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 § 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.
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 – 5, 10, 11, 13 – 17, 19 – 21, 29, 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pajerski et al. (US 2011/0009561)
In regards to claims 1 – 3, Pajerski teaches aqueous polyurethane composition comprising aromatic urethane-acrylic polymer composite (prepolymer) [title, abstract, 0001]. The composition is in the form of a dispersion [0014]. The polyol useful for preparing the polyurethane comprises hydroxyl-containing acrylic polymers, polyol esters, etc., and mixtures [0053]. The polyol ester includes tricarboxylic acid anhydrides, tetrahydrofuran, polytetrahydrofuran and polyhydroxy polyacetals such as formaldehyde [0057 – 0061]. The polymer comprises aldehydes and ketones with carboxylic acid functional groups [0026 – 0029].
The polyurethane prepolymer may also comprise diamines and polyamines such as bis-semicarbazides, melamine etc. [0063]. Bis-semicarbazides are dimeric (i.e., oligomeric) compounds having a plurality of alpha effect-based nucleophile functional groups and/or linkages having the formula (1a) in claim 3, where R1 in the formula (1a) is NH2, R2, R3 and R4 are each hydrogen. The ratio of the acrylates (vinyl) to urethane is 10:90 to 90:10 [0095]. Other comonomers includes acrylamides such as methanol acrylamide (i.e., N-hydroxymethyl acrylamide or N-methylol acrylamide) [0102 – 0107].
Thus, b1 and C1 limitations of the claims requiring a formaldehyde or ketone with the alpha effect-based nucleophile is provided.
In regards to claim 4, Pajerski teaches the composition comprising the urethane-acrylic composite can be in the form of a core/shell configuration [0125]. Thus, at least either of the polymers may be the core and the other would be the shell, and wherein the polyurethane would comprise the bis-semicarbazide (i.e., having a plurality of alpha effect-based nucleophile functional groups) and other monomeric groups recited above. It appears that the composite provides a covalent bonding between the core and the shell.
Also, similar compositions are known in view of Xu et al. (WO2017/160,398 A1) which recites coatings for automobiles having a core and shell wherein the core is the acrylate and the shell is the polyurethane. And, thus, at least in view of Xu, the core and shell can be the acrylic and urethane polymers respectively. The motivation to use the polymers and/or structure of Xu in Pajerski is that they are directed to acrylic-urethane polymers similarly useful as coating for automobile.
In regards to claim 5, Pajerski teaches the composition comprising the polyurethane-acrylic dispersion as previously stated.
In regards to claim 10, Pajerski teaches the composition having the claimed ingredients and thus would be expected to provide the limitation of one-component curing composition.
In regards to claim 11, Pajerski teaches the composition having the claimed ingredients and thus would be expected to have the same properties such as the curing temperature.
In regards to claim 13, Pajerski teaches the composition and polymer comprising catalyst such as chromium 3+ which is an acid catalyst etc. [0026, 0142]. Thus, the catalyst is either separate or bonded to the compound.
In regards to claims 14 – 17, Pajerski teaches the composition having the claimed ingredients and which would have the claimed properties.
In regards to claim 19, Pajerski teaches the composition further comprising maleate groups in the polymer and thus provides the internal maleate functional group of the claim [0101].
In regards to claim 20, Pajerski teaches the composition comprising aromatic polyurethane-acrylic resin and thus comprising an aromatic ring as previously stated.
In regards to claim 21, Pajerski teaches the composition and polymer having N-hydroxymethyl acrylamide as previously stated.
In regards to claims 29, 31, Pajerski teaches the composition which is useful for coating vehicles and thus provides a substrate such as a vehicle that is coated with the composition [0122].
Claims 1, 2, 5, 8 – 13, 17, 18, 21, 29, 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwata et al. (CN 104661763A)
In regards to claims 1, 2, Iwata teaches aqueous coating composition comprising an acrylic resin and polyisocyanate compound (abstract). The resin is a hydroxyl containing acrylic resin and/or hydroxyl polyester containing resin [0046, 0064]. The acrylic resin includes a hydroxymethyl (meth) acrylamide polymer [0072]. The resin is a polyurethane-acrylic resin [0102, 0140]. The polyester can comprise esters of trimellitic anhydride [0154]. The composition can comprise a curing agent such as reaction products of an amine such as melamine with an aldehyde such as formaldehyde [0300 – 0302]. The polyisocyanate can comprise oxime compounds as blocking agent which provides the alpha effect-based nucleophile functional groups [0310]. Nitrogen-containing polymerizable compounds can also include acrylamides such as N-hydroxymethyl acrylamide etc. [0419]. Thus, the limitation of option 1 of the claim is taught.
In regards to claim 5, Iwata teaches the composition comprising polyacrylate dispersion [0120].
In regards to claim 8, Iwata teaches the composition and the monomers comprising the melamine formaldehyde as previously stated.
In regards to claims 9, 12, Iwata teaches the composition comprises curing agent such as formaldehyde resin (i.e., polymer) at from 1 to 30% [0302, 0314]. The resin is a polyfunctional compound such hydroxymethyl amino resin comprising hydroxy group and amine group such as melamine [0302].
In regards to claims 10, 11, Iwata teaches the composition having the claimed ingredients which would be expected to have the claimed properties.
In regards to claims 13, 17, 18, Iwata teaches the composition which can further comprise trimellitic anhydride as a reactant which provides the limitation of acidic catalysts of the claims [0154].
In regards to claim 21, Iwata teaches the composition having the claimed limitation as previously stated.
In regards to claims 29, 31, Iwata teaches an object such as a vehicle comprising the coating [0056 – 0058].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 7, 22 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art by Pajerski et al. (US 2011/0009561) and by Iwata et al. (CN 104661763A) each fail to teach esters of polytetrahydrofuran and a carboxylic acid.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAIWO OLADAPO whose telephone number is (571)270-3723. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5pm.
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, Prem Singh can be reached at 571-272-6381. 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.
/TAIWO OLADAPO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771