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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 6-8, 10 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The claims are objected to because they include reference characters a) and b) which are not enclosed within parentheses.
Reference characters corresponding to elements recited in the detailed description of the drawings and used in conjunction with the recitation of the same element or group of elements in the claims should be enclosed within parentheses so as to avoid confusion with other numbers or characters which may appear in the claims. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Appropriate correction is required.
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 19 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.
Regarding claim 19, 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).
Claim 13 claims a method, but there are no active method steps.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 8, 11, 15, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bauer (US 10,421,909).
Bauer discloses a mixed alkali-aluminum phosphite as a crosslinker or accelerator in the curing of epoxy resins, polyurethanes and unsaturated polyester resins (col. 3, ll. 4-12), in an amount of 0.1-45 wt% and 55-99.9 wt% thermoplastic or thermoset polymer, and suggests a weight ratio of polymer to mixed alkali-aluminum phosphite of about 1000:1 to 1.2:1, which is sufficiently specific to anticipate the claimed range of 1000:1 to 2:1.
Bauer exemplifies the inclusion of 3.6 wt% mixed alkali-aluminum phosphite to 50 wt% polymer, suggesting a weight ratio of polymer to mixed alkali-aluminum phosphite of about 14:1.
Bauer anticipates instant claims 1, 2, 4, 8, 11, 15, 17 and 19.
Claims 1-4, 8, 11-14, 17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Owe (US 2019/0085174).
Owe discloses a particulate coating composition comprising an epoxy hardener, a polyester, an aminoalcohol, a metallic pigment, and a stabilizing agent, which is preferably a metal phosphate such as zinc phosphate, iron phosphate and calcium phosphate (p. 8, [0178]-[0187]). Owe discloses the stabilizing agent in an amount of 0.25-3 wt% of the composition, and exemplifies it in an amount of 1 wt%, which is about 1 part based on 86.3 parts of combined amount of polyester resin and epoxy hardener, which is the same as about 86:1 and falls within the claimed range of 1000:1 to 2:1.
Owe discloses that once the substrate is coated, the curing is carried out by way of IR, which is electromagnetic radiation and/or heating.
Owe anticipates instant claims 1-3, 8, 11, 13-14, 17, 19 and 20.
As to claim 4, the epoxy resins are thermosetting and polyesters are thermoplastic.
As to claim 12, Owe discloses that the adhesion as tested by ISO 2409 is 0 (p. 11, [0219]).
Claims 1-4, 8, 11 and 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 111423793. For convenience, the machine translation will be cited below.
CN ‘793 discloses a powder coating comprising 34-48 wt% of a polyester resin and 0.8-5 wt% of a curing accelerator specifically listed to include sodium pyrophosphate or zinc phosphate.
In example 1, CN ‘793 exemplifies the composition as comprising 34 wt% polyester and 5 wt% curing accelerator, a weight ratio of 6.8:1.
In example 2, CN ‘793 exemplifies the composition as comprising 45 wt% polyester and 3 wt% curing accelerator, a weight ratio of 15:1.
In example 3, CN ‘793 exemplifies the composition as comprising 48 wt% polyester and 1.5 wt% curing accelerator, a weight ratio of 32:1.
CN ‘793 anticipates instant claims 1-4, 8, 11 and 13-19.
Claims 1-4, 6-10, 13-14, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Maksimovic (US 2007/0088111).
Maksimovic exemplifies a coating composition comprising polyester resin and particle example 3, which is a combination of calcium borate and zinc phosphate, where the ratio of polyester to zinc phosphate is about 121.3:18.7, which is the same as about 6.5:1.
This composition includes Cymel 1123, which is a known crosslinking agent; therefore, the polyester meets applicants’ crosslinkable polymer precursor.
Maksimovic anticipates instant claims 1-4, 11, 13-14, 17, 19.
