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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed have been fully considered. Initialed copies of said IDSs are enclosed herein.
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.
Claims 1-11 are 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. With regards to claim 1, there is no antecedent basis for the term “the polyhydric alcohol (b1-2)” B1-2 is referred to as a “polyol” (not a polyhydric alcohol) earlier in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2018-162420 (herein referred to as “Masaki”)
Masaki teaches a two-pack curable adhesive, comprising a polyisocyanate composition (A) and a polyol component (abstract). The polyisocyanate component comprises containing a urethane prepolymer (A1}, which is a reaction product of polyol and a polyisocyanate compound. The polyol contains a polyether polyol as an essential component, and can further contain a polyester polyol. For the polyol composition (B) polyester polyol (B1} is used as an essential component to obtain adequate adhesive strength. Both polyester polyols are a reaction product of a monomer composition containing a polycarboxylic acid and glycol (herein understood to read on the claimed “polyol (b1-2}” and the claimed “polyhydric alcohol (a1-2)”). Masaki teaches the polyhydric alcohol (1-2) and polyhydric alcohol (b1-2) may comprise a preference for low molecular weight glycol such as diethylene glycol, and the examples utilize “ 80% by mass or more of diethylene glycol”. Thus, said teaching are understood to read on the claimed “80% by mass or more of diethylene glycol” limitation.
Masaki does not teach the polyester polyol has a compound amount of 30% by mass or more and 90%s by mass or less with respect to a total amount of the polyester polyol and the polyether polyol (a2). However, Masaki teaches polyester polyol and polyether polyol may be used as the polyol in the polyisocyanate compound. The courts have held it is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose in any relative amount, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art." Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize polyester polyol and polyether polymer in any relative amount as the polyol of the polyisocyante compound. The idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art.
With regards to claim 2, Masaki teaches the two-pack curable adhesive according to claim 1,
wherein the polycarboxylic acid (b1-1) contains an adipic acid (see al, including examples).
With regards to claim 3, Masaki teaches the two-pack curable adhesive according to claim 1
wherein the polycarboxylic acid (b1-1) contains an isophthalic acid (see “ Examples of the polyvalent carboxylic acid component”).
With regards to claim 4, Masaki teaches the two-pack curable adhesive according to claim 1 wherein the adipic acid has a compound amount of 10% by mass or more and 50% by mass or less with respect to the polycarboxylic acid (b1-1) (see example 201).
With regards to claim 5, Masaki does not teach the isophthahic acid bas a compound amount of 50%. by mass or more and 70% by mass or less with respect to the polycarboxylic acid (b1-1). However, Masaki teaches isophthalic acid may be used as polycarboxylic acid (b1-1) and that mixes of polycarboxylic acids may be used. The courts have held it is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose in any relative amount, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art." Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize isophthalic acid as the polycarboxylic acid (b1-1) in any relative amount with another polycarboxylic acid. The idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art.
With regards to claim 6, Masaki teaches the two-pack curable adhesive according to claim 1,
Wherein the polycarboxylic acid (al-1} contains 80% by mass or more of an adipic acid (see examples of carboxylic acid component” wherein adipic acid may comprise 100% of (a1-1) and examples. e/g/ synthesis example 106).
With regards to claim 9, Masaki teaches the composition may further comprise
a phosphoric acid compound (C6) in order to further improve the adhesive performance.
With regards to claim 10, Masaki teaches a laminate comprising a first base material: a second base material: and an adhesive layer for pasting the first base material and the second base material,
wherein the adhesive layer is a cured coating film of the two-pack curable adhesive according to claim 1 (“The laminated body of this invention has the transparent base material 1, an ink layer, an adhesive bond layer, and the base material 2 in this order as above-mentioned.”)
With regards to claim 11, Masaki teaches the laminate of claim 10 may be a packaging material (see “Technical Field” section”).
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2018-162420 (herein referred to as “Masaki”) in view of , as applied to claims 1-6 and 9-11 above, and further in view of Sasaki (US 202100179240).
Masaki is relied upon as above, but does not teach the polyol may ) contains monool (B2). However, Sasaki teaches polyurethane composition comprising a polyurethane component and a polyol component (abstract). Sasaki teaches adding monool to a polyol in amounts of 5-30 parts by weight in order to obtain increased flexibility (0091-0092). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize monool in mounts of 5-30 parts by weight to the polyol of Masaki in order to improve the composition’s flexibility.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN R KRUER whose telephone number is (571)272-1510. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-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, Callie Shosho can be reached at (571) 272-1123. 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.
KEVIN R. KRUER
Examiner
Art Unit 1787
/KEVIN R KRUER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787