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 .
Due to amendments, the previous double patenting rejections of record have been overcome and are hereby withdrawn.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.
Claim(s) 1 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (KR 101994185) in view of Lee Yun et al. (KR 101615794).
In the abstract, Park teaches a paint composition for a decoration sheet using a biomass-derived urethane acrylate oligomer and a biomass-derived acrylate which corresponds to the bio-resin and acrylate. Park further teaches the paint composition to comprise 20 to 30 parts by weight of the biomass-derived acrylate, thereby reading on the claimed range of about 20 to about 40 wt% of the acrylic resin.
Park does not teach the bio-resin and biocarbon content of the bio-resin and are further silent on the biocarbon content of the paint composition and does not teach the amount of bio-resin. Lee Yun offers the motivation of using a paint composition with these amounts due to their ability to formulate a paint composition that is reduces the amount of CO2 emissions and have an environmentally friendly effect (abstract) and can impart excellent properties such as moldability, impact resistance, and chemical resistance, and has a great advantage of low specific gravity, low cost (¶ 2).
Lee Yun teaches a thermoplastic resin composition with a biomass resin or biomass-derived thermoplastic polyolefin (TPO) comprising polylactic acid (PLA), polybutylene succinate (PBS), biomass-derived polyethylene, and biomass -derived resin extracted from natural plants such as corn, sugarcane, corn, pork potato, and sugar beet (¶’s 7, 8, 24, 35 and 37). Lee Yun offers the motivation of using a paint composition with these biomass-derived thermoplastic resins due to their ability to impart excellent physical properties (¶’s 119-120). Lee Yun teaches wherein the resin composition comprises 10 to 50% by weight of a biomass derived resin (¶ 16) which overlaps the claimed range of about 5 to 11 wt%.
Regarding the overlapping ranges, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range taught by Lee Yung (10 to 50 wt% of bio-resin) overlap the instantly claimed ranges (5 to 11 wt% of bio-resin) and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, MPEP 2144.05.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the biomass derived resin of Lee Yun in the paint composition of Park, thereby arriving at the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 2, 4, 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (KR 101994185) in view of Lee Yun (KR 101615794), and further in view of Jung (KR 101619590 B1).
While Park and Lee Yun, above, don’t recite all the additive in their ranges, Jung offers the motivation of using a paint composition with these ingredients in these amounts due to their ability to formulate a paint composition that is eco-friendly and can impart excellent properties such as scratch resistance, sunscreen resistance, acetone resistance, moisture resistance, and light resistance (See abstract).
In claim 1, Jung teaches a paint composition comprising bio-resins and acrylic resin and additives, wherein the additives are present in an amount of 5 to 15 wt% of cellulose acetate butyrate (additive), 1 to 2 wt% of a pigment (additive), 1.5 to 3.5 wt% of a matting agent (additive), 5 to 10 wt% of an anti-settling agent (additive). When these additives are added together, the amounts read on the claimed range of about 30 to 40 wt% of the additive.
In claim 1, Jung further teach the solvent in the amount of 10 to 25 wt%, thereby overlapping the claimed amount of about 20 to 40 wt%.
Regarding the hydroxyl value, Jung teaches a biomass polyurethane resin (Abstract) having a hydroxyl value of 100 to 200 mg KOH/g (¶ 13) which overlaps the claimed range of about 170 mg KOH/g or more.
In ¶’s 1 and 29, Jung teaches a paint composition comprising bio-resins, acrylic resin and additives, wherein the glass transition temperature (Tg) of the acrylic resin is from 40 to 100°C, to formulate a paint composition that is eco-friendly and can impart excellent properties such as scratch resistance, sunscreen resistance, acetone resistance, moisture resistance, and light resistance. Jung teaches the paint composition comprising an organic solvent, such as methyl isobutyl ketone, and butyl acetate (¶ 20). In ¶’s 9 12, 31 and 41, Jung teaches a paint composition comprising matting agents, pigments which corresponds to colorants, moisture resistance which corresponds to stain repellents, activators or catalysts which corresponds to curing accelerators, wetting additive which corresponds to surface conditioning agent, anti-settling agents that reads on pot-life delaying agents, wetting agents which corresponds to dispersants and surface conditioning agents.
Regarding the overlapping ranges, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range taught by Jung (10 to 25 wt% of solvent) overlap the instantly claimed ranges (about 20 to 40 wt% of solvent) and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, MPEP 2144.05.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to additives of Jung in the paint composition of Park and Lee Yun, thereby arriving at the claimed invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (KR 101994185); in view of Lee Yun (KR 101615794) and Jung (KR 101619590 B1), and further in view of Ana (PT 108887) and Delmas et al. (US 2017/0291989).
While Park in view of Jung and Lee Yun, above, do not teach the solid content, the weight average molecular weight or the hydroxyl value of the bio-resin, Ana offers the motivation of using a paint composition with these bio resins/biopolymers solid content ranges due to advantages of this ranges to enhance the value materials, waste/residue or byproducts of low cost and increasing the productivity of existing resources (¶’s 35, 36 and 37).
Ana teaches bio resins/biopolymers solid content ranges from 20 to 100 wt.% (m/m) (¶ 35) which overlaps the claimed range of about 90 to 100 wt%.
Regarding the molecular weight, Delmas et al. teach bio-based resins or products that include renewable raw materials that are of non-fossil origin and are derived from plants or animals (¶ 26) having number - average molecular weight (Mn) in the range from 500 to 20,000 and is preferably from 750 to 10,000 (¶ 45) thereby overlapping the claimed range of about 100 to 1000 g/mol. Delmas et al. offer the motivation of using these bio-based resins having these molecular weights due to their ability to form coatings for metal sheets with advantageous application properties, particularly a good balance between hardness and bending tests (Tables 4 and 5) and coatings with high durability and based on renewable raw materials, particularly in metal sheet coatings (¶ 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the bio-resins having these solid contents of Ana and the molecular weights of Delmas et al. in the paint composition of Park in view of Lee Yun and Jung, because the range taught by Ana (solid content of 20 to 100 wt.%), Delmas et al. (molecular weight of 750 to 10,000), and Jung (hydroxyl value of 100 to 200 mg KOH/g) overlap the instantly claimed ranges 90 to 100 wt% of solid content, 100 to 1000 of molecular weight and 170 mg KOH/g or more of hydroxyl value, thereby arriving at the claimed invention.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, MPEP 2144.05.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (KR 101994185) in view of Lee Yun (KR 101615794) and Jung (KR 101619590 B1), and further in view of Suzuki et al. (US 2009/0075028).
In the abstract, the paint composition of Park, above, is taught to comprise first, second and third acrylic resins, wherein the paint composition comprises 30-40 parts by weight of a biomass-derived urethane acrylate oligomer, 10-20 parts by weight of a silicon-modified urethane acrylate oligomer and 20-30 parts by weight of biomass-derived acrylate, and other ingredients
Jung, above, teach from 40 to 100 C for the glass transition temperatures of the acrylic resin, which overlaps with the instantly claimed ranges (about 25 to 35 C, about 35 to 25 C and about 45 to 55 C) and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference for the acrylic resin, MPEP 2144.05.
While Park in view Lee Yun and Jung, above, do not teach the solid content and the hydroxy value of each acrylic resin, in claim 1 Suzuki et al. teach a coating paint composition wherein the coating composition comprises an acrylic resin (a) which corresponds to first acrylic resin hydroxyl value of 110 to 160 mg KOH/g. The content of acrylic resin (b) which corresponds to second acrylic resin has a hydroxyl value of 20 to 130 mg KOH/g, which overlaps the claimed range (¶ 107), and third resin (about 10 to about 50 mg KOH/g) as required in their claim 5.
In ¶ 127, Suzuki et al. teach the solid content range of 50 to 85 wt% which overlaps the ranges as recited for all three acrylic resins (about 57 to 59 wt%, about 50 to 52 wt% and about 50 to 52 wt%, respectively) as recited in their claim 5.
Suzuki et al. offer the motivation of using a paint composition with acrylic resin comprising acrylic resin(a), acrylic resin (b) and the third resin with their solid content and hydroxyl value due to their ability to impart excellent depth transparency, design properties, depth color properties, smoothness, depth of tone, and corrosion resistance properties (¶’s 4, 5, 7, 21 and 62).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to choose solid content values and hydroxyl values for the three acrylic resins of Park in view of Jung and Lee Yun within the overlapping ranges as disclosed by Suzuki et al., thereby arriving at the claimed invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (KR 101994185) in view of Jung (KR 101619590 B1) and Lee Yun (KR 101615794), and further in view of Jeong (KR 20210047526 A).
In ¶’s 12 and 49, Jung, above, teaches the paint composition to comprise:
1.5 to 3.5 wt.% of matting agent which overlaps the claimed range of about 3 to 10 wt%,
1 to 2 wt% of a pigment,
Moisture resistance (reads on stain repellent),
Anti-settling agent (reads on pot-life delaying agent),
0.1 to 1.5 wt.% of curing accelerators/catalyst which overlaps the claimed range of about 0.5 to 2 wt%.
0.1 to 0.5 wt.% of wetting agents, which corresponds to surface conditioning agent and dispersants and overlaps the claimed range of about 0.1 to 1 wt% and about 0.1 to 1 wt%.
While Park, Jung and Lee Yun do not teach the wax, Jeong teaches an oil base paint composition including a polyolefin resin and an acrylic resin, wherein the paint composition further comprises wax, wherein the wax is present in an amount of from 1 to 5 wt% of the composition (See ¶ 10). Jeong offers the motivation of using an oil paint composition with the wax in this range due to the ability to formulate a paint composition that imparts excellent properties such as coating film adhesion (¶ 125), wear resistance and scratch resistance (¶ 51), paint appearance (¶ 56), workability and drying properties (¶ 60), curing speed (¶ 64), and paint workability (¶ 68).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the wax of Jeong in the paint composition of Park, Jung and Lee Yun, thereby arriving at the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive over the prior art cited above. While applicant argues that Guo is not available as prior art, the claims are still rejected by the prior art cited above.
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 KELECHI CHIDI EGWIM whose telephone number is (571)272-1099. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-7.
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, Robert Jones can be reached at (571) 270-7733. 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.
/KELECHI C EGWIM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762 KCE
Prosecution Insights