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 U.S.C. § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of a previous claim.
Claim 7 is dependent on independent claim 1. Independent claim 1 recites aldehydes of the chemical formula R-HC=O in which R has between 1 and 20 carbon atoms.
Claim 7 recites species of aldehydes including methanal. Methanal (formaldehyde) does not fall within the scope of the chemical formula recited in base claim 1 because it does not have the recited R group having between 1 and 20 carbon atoms.
For this reason, the limitation “methanal” in claim 7 does not specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed in base claim 1.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 102
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 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 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 8-12 and 16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2011/0282023 A1 (herein “Johnson”).
As to claims 8-12: Johnson describes a composition (see ¶ [0102] and Table 17) comprising methyl methacrylate and 96.1 ppm of isobutyraldehyde and 17.5 ppm of formaldehyde.
As to claim 16: The composition further includes 100 ppm of hydroquinone as a stabiliser (see ¶ [0102]).
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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 of this title, 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 1-2, 5-9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0099922 A1 (herein “Hamada”).
As to claims 1-2, 7-9, and 12: Hamada describes a method of stabilizing an acrylic acid derivative with an aldehyde (see the abstract).
Hamada discloses a genus of acrylic esters (see ¶ [0011]) including moieties X and Ra. The moiety X is selected from fluorine, alkyl, perfluoroalkyl, or hydrogen, and the alkyl groups are selected from a group that includes methyl, among others (see ¶ [0043]). When X is hydrogen, Hamada’s acrylic compounds correspond to the recited acrylates, and when X is methyl, Hamada’s acrylic compounds correspond to the recited methacrylates.
The moiety Ra is selected from alkyl, fluoroalkyl, aryl that may have one or more substituents, or hydrogen (see ¶ [0012]). When Ra is selected from alkyl, the acrylic compounds have the presently recited alkyl group.
Hamada discloses 24 species of aldehyde compounds (see ¶ [0078]), 23 of which (not formaldehyde) are according to the presently recited chemical formula (butylaldehyde, for instance). The ratio of the acrylic acid derivative and aldehyde is preferably in a ratio of 1:0.0005 to 1:0.02. This range of ratios overlaps the presently recited range of amounts in ppm by weight; as one non-limiting example, methyl methacrylate and butylaldehyde in a molar ratio of 1:0.0005 corresponds to about 360 ppm of butylaldehyde.
Hamada does not specifically disclose an embodiment of a composition that includes an alkyl (meth)acrylate and one of the aforementioned aldehyde compounds.
In light of Hamada’s disclosure of a genus of acrylic compounds, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make Hamada’s compositions using any of the acrylic compounds within the scope of the disclosed genus of acrylic esters, including those compounds that are alkyl (meth)acrylates. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Hamada’s alkyl (meth)acrylates and aldehydes in amounts that fall within the presently recited range.
As to claims 5-6: Because Hamada suggests compositions including the same acrylic compounds and aldehydes that are presently recited, there is a reasonable basis to conclude that the compositions suggested by Hamada would have the same physical properties as those presently recited, including the same reduced yellowness index.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4, 13-15, and 17-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but they would be allowable if written in independent form.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD A. HUHN whose telephone number is (571)270-7345. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9 AM to 6 PM EST.
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.
/RICHARD A. HUHN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights