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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 9, 11, 13, 15, 21, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
With respect to claim 9, the term “the first coating composition” and “the second coating composition” lack antecedent basis.
With respect to claims 11, 13, 15, and 26, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
With respect to claim 15, it is unclear if this claim is truly dependent on claim 1 given that the reference to claim 1 is given after “such as” language.
With respect to claim 21, it is unclear whether the claim limits the first and second coating compositions to those comprising cellulose acetate butyrate because cellulose acetate butyrate is presented in functional language.
With respect to claim 26, it is unclear if this claim is truly dependent on claim 1 given that the reference to claim 1 is given after “such as” language. If it is, then the claimed is improperly dependent on both claim 15 (line 2) and claim 1 (line 3).
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 6 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
With respect to claim 6, the amount pigment of “up to 40 weight percent” includes 0 wt %. Claim 1, on which claim 6 depends, requires pigment.
With respect to claim 19, the amount pigment of “up to 5 weight percent” includes 0 wt %. Claim 15, on which claim 19 depends, requires pigment.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 of this title, 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 1-4, 6, 8-11, 13, 15-18, 21, 23, 24, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McIntyre (US 2003/0108667).
With respect to claims 1, 3, and 11, McIntyre discloses aqueous pigment dispersion comprising a conditioned inorganic pigment prepared by mixing a crude titanium dioxide with at least about 0.1 wt % one or more copolymer dispersants (page 10, claims 1 and 19). Example 3 includes 1500 g titanium dioxide 2.5 wt % polymer dispersant 1 and 2.5 wt % polymer dispersant 3 (paragraph 0113), wherein polymer dispersant 1 (reads on claimed “second dispersant”) is an acrylic copolymer (paragraph 0093) and polymer dispersant 3 (reads on claimed “first dispersant”) is derived from BZMA (benzyl methacrylate), DMAEMA (dimethyl amino ethyl methacrylate, i.e., tertiary amine-containing), and other acrylic-based monomers (paragraph 0102-0105).
While McIntyre discloses aqueous pigment dispersion and also teaches that conditioned pigments can be added to a liquid carrier before being incorporated into a final application system (paragraph 0079), McIntyre fails to disclose that the dispersion is in the form a paste.
Even so, McIntyre does not teach away from utilizing a paste and does no specifically discloses a lower viscosity dispersion. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select an appropriate dispersion, including a paste, in which to form the liquid pigment concentrate.
With respect to claim 2, McIntyre teaches that the hydrophobic monomer for includes styrene, cycloaliphatic (meth)acrylates, and aromatic (meth)acrylates (paragraph 0039).
With respect to claim 4, McIntyre teaches that a suitable titanium dioxide particle size “from about 0.1 to about 0.5 micron” (paragraph 0030) which overlaps with claimed range of 10-100 nm. McIntyre also teaches using transparent titanium dioxide materials having crystal sizes of less than 100 nm (paragraph 0031).
With respect to claim 6, McIntyre teaches that the copolymer dispersant is present in an amount of at least 0.1 wt % of the titanium dioxide which provides for an amount of titanium dioxide of less than 50 wt % solids for more than 100 wt % of copolymer dispersant based on titanium dioxide.
With respect to claim 8, McIntyre teaches that their method provides for improved dispersibility (paragraph 0008). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to expect improved haze when using its polymeric dispersants.
With respect to claim 9, while McIntyre does not teach haze value explicitly, it is the examiner’s position that the haze values can be readily optimized based on the amount of titanium dioxide and the use of McIntyre’s polymeric dispersants which allow for improved dispersibility (paragraph 0008).
With respect to claim 10, it is noted that this claim does not limit the binder and only limits the functionality of the first and second dispersants. Exemplified polymer dispersant 3 (reads on claimed “first dispersant”) is necessarily compatible with cellulose acetate butyrate because of the hydrophilic amino group. The dispersant without the amino group is not compatible because it does not have the amino group and is hydrophilic with acid functional groups.
With respect to claim 13, exemplified polymer dispersant 3 (reads on claimed “first dispersant”) is BZMA/DMAEMA//BMA/MMA/HEMA/MAA having weight ratio of 25/7//15/10/5/12 (paragraphs 0103-0105) which provides for an amount of monomer (DMAEMA) containing nitrogen-containing anchor group of about 9 wt %.
With respect to claims 15-18, McIntyre teaches that the conditioned titanium dioxide pigment is used to prepare coatings comprising a resin (paragraphs 0079-0080).
With respect to claim 21, it is noted that this claim does not limit the binder and only limits the functionality of the first and second dispersants. Exemplified polymer dispersant 3 (reads on claimed “first dispersant”) is necessarily compatible with cellulose acetate butyrate because of the hydrophilic amino group. The dispersant without the amino group is not compatible because it does not have the amino group and is hydrophilic with acid functional groups.
With respect to claims 23 and 24, McIntyre teaches that its coating compositions are used for automotive and architectural substrates (paragraph 0079).
With respect to claim 26, McIntyre disclose mixing the ingredients to form a coating composition (paragraphs 0125).
Claims 19 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McIntyre (US 2003/0108667) in view of Piro (US 2007/0028806).
The discussion with respect to McIntyre in paragraph 4 above is incorporated here by reference.
With respect to claim 19, McIntyre fails to disclose an amount of added pigment of up to 5 wt % to a coating composition.
Piro discloses a coating composition comprising titanium dioxide pigment and teaches that the pigment to weight ratio is 0.1:100 to 300:100 (abstract), which is at least 0.1 wt % based on solids.
In view of this, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize appropriate amount of piment in the coating composition, including those within the scope of the present claims desired pigmentation properties.
With respect to claims 22, McIntyre discloses that the polymers used to prepare the coating compositions comprising conditioned pigment includes natural resin such as acetyl cellulose and cellulose butyrate (paragraph 0080) but fails to disclose that the polymer is cellulose acetate butyrate.
Piro discloses coating composition comprising titanium dioxide pigments (abstract) and teaches that suitable binders include cellulose acetate butyrates (paragraph 0068; page 11, claim 5).
Given that both McIntyre and Piro and discloses coating compositions comprising titanium dioxide pigment and cellulose ester binder, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a cellulose acetate butyrate binder in McIntyre’s coating composition as taught as suitable by Piro.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICKEY NERANGIS whose telephone number is (571)272-2701. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 am - 5:00 pm EST, Monday - Friday.
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, Joseph Del Sole can be reached at (571)272-1130. 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.
/Vickey Nerangis/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763
vn