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.
Claims 8-9 and 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.
Regarding claims 8-9 and 11, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/ 35 USC § 103
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.
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) 1-2 and 4-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Wolf et al (US2020/0339798).
Wolf sets forth curable compositions based in immiscible reactive components and block copolymers.
Said curable compositions comprises a first reactive component, such as a hydrophilic (polar) reactive component; a second reactive component, such as a hydrophobic reactive component, wherein the first reactive component and second reactive component exhibit visible separation (become immiscible) at 25° C. in the absence of the block copolymer—see abstract, [0011]- [0016]. Said resin composition further comprises 0.1 to about 5 wt.% of a photoinitiator ([0057], [0062]); 0.1 to about 20 wt. % of inorganic particles having diameters from 1.0 to 100 nm ([0063], [0066]); and other customary additives (0067]).
Wolf explicitly teaches that said block copolymer assists in the formation of an ordered nanostructured polymeric matrix upon curing of the immiscible first and second reactive components, wherein said first component associates with (“solvate”) one type of block present in the block copolymer and said second component associates with (“solvate”) the other block in said block copolymer—see [0040]. Said block copolymer may be considered to be functioning in a manner similar to that of a surfactant or soap, having a hydrophilic end that associates strongly with a water phase and a hydrophobic end that associates strongly with an oil phase [0041]. This is deemed to anticipate both provisos in claim 1 since the block copolymer is considered a solvate and, thus, inherently does not dissolve, i.e., insoluble in the immiscible liquid mixture of the first and second reactive components. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. If applicants are of the position that the prior art does not, in fact, possess the same properties as the claimed composition, the claimed composition should be amended to distinguish itself from the prior art--In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Wolf sets forth one or both of the reactive components may be comprised of two or more reactive compounds which are miscible with each other but immiscible, as a mixture, with the other reactive component, wherein the hydrophilic reactive component in said first he at least one block copolymer may comprise at least one block having a glass transition temperature of at least 50° C. and at least one block having a glass transition temperature of less than −25° Component in said second component comprises a hydrophobic (meth) acrylate monomer—see [0017]; [0023]; and [0030]. Said first and second reactive components are found in the composition in amounts from 10-90% of said first reactive component and 90 % - 10% of said second reactive component [0040].
Said block copolymer comprises at least one of a diblock copolymer of triblock copolymer [0042]. Said block copolymers comprises at least one block copolymer selected from the group consisting of a) block copolymers comprised of at least one poly(n-butyl acrylate) block and at least one poly(methyl methacrylate) block, b) block copolymers comprised of at least one polystyrene block and at least one polybutadiene block and c) block copolymers comprised of at least one polystyrene block and at least one polyisoprene block, wherein said block copolymers comprise at least one block having a glass transition temperature of at least 50° C. and at least one block having a glass transition temperature of less than −25° C—see [0042]-[0043]. Said resin composition comprises said block copolymers in an amount from 1 to 40 % by weight—see [0056].
Regarding claims 1 and 4-6: Per example 1, Wolf sets forth a UV-curable composition comprising 1 to 40 wt. .% ([0116]) of a block copolymer (PMMA/PBA—Nanostrength® NS-1 ([0054] and[0132]); 10-90 wt. % of said polyethylene glycol mono-acrylate having six oxyethylene repeat units (hydrophilic—first reactive component); and 90 to 10 wt. % of 4-tert-butylcyclohexyl (meth) acrylate (hydrophobic--second reactive component). Said composition comprising said block copolymer is placed in a test tube at room temperature which is represented in figure 3, wherein it appears the block copolymer is insoluble (solvates) and provides a clear phase separate between 1st and 2nd reactive components—see figure 3.
This composition is deemed to encompass the weight percentages in instant claims 1 and 4-6, thus anticipated. In the alternative, it would have been within the skill level of an ordinary artisan to obtain the compositions found in claim 1 and 4-6 with routine experimentation. The courts have upheld, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in said 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).
Regarding claims 2 and 13:
Wolf sets forth a process comprising the steps of: a) coating a first layer of said curable composition in liquid form onto a surface; b) exposing the first layer imagewise to actinic radiation, wherein the radiation is of sufficient intensity and duration to cause at least partial curing of the layer in the exposed areas; c) coating an additional layer of the curable composition onto the previously exposed imaged cross-section; d) exposing the additional layer imagewise to actinic radiation to form an additional imaged cross-section, wherein the radiation is of sufficient intensity and duration to cause at least partial curing of the additional layer in the exposed areas and to cause adhesion of the additional layer to the previously exposed imaged cross-section; e) repeating steps c) and d) a desired number of times to build up the three-dimensional article—see [0083]-[0088]. Wolf sets forth said curing by actinic radiation includes UV radiation curing—see [0082]. Thus, claim 2 is anticipated.
Regarding claim 7 and 9:
Regarding claim 7: The block copolymer of the examples is set forth as PMMA/PBA—Nanostrength® NS-1, wherein said Nanostrength sold in pellet, powder, and microgranular form. These are deemed to anticipate “polymeric particles” in claim 7.
Additionally, Wolf sets forth said composition may further include 0.1 to about 25 wt. % of sheet-like inorganic particles (inherently not soluble in either 1st or 2nd components) having a thickness of 10 nm to 5 microns—see [0065]. Thus, the “inorganic filler” particles of claim 7 and 9 is anticipated. The plurality of particles limitation in claim 1 does not exclude the 5 to 69.99 vol.% from comprising mixtures of particle types as long as they meet the proviso found in claim 1.
Regarding claim 8: Wolf sets forth said inorganic particles include metal oxide particles, such as iron oxide nanoparticles, niobia nanoparticles, titanium oxides, silica, and the like, wherein iron oxide is magnetic, niobia nanoparticles have electromagnetic wave altering properties; silica has water-repelling, dielectric, toughening, and other properties.
Regarding claim 10: Said resin composition further comprises 0.1 to about 5 wt.% of a photoinitiator ([0057], [0062]).
Regarding claim 11: Said resin composition further comprises 0.1 to about 5 wt.% of a photoinitiator ([0057], [0062]); 0.1 to about 20 wt. % of inorganic particles having diameters from 1.0 to 100 nm ([0063], [0066]); and other customary additives ([0067]), wherein said customary additives include fillers, pigments, adhesion promoters, photostabilizers, and the like—see [0067].
Regarding claim 12: Wolf sets forth a cured product obtained from example 1 in figure 2 (middle pane).
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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolf (cited above).
Wolf is set forth above as anticipating claims 1-2 and 4-14. The primary difference is Wolf does not expressly set forth the said 1st reactive component comprises a combination of at least one crosslinkable polymer (interpreted as crosslinkable oligomer/prepolymeric compound) and at least one monomer. However, Wolf teaches in the overall teaching said in said 1st or 2nd components comprise reactive compounds such as both mono-functional reactive compounds and poly-functional reactive compounds (compounds containing two or more reactive functional groups per molecule). Increasing the proportion of poly-functional reactive compounds to mono-functional reactive compounds in the curable composition will generally tend to increase the amount of crosslinking (crosslink density) achieved in the cured composition—see [0014]. Additionally, Wolf sets forth said 1st reactive component comprising said hydrophilic reactive monomers can include both monomeric and oligomeric hydrophilic (meth) acrylate compounds— [0016].
Thus, from the overall teachings of the reference a skilled artisan would have found it reasonable to add a polyfunctional hydrophilic oligomeric compound to said 1st reactive component with a reasonable expectation of increasing/tailoring the amount of crosslinking (crosslink density) achieved in the cured composition in absence of evidence to the contrary and/or unexpected results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANZA L MCCLENDON whose telephone number is (571)272-1074. 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, 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.
/SANZA L. McCLENDON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765
SMc
Prosecution Insights