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
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8, 32-44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP2183311A2 see page 1 lines 6-12, page 3 lines 1-2 and Examples 1-3 and claim 1 ; in view of Lorena E. Sánchez-Cadena, et al., Solvolysis of acrylate-urethane coatings cured by electron-beam and UV radiation; Progress in Organic Coatings, Vol 136, Nov. 2019 see sections 1,2.1-2.3, 2.43.1 and 3.3.
EP2183311A2 discloses a method for degrading polyurethane materials by chemical decompositions using glycolysis and/ or aminolysis. EP2183311A2 discloses mixing polyurethane material with a degradation solution comprising low-molecular weight polyhydric alcohols having reactive -OH groups. See Abstract; Description. Note also the presence of amines having reactive NH or NH2 groups. See claims and page 1 lines 5-12, page 3 lines 6-14 and Example 1. EP2183311A2 further teaches performing a mixing step and heating the mixture to elevated temperatures to degrade the polyurethane material and form degradation products such as polyols and amines. See page 1 lines 6-12, page 3 lines 1-2 and Examples 1-3 and claim 1.
EP2183311A2 differs from claim 1 in that the degraded material is described as polyurethane foam rather than a polyurethane acrylic resin materials and does not specify that curing takes place; however, Sánchez-Cadena, et al., teaches cured polyurethane acrylate resins that undergo solvolysis. Specifically, Sánchez-Cadena, et al. teaches that polyurethane acrylate materials, after being cured into solid resin coatings, contain urethane linkages and are shown to undergo chemical degradation by solvolysis when mixed with a degradation solution and heated to produce lower
molecular weight products. See Section 1, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 3.3. The reference further teaches degradation of cured polyurethane acrylate resins by glycolysis using diethylene glycol under heating conditions, resulting in lower-molecular-weight polyol products.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the polyurethane degradation process of EP2183311A2 to polyurethane acrylic resin materials containing urethane linkages as taught by Sánchez-Cadena, et al. , because both references teach that urethane linkages undergo solvolysis under mixing and heating conditions and Sánchez-Cadena, et al. demonstrates that cured polyurethane acrylate resins also undergo the same solvolysis mechanisms under comparable conditions. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in degrading polyurethane acrylate resin materials using the degradation compounds, mixing steps, and heating conditions taught by EP2183311A2, in view of Sánchez-Cadena, et al.
With regard to claim 2 is directed to the method for degrading the polyurethane acrylic resin material of claim 1, wherein the polyurethane acrylic resin material is a cured polyurethane acrylic resin or a composite material containing cured polyurethane acrylic resin.
EP2183311A2 discloses degradation of cured polyurethane materials under glycolysis and or aminolysis conditions. Sánchez-Cadena, et al. discloses that polyurethane acrylate materials are prepared and cured as solid resin materials and subsequently degraded by solvolysis under mixing and heating conditions. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the degradation process of EP2183311A2 to cured polyurethane acrylic resin materials, including composite materials containing such cured resins, because both materials share urethane linkages and undergo the same solvolysis under mixing and heating conditions.
With regard to claim 3, wherein the composite material containing cured polyurethane acrylic resin comprises the polyurethane acrylic resin and a fiber, in addition to the discussion above, EP2183311A2 teaches degradation of polyurethane materials regardless of physical form and Sanchez Cadena et al. teaches degradation of polyurethane acrylate resins applied as coatings on substrates. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the degradation process to fiber containing composite materials, because the degradation proceeds through solvolysis of the cured polyurethane acrylic resin under mixing and heating conditions and the presence of a fiber does not alter the chemical susceptibility of the urethane linkages in the resin matrix to solvolysis.
With regard to claim 4, wherein the fiber is a glass fiber, a carbon fiber, a polyamide fiber, or a mixture thereof, in addition to the discussion above, the use of such fibers in polyurethane based composite materials was known in the art prior to the effective filing date. it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the degradation process to composites containing these conventional fibers, as the fiber type does not affect the chemical degradation behavior of the polyurethane acrylic resin matrix.
With regard to claim 5, wherein the degradation compound has a structure represented by formula (i): NHm(X-OH)n formula (i); wherein X is an alkyl group or an oxoalkyl group, m is 1 or 2 and m + n = 3, in addition to the discussion above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select an amino-alcohol degradation compo und as a known choice in polyurethane degradation processes to facilitate cleavage of urethane linkages with expected results.
With regard to claim 6, wherein the degradation temperature is from 135°C to the boiling point temperature of the degradation solution product comprises an aromatic amine, in addition to the discussion above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a degradation temperature within the claimed range, as temperature selection in polyurethane solvolysis processes is a routine optimization.
With regard to claim 7, wherein the degradation time is 2 hours to 24 hours and the degradation compound comprises a reactive NH group, a reactive NH2 group, or a reactive OH group, in addition to the discussion above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a degradation time within the claimed range as a conventional process parameter. As disclosed, EP2183311A2 teaches maintaining the degradation mixture at elevated temperatures for a sufficient time to degrade the polyurethane materials (Examples 1,2 and 3) and Sanchez Cadena et al. teaches degradation of polyurethane acrylate resins for several hours. See section 2.4.
