DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-29 are pending.
Withdrawn Rejections
Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from the previous Office Action are hereby withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 6-14, and 18-19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, pg. 2, ln. 12 and 13, the recitations “and,” should be changed to “, and”;
Claim 1, pg. 2, ln. 15, “C1-C6 alkyl” should be amended to “C1-C6 alkoxy”;
Claim 1, pg. 2, last line, “H(2m+1)” should be amended to “H(2m+1)”;
Claim 1, pg. 3, “H(2n+1)” and “H(2m+1)” should be amended to “H(2n+1)” and “H(2m+1)”, respectively;
Claim 1, pg. 4, ln. 10, the term “and” should be inserted after “20,”;
Claim 1, pg. 4, ln. 12, ClO4- and BF4- should be amended to ClO4- and BF4-;
Claim 6, pg. 5, ln. 8 and pg. 6, ln. 1, the recitations “or a mixture thereof” are redundant because the claim already states “at least one” which includes mixtures;
Claim 18, the term “or” should be inserted before “deposition”; and
Claim 19, the recitation “or a mixture thereof” is redundant because the claim already states “at least one” which includes mixtures.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 7-14 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 does not teach or suggest the combinations according to instant claims 7-14.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation “R4 is … linear or branched C1-C18 alkyl”, and the claim also recites “R4 is… linear or branched C1-C6 alkyl” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 1 also recites for R1, R2, R3 and R7 “-(RxSi(Ry)2)nRy” and Rx includes H. It is unclear how Rx can be H since it would form the polymer –(H-Si(Ry)2)n- comprising the chain -H-Si-H-Si-H-Si-. It is unclear whether Applicant intended to claim a chain with H between each Si, or if Applicant intended the polysilane chain –(Si(Ry)2)n-.
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 1-6 and 15-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beghetto et al. (US 2019/0185627 A1) in view of Sepeur et al. (US 2012/0029143 A1).
Regarding claims 1-6 and 15-26, Beghetto et al. teach the use of 2,4-dihalo-6-substituted-1,3,5-triazines and derivatives thereof as innovative condensation, cross-inking, tanning, grafting, and curing agents for the preparation of high-value compounds such as drugs, synthetic or natural polymers, celluloses, collagen or highly stabilized leather ([0022]-[0023]; Claims 32-33). The 2,4-dihalo-6-substituted-1,3,5-triazines and derivatives thereof have the formula:
PNG
media_image1.png
104
118
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(I)
wherein R1 and R2 are the same or different and are selected from the group consisting of: alkyl, linear or branched, aryl or heterocyclic quaternary ammonium salt or Cl, Br and F; and R3 is selected from the group consisting of: alkoxy (C1-C4), aryloxy (C6-C8) and substituted NR′R″ wherein R′ and R″ independently are alkyl (C1-C4) or aryl (C6-C8) ([0026]).
Beghetto et al. further teach that according to invention in a particularly preferred embodiment the use of derivatives of 2,4-dihalo-6-substitute-1,3,5-triazine of the general formula (II)
PNG
media_image2.png
118
178
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(II)
wherein R1 and R2 are the same or different and are selected from the group consisting of: linear or branched alkyl, aryl or heterocyclic quaternary ammonium group, Y is a counterion, having charge n/a from 1 to 4, a is between 2 and 4, and n is between 2 and 4; Y is a counterion selected from: Cl, Br and F, is provided; R3 is selected from the group consisting of: alkoxy (C1-C4), aryloxy (C6-C8) and substituted amine NR′R″ wherein R′ and R″ independently are alkyl (C1-C4) or aryl (C6-C8) ([0034]).
Beghetto et al. specifically teach derivatives of 2,4-dihalo-6-substitute-1,3,5-triazine wherein R3=OCH3 and R1=R2=Cl and N-methylmorpholine (Examples 2 and 10); R3=OCH3 and R1=R2=Cl and N-ethylmorpholine (Example 4); R3=N(CH2CH3)2 and R1=R2=Cl and N-methylpyrrolidine (Example 6); and R3=OCH3 and R1=R2=Cl and N-trimethylamine (Example 8).
Beghetto et al. do not explicitly disclose compositions further comprising at least one silane compound of formula F(I).
