DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments filed 3/24/25 have been entered. Currently claims 1-21 are pending and claims 13-17 are withdrawn.
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.
Claims 1-10 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Armbrust (US Patent 6828381).
As to claim 1, 3-4, 6-10, Armbrust discloses a sol-gel coating material comprising an acrylate copolymer solution, a hydrolysis of at least one hydrolysable silane and a sol. The composition comprises three components, the acrylate copolymer (a), the lacquer base (b) and the sol (c). The composition of the sol-gel comprises 1 to 20 percent by weight of the sol. The sol can be hydrolysed from starting compounds of aluminum tri-sec butoxide (aluminum alkoxide) (C1), an arganothio compound (c2), and glycidyloxypropyltrimethoxysilane (C3-2) or methyltriethoxysilane (at least one further trialkoxysilane) (c3-1). The ratios of these materials can vary widely but can have a ratio that overlaps the claims range as the ratios can go from 1:20 to 1:1. Further inorganic acids, such as HCL and organic acids such as carboxylic acids specifically acetic acid (which has a pKa of less than 5) are used as catalysts. The reaction further uses aliphatic alcohols during the hydrolysis and condensation reactions. Also these paint systems are known to have color effects comprising pigments.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to have modified
Armburst and formed the sol-gel ink as claimed as Armburst discloses overlapping ranges for the claimed materials. Further one of ordinary skill in the art would know how to adjust the amount of materials as one of ordinary skill in the art knows that the hydrolysis of the sol can greatly affect the properties such as size, porosity, refractive index, shrinkage, crosslinking of the sol. One would know how to adjust the amount of water which effects the hydrolysis, as well as solvent and polymers used within the sol to obtain the desired properties of the sol absent unexpected results. Further it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Armburst and added a pigment to the composition as Armburst discloses these coatings can have pigments and adding a pigment would allow for an aesthetically pleasing coating.
As to claim 2, claim 2 is met as claim 1 is met and is capable of being used within a digital printing process.
As to 5, Armburst discloses the use of phenyl groups being used as the trialkoxysilane.
Claims 11, 12 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Armbrust (US Patent 6828381) in view of Gobel (US Patent 5654391).
Armbrust renders claim 1 obvious for the reasons noted above, however is silent to the type of pigment and size of the pigment.
Gobel discloses a coating composition used as a multilayer coating composition for automobiles comprising carbon black pigment within the coating.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Armburst and added carbon black in a particle size of less than 1 micron as Armbrust disclose coating thickness of less than 5 microns for automotive. The use of carbon black within the coating would allow for a coating that provides a more aesthetically pleasing image. As to the thickness of the particle it would have been obvious to use a particle size of less than 1 micron as it would be a suitable size to not protrude from the layer being formed. See MPEP 2144.04 change in size.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Armbrust (US Patent 6828381) in view of Kohler et al (US Publication 20050186436).
Armbrust renders claim 1 obvious for the reasons noted above, however is silent to the specific organic acid.
Kohler discloses the use of p-toluensulphonic acid as the catalyst component within the sol gel.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Armburst and added/used p-toluensulphonic acid as the catalyst component within the sol gel composition as it would be a suitable alternative that is known to be used within sol gel compositions. See MPEP 2144.06.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/24/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argued that there are unexpected results. The examiner respectfully disagrees and argues that there are no comparative examples shown within the specification to provide evidence of unexpected results. The composition of Armbrust discloses overlapping ranges and therefore without a showing of evidence it would have been obvious.
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 CHRISTOPHER M POLLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5734. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8am till 4:30 pm.
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 Ruthkosky can be reached at 5712721291. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER M POLLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785