With regard to claim 32 is directed to the method for degrading the polyurethane acrylic resin material of claim 1, wherein a preparation of the polyurethane acrylic resin comprises following steps: performing a polyurethane polymerization step, wherein an isocyanate compound, an inhibitor and a catalyst are mixed in a diluting monomer, and heated to a first temperature to obtain a first mixture, then a polyol compound is added to the first mixture and maintained at the first temperature to react to obtain a second mixture; and performing a polyurethane acrylic esterification step, wherein a hydroxyl-containing (methyl)acrylate compound is added to the second mixture and maintained at the first temperature to react to obtain the polyurethane acrylic resin. Sanchez Cadena et al. teaches preparation of polyurethane acrylate resins by reacting polyurethane oligomers with acrylate-containing compounds followed by curing. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to prepare the polyurethane acrylic resin material using the recited steps prior to applying the degradation process, as these steps represent known resin-forming techniques yielding expected results.
With regard to claim 33, wherein the preparation of the polyurethane acrylic resin further comprises: performing a diluting step, wherein after the second mixture added with the hydroxyl-containing (methyl)acrylate compound reacting at the first temperature, the second mixture is cooled and the diluting monomer is added to obtain the polyurethane acrylic resin. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cool the reaction mixture prior to adding a diluting monomer, as cooling and post reaction dilution are conventional process steps in the resin preparation to manage the viscosity and reaction rate.
With regard to claim 34, wherein the isocyanate compound is a bifunctional isocyanate compound or a polyfunctional isocyanate compound, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a bifunctional or polyfunctional isocyanate as a known process step choice in polyurethane acrylate resin syntheses, with predictable effects on resin structure.
With regard to claim 35, wherein the bifunctional isocyanate compound or the polyfunctional isocyanate compound is an aromatic ring isocyanate, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select an aromatic isocyanate as a predictable substitution in polyurethane acrylate resin preparation, yielding expected material properties.
With regard to claim 36, wherein the polyol compound is a bifunctional polyol compound or a polyfunctional polyol compound, and a number average molecular weight of the polyol compound is less than 2000, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a polyol having the recited functionality and molecular weight range as a conventional optimization parameter with expected results.
With regard to claim 37, wherein the polyol compound is a polyoxyethylene ether, a polyoxypropylene ether, a polytetrahydrofuran or a mixture thereof, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select any of the recited polyether polyols as known material choices.
With regard to claim 38, wherein the polyurethane acrylic resin has an oligomer represented by formula (I):
PNG
media_image1.png
52
518
media_image1.png
Greyscale
formula (I);wherein A is a polyethoxy group, a polypropoxy group or a polytetrahydrofuran group, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to prepare polyurethane acrylate oligomers recited structural features as an expected result of known polyurethane acrylate synthesis.
With regard to claim 39, wherein an equivalent ratio of a NCO group of the isocyanate compound to an OH group of the polyol compound is 1.5:1 to 10:1, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select an equivalent ratio within the claimed range as a conventional optimization yielding expected results.
With regard to claim 40, wherein the hydroxyl-containing (methyl)acrylate compound is a hydroxyethyl methacrylate, a hydroxyethyl acrylate, a hydroxypropyl methacrylate, a hydroxypropyl acrylate or a mixture thereof, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select any of the recited hydroxyl -containing (meth) acrylate compounds as known alternatives.
With regard to claim 41, wherein the diluting monomer is a free radical curable diluting monomer, and is a (methyl)methacrylate, a (methyl)ethyl acrylate, a (methyl)hydroxyethyl acrylate, a (methyl)hydroxypropyl acrylate, a (methyl)isobornyl acrylate, a (methyl)cyclohexyl acrylate, a (methyl) tetrahydrofurfuryl acrylate, a styrene, a methyl styrene, a vinyl toluene or a mixture thereof, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the recited diluting monomers as known formulation choices.
With regard to claim 42, wherein the first temperature is 40 0C to 80 C, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a temperature within the claimed range as a matter of routine optimization.
With regard to claim 43, wherein the catalyst is an organic tin, an organic bismuth or an organic zinc, and an added amount of the catalyst is 50 ppm to 200 ppm of a total content of the polyurethane acrylic resin, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the recited catalysts and concentration ranges as routine catalyst choices.
With regard to claim 44, wherein an equivalent ratio of an OH group of the hydroxyl-containing (methyl)acrylate compound to a NCO group of the isocyanate compound remaining after the polyurethane polymerization step is 1:1 to 1.05:1, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select and equivalent ratio within the claimed range as a routine optimization yielding predictable results.
In conclusion, in view of the above, there appears to be no material difference between the reference(s) and that which is claimed by applicant(s). Any differences not specifically mentioned appear to be conventional. Consequently, the claimed invention cannot be deemed as unobvious and accordingly is unpatentable.
Information Disclosure Statement
Note that any future and/or present information disclosure statements must comply with 37 CFR § 1.98(b), which requires a list of the publications to include: the author (if any), title, relevant pages of the publication, date and place of publication to be submitted for consideration by the Office.
Improper Claim Dependency
Prior to allowance, any dependent claims should be rechecked for proper dependency if independent claims are cancelled.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TERRESSA M BOYKIN whose telephone number is (571)272-1069. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-5:30.
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, Heidi Kelley can be reached at 571 270-1831. 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.
/Terressa Boykin/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765