As to claims 6-10, Maksimovic exemplifies the inclusion of about 23 wt% solvent (Example 2). Maksimovic discloses that after application of the composition to the substrate, a film is formed on the surface of the substrate by driving solvent out of the film by heating or by an air-drying period, disclosing that drying is carried out at 20-121°C (p. 9, [0084]). Maksimovic discloses that in the curing operation, solvents are driven off and crosslinkable components of the composition are crosslinked (Id.).
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 1-4, 6, 8, 10, 11, 15-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Hirthe (US 2007/0155881).
Hirthe discloses adding at least one inorganic metal phosphate of formula Mex(PO4)y(OH)z, where Me is Cu, Fe, Mn, Sb, Zn, etc., to a thermoplastic polymer, such as PET or polyethylene, polyvinyl chloride, polyamides, polyvinyl acetal, polymethacrylates, polyurethane, ABS, etc. (p. 1, [0007]-[0008]).
Hirthe discloses the inclusion of 0.01-2 wt% of the inorganic phosphate (p. 2, [0012]).
This suggest a weight ratio of polymer to inorganic metal phosphate of about 10,000:1 to 49:1, which overlaps with the claimed ratio of 1000:1 to 2:1.
Hirthe does not teach or suggest the polymer as being polymerizable or crosslinkable; however, Hirthe teaches adding the inorganic metal phosphate to the polymer before, during or after the polymerization reaction, teaching that it can be added in the form of a suspension (for example in an inert solvent or a reaction partner) (p. 2, [0015]). Hirthe teaches that the materials can be used wherever thermoplastic polymeric materials are softened by heating with IR radiation and subsequently processed to form consumer articles, for example, by heating with IR radiation at a temperature from 90-120°C.
This is the same method used by applicants to prepare the claimed set of chemicals for the preparation of a polymer; therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the inorganic metal phosphate to polymerize or accelerate the polymerization or crosslinking of the polyester upon solid state heating, as solid state heating is known to crosslink polyester.
Additionally, Hirthe mentions Pengilly in the background (p. 1, [0005]), teaching the improvement on Pengilly by using the inorganic metal phosphates in place of the carbon black of Pengilly, where the carbon black is used to short the reheat or heat-up time of the polyester (col. 6, ll. 26-30), suggesting the acceleration of crosslinking or curing of the polyester.
Hirthe is prima facie obvious over instant claims 1-4, 6, 8, 10, 11, 15-17 and 19-20.
As to claim 5, Hirthe teaches the inorganic metal phosphates to include copper hydroxide phosphate (Cu2PO4OH). Hirthe teaches that the inorganic metal phosphates have an absorption at a wavelength of 700-1500 nm which is significantly higher than the visible range of 400-700 nm, suggesting the claimed ratio of greater than 1:1.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Hirthe (US 2007/0155881), as applied to claims 1-4, 6, 8, 10, 11, 15, 17 and 19-20, and further in view of Pengilly (US 4,408,004).
Hirthe is prima facie obvious over instant claims 1-4, 6, 8, 10, 11, 15, 17 and 19-20, as described above and applied herein as such, as Hirthe teaches adding applicants preferred inorganic metal phosphate to a polyester during or after polymerization, and radiating with IR radiation.
Hirthe suggests the polyester compositions for forming packaging material in the form of films, bottles and other container shapes (p. 1, [0003]); however, does not teach or suggest the composition for use as a powder coating.
Pengilly teaches the compositions as suitable for blow molding packaging, as well as for making high clarity, low haze powdered coatings (col. 3, ll. 64-66 and col. 6, ll. 40-43).
Preparing a powder coating from the composition of Hirthe is prima facie obvious over instant claim 14, as Hirthe teaches an improvement over Pengilly, and Pengilly teaches that the same compositions are suitable for preparing powder coatings.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIEANN R JOHNSTON whose telephone number is (571)270-7344. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00 AM - 4:00 PM EST.
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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at (571)272-1302. 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.
/Brieann R Johnston/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Prosecution Insights