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.
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 13 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.
Claim 13 recites the term “30 s (DIN 3mm flow cup, 23°C) - 100 s (DIN 6mm flow cup, 23°C)”, wherein, the inclusion of a term within parentheses renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the included term is part of the claimed invention.
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 1-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Munnelly et al (US 2004/0259027).
With regards to claims 1 and 7, Munnelly teaches a composition used for coating formulations (0011). Munnelly teaches the composition to include free radical polymerizable monomers in a concentration from about 25% to about 75% (0066), a radical producer that is an initiator (0096) by UV radiation (0098) in a concentration from 2 to 15% (0113), a diethanolamine compound (0174) reading on an amino compound, and crystal violet (0173 table 1) as applicants cite in the specification as reading on a non-photobleaching colored dye. Munnelly teaches the initiator to include a benzophenone derivative (0112) as applicant cites as reading on having a property of interacting with amino groups to generate free radicals when exposed to electromagnetic radiation.
Munnelly does not teach the amine value of the composition. However, when the composition recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, the claimed properties or function are presumed inherent. MPEP 2112.01. Because the prior art exemplifies Applicant’s claimed composition in that the claimed components in the claimed amounts are used, the claimed physical properties relating to the amine value of the composition are inherently present in the prior art. Absent an objective showing to the contrary, the addition of the claimed physical properties to the claim language fails to provide patentable distinction over the prior art.
With regards to claim 2, Munnelly teaches the amount of polymerizable monomers to be in a concentration from about 25% to 75% (0066) and the amount of initiator to be in a concentration from about 2 to about 15% (0113).
With regards to claim 3, Munnelly teaches the composition to only contain monomers having at least one (meth)acrylate groups (0173 table 1) reading on 100% of the acryloyl groups
With regards to claims 4 and 22 Munnelly does not teach the mol/kg of the acryloyl groups of the composition. However, when the composition recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, the claimed properties or function are presumed inherent. MPEP 2112.01. Because the prior art exemplifies Applicant’s claimed composition in that the claimed components in the claimed amounts are used, the claimed physical properties relating to the mol/kg of acryloyl groups in the composition are inherently present in the prior art. Absent an objective showing to the contrary, the addition of the claimed physical properties to the claim language fails to provide patentable distinction over the prior art.
With regards to claim 5, Munnelly teaches the initiator to the initiator to be the only initiator (0173 table 1) reading on it being 100% of the initiator.
With regards to claim 6, Munnelly teaches the composition to include other initiators that are not reactive to the amine (0102-0111).
With regards to claims 8 and 27, Munnelly teaches the composition to include a diethanolamine compound (0174) reading on an amino compound.
With regards to claim 9, Munnelly teaches the dye to be crystal violet (0173 table 1) reading on a triphenyl methane compound.
With regards to claim 10, Munnelly teaches the only dye in the composition to be crystal violet (0173 table 1).
With regards to claims 11 and 28, Munnelly teaches the dye to be present in an amount of 0.1 parts and the amount of initiator to be 0.08 parts (0173 table 1).
With regards to claim 12, Munnelly teaches the addition of binder polymer (0054) in an amount of 20-80% (0060).
With regards to claim 13, Munnelly does not teach the viscosity of the composition. However, when the composition recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, the claimed properties or function are presumed inherent. MPEP 2112.01. Because the prior art exemplifies Applicant’s claimed composition in that the claimed components in the claimed amounts are used, the claimed physical properties relating to the viscosity of the composition are inherently present in the prior art. Absent an objective showing to the contrary, the addition of the claimed physical properties to the claim language fails to provide patentable distinction over the prior art.
With regards to claims 14 and 20, Munnelly teaches the composition to be printed on a printing plate (abstract) by applying a layer on the printing plate (0011). Munnelly teaches a composition used for coating formulations (0011). Munnelly teaches the composition to include free radical polymerizable monomers in a concentration from about 25% to about 75% (0066), a radical producer that is an initiator (0096) by UV radiation (0098) in a concentration from 2 to 15% (0113), a diethanolamine compound (0174) reading on an amino compound, and crystal violet (0173 table 1) as applicants cite in the specification as reading on a non-photobleaching colored dye. Munnelly teaches the initiator to include a benzophenone derivative (0112) as applicant cites as reading on having a property of interacting with amino groups to generate free radicals when exposed to electromagnetic radiation.
Munnelly does not teach the amine value of the composition. However, when the composition recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, the claimed properties or function are presumed inherent. MPEP 2112.01. Because the prior art exemplifies Applicant’s claimed composition in that the claimed components in the claimed amounts are used, the claimed physical properties relating to the amine value of the composition are inherently present in the prior art. Absent an objective showing to the contrary, the addition of the claimed physical properties to the claim language fails to provide patentable distinction over the prior art.
With regards to claim 15, Munnelly teaches the composition to curable using UV radiation (0011).
With regards to claims 16 and 17, Munnelly teaches the composition to be applied using offset printing (0166).
With regards to claim 18, Munnelly teaches the conveyer speed to be 3 ft/min (0186).
With regards to claim 19, Munnelly does not teach the thickness of each layer in the printing process. However, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 124 (CCPA 1955). In this case, one skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention would know to alter the thickness in order to balance the curing rate and speed with the amount of layers needed to make the article.
With regards to claim 21, Munnelly does not teach the compositions ability to act as a curing indicator of the composition. However, when the composition recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, the claimed properties or function are presumed inherent. MPEP 2112.01. Because the prior art exemplifies Applicant’s claimed composition in that the claimed components in the claimed amounts are used and, in particular, the same dye is used, the claimed physical properties relating to the ability of the composition to behave as a curing indicator are inherently present in the prior art. Absent an objective showing to the contrary, the addition of the claimed physical properties to the claim language fails to provide patentable distinction over the prior art.
With regards to claims 23 and 24, Munnelly teaches the initiator to include a benzophenone derivative (0112) as applicant cites as reading on having a property of interacting with amino groups to generate free radicals when exposed to electromagnetic radiation.
With regards to claims 26 and 27, Munnelly teaches the composition to contain other initiators (0114-0162) reading on initiators that do not react with the amine groups.
With regards to claim 29, Munnelly teaches the composition to include 54.99% solvent (0173 table 1).
With regards to claim 30, Munnelly teaches the composition to include 54.99% solvent (0173 table 1) and teaches the addition of binder polymer (0054) in an amount of 20-80% (0060).
With regards to claim 31, Munnelly teaches the composition to be cured upon exposure to radiation (0098) but is silent to the amount of time the exposure lasts. However, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 124 (CCPA 1955). In this case, one skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention would know to alter to alter the cure time in order to balance the time it takes to cure the composition, the efficiency of the cure, and the discoloration of the composition caused by the photopolymerization.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA WHITELEY whose telephone number is (571)272-5203. The examiner can normally be reached 8 - 5:00.
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 5712721130. 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.
/JESSICA WHITELEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763