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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohan et al. US 2011/0041924 A1, and in view of Terasaka et al. JP-2009-001767A.
Regarding claims 1 and 4, Mohan teaches primer compositions which are consolidated into a solid film state (para [0026]) and which comprises a perfluoropolymer which is melt flowable (para [0023]), where the preferred perfluoropolymer include FEP. Mohan notes (para [0046]) the average particle size of the perfluoropolymer to be in the range of 2 to 60 micrometer, overlapping the claimed requirement.
Mohan discloses that the primer composition further comprises (paras [0058] and [0059]) a heat resistant polymer binder component which includes a polyamideimide, which corresponds to applicant’s heat-resistant resin. Mohan adds that the amount of heat-resistant resin is 10-60 wt% based on the combined weight of the perfluoropolymer and the heat-resistant resin, overlapping the required mass ratio of FEP particles and the heat-resistant resin. The mass wt% range of FEP particles can thus be calculated to be 90-40 wt%.
Mohan discloses (para [0063]) the use of water as a solvent, where the solvent amount is suggested (para [0065]) to be 40 to 75 wt% based on the combined weight of solvent, fluoropolymer and polymer binder (heat-resistant resin). This results in the solvent range (which can be water) of 16wt% (0.4 x 0.4 (FEP wt%) x100 =16) to 67.5 wt% (0.75 x 0.9(FEP wt%) x 100 =67.5) with respect to FEP fluoropolymer particles, overlapping the claimed requirement.
Mohan is silent on the presence of non-ionic surfactant and an acetylenic diol-based surfactant, however discusses (para [0039]) the addition of other ingredients which can be present in the primer, which include surface tension modifiers (also known as surfactants). Since Mohan fails to mention specific suitable surfactants, one of ordinary skill in the art would take guidance from related disclosures to ascertain what might be used in that capacity. Reference Terasaka also teaches fluoropolymer coating compositions (para [0001]) and recommends the use of nonionic surfactants such as polyoxyethylene alkyl ethers (para [0036]) and an acetylene based surfactant (para [0037]), such as acetylene-glycol (para [0055]). Advantageously, Terasaka provides the motivation to incorporate the specific surfactants (paras [0037] and [0038]) to serve the dual purpose of improving the uniformity of dispersion of the fluoropolymer resin and reduce the environmental footprint upon evaporation during the coating film formation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Mohan with the surfactants polyoxyethylene alkyl ether and acetylene-glycol as taught by Terasaka for the same application of creating a primer coating composition with improved dispersion quality of the fluoropolymer resin and reduced environmental burden upon surfactant evaporation.
Regarding claim 2, Mohan teaches (para [0046]) the perfluoropolymer (FEP) average particle size of 2 to 60 µm, overlapping the claimed requirement. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 3, Mohan is silent on the use of a heat stabilizer, however Terasaka (para [0044]) notes the use of an additive which can be a stabilizer. The use of small amounts of heat stabilizer (or antioxidant) would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art. Additionally since both the prior art compositions and that of instant invention (specification, para [0084]) are being utilized for the same end products such as coating interior surfaces of pipes, it would be obvious to optimize the antioxidant amounts to the desired levels.
Regarding claims 5-7, as discussed when addressing claim 1, Mohan teaches the creation of a consolidated primer film derived from the fluoropolymer based compositions. Mohan further discloses creation of a laminate structure generated by overcoating the primer layer, where the overcoat layer is also derived from a meltable fluoropolymer (para [0023], [0026], [0028] and [0029]), where the primer film thickness is around 1 mil, while that of the laminate structure is around 8 mil. The laminate system is utilized for coating an interior surface of a metal pipe (para [0018]), where the primer layer adheres to the surface of the pipe and the overcoat layer is adhered to the primer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Surbhi M Du whose telephone number is (571)272-9960. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am to 5:00pm.
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 (Riviere) 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.
/S.M.D./
Examiner
Art Unit 1765
/JOHN M COONEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765