Sepeur et al. teach silane coating compositions for producing a hardened coating on a substrate ([0002], [0009]-[0010]). The silane compounds useful in the invention include 3-aminopropyltriethoxysilane, 3-aminopropyltrimethoxysilane, isocyanatopropyltriethoxysilane, etc. ([0019], [0034], [0038]; Claim 1). According to the invention the substrate is made of metal, synthetic, ceramic, lacquer, textile or a natural substance, such as wood or leather, glass, mineral substances or composite materials ([0029]). Furthermore, scratch-resistance, anti-corrosion, easy-to-clean, anti-fingerprint, anti-reflex, anti-fogging, scaling protection, diffusion barrier, radiation protection coating or as self-cleaning, anti-bacterial, anti-microbial, tribological and hydrophilic coating is part of the invention ([0032]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to prepare compositions comprising a 1,3,5-triazine derivative according to Beghetto et al. combined with a silane compound according to Sepeur et al. Such would have been obvious because Beghetto et al. teach 1,3,5-triazine derivatives for use as condensation, cross-linking, tanning, grafting and curing agents for the preparation of high-value compounds such as drugs, synthetic or natural polymers, celluloses, collagen or highly stabilized leather; and Sepeur et al. teach silane compounds for coating a substrate, such as leather, for scratch-resistance, anti-corrosion, easy-to-clean, anti-fingerprint, anti-reflex, anti-fogging, scaling protection, diffusion barrier, radiation protection coating or as self-cleaning, anti-bacterial, anti-microbial, tribological and hydrophilic coating. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include the silane compounds according to Sepeur et al. in the compositions according to Beghetto et al. in order to provide the additional benefits taught by Sepeur et al. to the substrates.
Regarding claims 2-3 and the weight ratio of the triazine derivative to the silane compound, Beghetto et al. teach 0.05-2.5 mmoles of 1,3,5-triazine derivative for application to substrate (Examples 1-10). Sepeur et al. teach compositions comprising 5 g adduct dissolved in 10 g solvent (Embodiment 1), 10 g resultant dissolved in 8 g solvent (Embodiment 2), 10 g reactive mixture dissolved in solvent (Embodiment 3), or 24.8 g silane dissolved in 12 g solvent (Embodiment 4), and the solution is applied to the substrate for hardening.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to determine through routine experimentation the necessary ratio of 1,3,5-triazine derivative and silane compound to produce an effective composition that can be used for the purpose of Beghetto et al. of condensation, cross-inking, tanning, grafting, and curing agent, as well as for providing a hardened surface for scratch-resistance, anti-corrosion, easy-to-clean, anti-fingerprint, anti-reflex, anti-fogging, scaling protection, diffusion barrier, radiation protection coating or as self-cleaning, anti-bacterial, anti-microbial, tribological and hydrophilic coating as taught by Sepeur et al.
Regarding claims 4 and 6 and the compositions comprising a mixture of compounds of formula F(I) and a mixture of compounds of formula F(II), it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to use two or more compounds according to Beghetto et al. and Sepeur et al. in combination. Such would have been obvious in the absence of evidence to the contrary because it is generally prima facie obvious to use in combination two or more ingredients that have previously been used separately for the same purpose to form a third composition useful for that same purpose. The idea of combining them flows logically from their having been taught individually in the prior art. In re Kerkhoven 626 F.2d 646, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 5 and the composition further comprising a solvent, rheological modifier, thickener, adhesion agent, or catalyst, Beghetto et al. teach compositions comprising a solvent selected from the group consisting of: aliphatic ether, halogenate, alcohol, ketone, ester, aromatic or aliphatic hydrocarbon, amide, carbonate, DMSO, water ([0038]).
Regarding claims 15-17 and the process of mixing the compounds and recovering the product, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to prepare a composition comprising the combination of a 1,3,5-triazine derivative according to Beghetto et al. and a silane compound according to Sepeur et al., wherein the combination of compounds is mixed to form a single composition. Such would have been obvious in order to apply the composition comprising the combination of compounds to a substrate surface in one application.
Regarding claims 18-25 and the application technique, Sepeur et al. teach the wet-chemical application of the coating material onto a substrate, particularly by spraying, immersion, flooding, rolling, painting or otherwise by vacuum evaporation ([0028]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to apply the compositions comprising a mixture of the 1,3,5-triazine derivatives of Beghetto et al. and the silane compounds of Sepeur et al. to a substrate via the methods taught by Sepeur et al.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 22 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that a person having ordinary skill in the art could not have found that the teachings of Sepeur et al. provide any reasonable expectation of success in arriving at a composition comprising at least one silane compound of formula F(1) of claim 1 and at least one triazine quaternary ammonium salt of formula F(II) of claim 1 provides a stable and long-lasting antimicrobial treatment which does not release substances from the treated materials into the environment, according to the claimed invention.
