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 Status
A preliminary amendment was filed on 11/21/2023. Claims 4, 5, 7, 9, 11, 12, and 15 have been amended.
Claims 1-15 are currently pending and under examination.
Priority
The instant application is a national stage application of PCT/EP2022/069043 filed on 07/08/2022, which claims foreign priority to EP application no. 21192796.7. filed on 08/24/2021 and EP application no. 21184778.5 filed on 07/09/2021.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/21/2023 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 5-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flapper et al. (US20180327568 A1, published 11/15/2018, IDS dated 11/15/2023).
Flapper et al. teaches a coating composition comprising an autoxidizable alkyd-based resin and a drier composition, the drier composition comprising : a) an iron-ligand complex comprising iron and at least one bispidine ligand; and b) a vanadium compound (see Abstract). The bispidine ligand may be any bispidine ligand known to be suitable in metal-ligand driers for autoxidizable alkyd-based coating compositions. A particular preferred bispidine ligand is a bispidon, also known as di-substituted 3-methyl-9-oxo-2,4-di(pyridine-2-yl )-7-(pyridine-2-ylmethyl)-3,7-diazabicyclo[3.3.1]nonane-1,5-dicarboxylate of the following general formula:
PNG
media_image1.png
344
339
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein R1, and R2 are, independently, selected from the group consisting of H, an alkyl group with 1 to 20 carbon atoms, an aryl group with 6 to 20 carbon atoms, and a polymeric residue. A particularly preferred ligand is dimethyl 3-methyl-9-oxo-2,4-di(pyridine-2-yl)-7-(pyridine-2-ylmethyl)-3,7-diazabicyclo[3.3.1]nonane-1,5-dicarboxylate which is equivalent to R1 and R2 being methyl in the molecule of the general formula shown above (see 0018-0019). An example of the method to make the curable composition includes: white paints was prepared by adding to 50 weight parts of alkyd emulsion (Synaqua 4804, a commercially available aqueous emulsion of a short oil alkyd with 50 wt % solid alkyd; ex: Arkema) : 25 weight parts Tiona 595 (95% titanium dioxide), 2 weight parts coalescence solvent, 15 weight parts water, 1 weight parts dispersant, 0.6 weight parts defoamer, and 6.4 weight parts rheology modifiers. Different white paints (paints no. 1 to 12 ) were prepared by adding different driers to a thus-prepared white paint. Paint No .2 (Comparative) A solution of a Fe-bispidon complex (Borchi® Oxy-Coat, ex. Borchers OM Group; 1 wt % Fe-bispidon complex) was added in an amount of 0.3 wt%, based on the weight of solid alkyd resin (see 0029-0033).
The teachings of Flapper et al. differ from that of the instantly claimed invention in that Flapper et al. does not teach a single embodiment wherein R1 and R2 (corresponding to instant R5) is selected from the group consisting of -C5-C12-alkyl as required by instant claim 1 and wherein R3 and R4 are same and selected from a Markush group including -C(=O)-O-C5H11 as required by instant claim 3.
In regard to meeting the limitations of instant claims 9-12, Flapper et al. teaches a siccative composition (solution of a Fe-bispidon complex) as well as a curable liquid composition (white paint) wherein Fe is present in 1 wt%, as required by instant claim 10, alkyd emulsion is present in 50 wt%, the siccative/curing catalyst is present in 0.3 wt%, as required by instant claims 11 and 12.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the methyls of R1 and R2, as taught by Flapper et al., with an alkyl group of 1 to 20 carbons, as taught by Flapper et al., to arrive at the instantly claimed invention. It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute R1 and R2 of the general formula taught by Flapper et al. because, as taught by Flapper et al., R1 and R2 can be selected from the group consisting of H, an alkyl group with 1 to 20 carbon atoms, an aryl group with 6 to 20 carbon atoms, and a polymeric residue. One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success because Flapper et al. teaches a successful example of a compound made from the Markush group.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is objected to as being dependent upon rejected base claim 1, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art does not teach wherein R3 and R4 of instant formula (I) are selected from C(O)O(C2H4-O-CH3) or C(O)O(1-methyl-2-methoxy-ethyl). The closest prior art can be found in Flapper et al. and the teachings of Flapper et al. were discussed above.
Conclusion
No claim is found allowable.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISTEN WEEKS BRADY whose telephone number is (571)272-5906. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm.
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, Scarlett Goon can be reached at (571) 272-5960. 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.
/KRISTEN W BRADY/Examiner, Art Unit 1692
/SCARLETT Y GOON/Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1693
Prosecution Insights