICE/Examiner, Art Unit 1787
/CALLIE E SHOSHO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1787