The examiner respectfully argues that Sepeur et al. teach that scratch-resistance, anti-corrosion, easy-to-clean, anti-fingerprint, anti-reflex, anti-fogging, scaling protection, diffusion barrier, radiation protection coating or as self-cleaning, anti-bacterial, anti-microbial, tribological and hydrophilic coating is part of the invention ([0032]-[0047]; Claim 17). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the coating according to Sepeur et al. to provide a stable and long-lasting coating. Also, Sepeur et al. teach that anti-bacterial and anti-microbial coating is part of their invention. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation that the coatings according to Sepeur et al. are suitable for providing antimicrobial and antibacterial coatings.
Applicant further argues that Beghetto et al. do not describe or suggest a silane compound of formula F(I) or its derivative, and do not describe or suggest that 1,3,5-triazines used as condensation, cross-linking, tanning, grafting, and curing agents impart antifungal, antifouling, or antimold properties to polymers when combined with a silane of formula F(I) or its derivative.
The examiner respectfully argues that Beghetto et al. teach triazine compounds according to the instant claims are suitable as condensing, cross-linking, tanning, grafting, curing agents for the production of high value compounds such as drugs, synthetic or natural polymers, celluloses, collagen or highly stabilized leather. Sepeur et al. teach coating a substrate, wherein the substrate is made of metal, synthetic, ceramic, lacquer, textile or a natural substance, such as wood or leather, glass, mineral substances or composite materials. Therefore, Beghetto et al. and Sepeur et al. are both drawn to the process of coating substrates, including leather, providing highly stabilized leather. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to treat a substrate, such as leather, with the triazine compounds of Beghetto et al. and the silanes of Sepeur et al. with the reasonable expectation that the combination would provide stabilized and scratch-resistant substrates.
Such would have been obvious in the absence of evidence to the contrary because it is generally prima facie obvious to use in combination two or more ingredients that have previously been used separately for the same purpose to form a third composition useful for that same purpose. The idea of combining them flows logically from their having been taught individually in the prior art. In re Kerkhoven 626 F.2d 646, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980).
Applicant argues that a person having ordinary skill in the art would not have had any reason to start with Beghetto et al.'s compositions to arrive at a composition comprising at least one silane compound of formula F(I), and at least one triazine quaternary ammonium salt of formula F(II), according to claim 1. The reference discloses completely different compounds of formula F(II). Applicant asserts that Beghetto et al.'s triazine derivatives have short alkyl groups (i.e. C1-C2). On the other hand, the F(II) compounds of the present application have at least an alkyl group having more than C8.
The examiner respectfully argues that instant claim 1 does not require an alkyl group having more than C8 in F(II). The compounds of formula F(II)can comprise alkyl groups with 1 to 18 carbons.
Claims 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beghetto et al. (US 2019/0185627 A1) in view of Sepeur et al. (US 2012/0029143 A1) as applied to claims 1-6 and 15-26 above, further in view of Wyman (US 5,096,738).
The teachings of Beghetto et al. and Sepeur et al. are discussed above.
Regarding claims 27-29, Beghetto et al. and Sepeur et al. do not explicitly disclose a food and pharmaceutical packaging made of a linear hydrocarbon polymer.
Wyman teaches a method of imbuing polymer films as of polyethylene and polypropylene with gas, aroma, fragrance, flavor, grease and oil impermeable surface characteristics involving coating the film with appropriate silane compounds and cross-linking the same while providing physical adsorption adherence to the film (Abstract). Wyman teaches that appropriate polysiloxane coatings upon such polymer films as polyethylene and polypropylene can provide for greatly decreased permeability in the films to gases, including oxygen and carbon dioxide (col. 1, ln. 40-43).
It would have been prima facie obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant claims to coat polymer films such as polyethylene and polypropylene with the compositions according to Beghetto et al. in view of Sepeur et al. Such would have been obvious because Beghetto et al. teach condensation reaction between a polymer or a polymeric surface, and Wyman teaches that appropriate polysiloxane coatings upon films can provide greatly decreased permeability.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nathan W Schlientz whose telephone number is (571)272-9924. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM, Monday through 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, Sue Liu can be reached at (571) 272-5539. 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.
/N.W.S/Examiner, Art Unit 1616
/Mina Haghighatian/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1616