EDETAILED 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 Analysis
Summary of Claim 1:
An aqueous heat-sealable resin composition comprising
a urethane resin (A) which is a product of reaction components including:
A polyether polyol (a1)
A polyisocyanate (a2)
A chain extender (a3)
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Meyer et al. (US 2013/0149510).
With respect to claim 1, Meyer teaches an aqueous heat-sealable resin composition compromising a urethane resin composition formed from reaction components including a polyol, a polyisocyanate, and chain extender (see Claim 3; ¶¶ [0043] – [0047]). Accordingly, Meyer teaches the limitations of claim 1.
With respect to claim 2, Meyer expressly teaches hydroxyethyl acrylate and hydroxyethyl methacrylate functional monomers (see [0050]), which correspond to the claimed (meth)acrylic acid hydroxyalkyl ester. Accordingly, Meyer teaches the limitations of claim 2.
With respect to claim 4, Meyer teaches laminate/composite foil substrates coated with aqueous polyurethane dispersion composition (see ¶¶ [0068] – [0075], Claims 13-14), thereby teaching the claimed laminate having a coating on at least one surface of a substrate. Accordingly, Meyer teaches the limitations of claim 4.
With respect to claim 6, Meyer teaches hydroxyethyl acrylate and hydroxyethyl methacrylate functional monomers corresponding to the claimed (meth)acrylic acid hydroxyalkyl ester (¶ [0050]) and further teaches laminate/composite foil substrates coated with aqueous polyurethane dispersion composition (see ¶¶ [0068] – [0075], Claims 13-14). Accordingly, Meyer teaches the limitations of claim 6.
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.
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer et al. (US 2013/0149510) in view of Tago et al. (US 2022/0251379).
Meyer teaches an aqueous heat-sealable resin composition comprising a urethane resin formed from reaction components including a polyether polyol (a1), a polyisocyanate (a2), and a chain extender (a3) as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
However, Meyer does not teach the claimed wax component.
Tago teaches polyurethane resin compositions further comprising wax (see Claim 1, and 7-11; ¶¶ [0250] - [0252], Tables 1-16). Tago teaches incorporating wax into polyurethane resin compositions and provides numerous working examples containing wax. Tago further provides experimental data evaluating polyurethane resin compositions containing wax and resulting properties of the compositions, including humidity heat bloom resistance, demodability, discoloration resistance, and transparency (see ¶¶ [0269] – [0291]; Tables 1-16). Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the wax taught by Tago into the aqueous polyurethane resin composition of Meyer in order to obtain predictable result of polyurethane resin composition containing wax and exhibiting the properties taught by Tago. The combination involves the predictable use of known wax additive in know polyurethane resin composition according to the established function. Accordingly, claim 3 would have been obvious over Meyer in view of Tago.
With respect to claim 5, Meyer teaches the composition of claim 2, including (meth) acrylic acid hydroxyalkyl ester component, and Tago teaches polyurethane resin compositions further comprising a wax component. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the Meyer composition to include the wax component taught by Tago. Accordingly, claim 5 would have been obvious over Meyer in view of Tago.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK ROY THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)270-0205. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5.
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, Arrie (Lanee) Reuther can be reached at (571)270-7026. 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.
/PATRICK ROY THOMAS/Examiner, Art Unit 1764
/ARRIE L REUTHER/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights