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.
Claims 1, 3-8, 12, and 14-15are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP-0825596 to Masataka et al.
As to claims 1 and 3-8, Masataka discloses a laminated resin film wherein a resin film layer (B) is laminated on different sides of a crystalline propylene resin film layer (A) (0007) wherein (B) comprises 5 to 40% by weight of a linear ethylene-alpha-olefin copolymer (0021, applicants first thermoplastic resin), 5 to 25% by weight of ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer (0022, applicants thermoplastic elastomer), and 40% by weight or less of low-density polyethylene (first thermoplastic resin) and 0.5 to 15 wt% of an anti-fogging agent (0024) such as monoglycerin oleate, sorbitan oleate or polyethylene glycol laurate (0026).
Masataka discloses a composition with overlapping amounts of components including a mixture of thermoplastic resins and elastomers in combination with anti-fogging agents. At the time of filing it would have been obvious to arrive at the presently claimed values to obtain coating films with sufficient tackiness and flexibility (0021-0022, 0027). It is well settled that where prior art describes components of a claimed compound or compositions in concentrations within or overlapping the claimed concentrations a prima facie case of obviousness is established. See MPEP 2144.05.
As to claim 12, Masataka discloses thermoplastic elastomers including ethylene-octene copolymer (0021).
As to claims 14-15, it is noted that the claims are directed to an anti-fogging composition, all elected claims are recited in the product-by-process format by use of the language, “An anti-fogging composition is prepared by…” Case law holds that: Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
To the extent that the process limitations in a product-by-process claim do not carry weight absent a showing of criticality, the reference discloses the claimed product in the sense that the prior art product structure is seen to be no different from that indicated by the claims.
Nevertheless, Masataka discloses extruding the anti-fogging composition through a twin-screw extruder (0030).
Claims 1, 3-12, and 14-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 6,825,280 to Hayakawa et al. in view of JP-6469688 to Tshihiro et al.
As to claim 1 and 3-12, Hayakawa discloses a coating composition (III) comprising 20 to 55% by weight of an ethylene-alpha-olefin copolymer elastomer (25:45-60), 10 to 30% by weight of a polystyrene thermoplastic elastomer such as SEBS (26:39-63), and 1 to 40% by weight of a polyethylene resin including low density polyethylene and linear low density polyethylene (27:50-67). The composition contains thermoplastic elastomers and resins within amounts that overlap the claimed ranges. Accordingly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. A person of ordinary skill in the art could routinely work through the amounts taught in Hayakawa to arrive at the presently claimed composition based on desired properties of the coating. For example, the addition of the low density polyethylene improves rigidity, impact strength, and impact resistance (28:1-4).
Hayakawa discloses suitable additives to the coating composition. However, the reference does not teach anti-fogging characteristics.
However, within the same field of endeavor Tshihiro discloses surface coating compositions for obtaining an anti-fogging surface for plastics (Introduction) comprising aqueous solutions of vinyl acetate resins, styrene resins, and ethylene resins used in combination with 2 to 50% by weight of a mixtures of antifogging agents including glycerin fatty acid esters, sorbitan fatty acid esters, and polyoxyethylene fatty alcohol ethers such as n-dodecyl polyoxyethylene (Paragraph 2 of translation).
As to claims 14-15, it is noted that the claims are directed to an anti-fogging composition, all elected claims are recited in the product-by-process format by use of the language, “An anti-fogging composition is prepared by…” Case law holds that: Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
To the extent that the process limitations in a product-by-process claim do not carry weight absent a showing of criticality, the reference discloses the claimed product in the sense that the prior art product structure is seen to be no different from that indicated by the claims.
Nevertheless, Hayakawa discloses extruding the through a twin-screw extruder (36:35-41).
As to claims 16-19, Hayagawa discloses a coating composition comprising 10 to 98%% by mol of propylene polymer with the rest of the composition containing components listed under (III).
As to claims 20-21, Hayagawa discloses polyethylene thermoplastic resin as a suitable additional polymer in amounts that range from 1 to 88% (27:64-66).
Claims 2 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 6,825,280 to Hayakawa et al. in view of JP-6469688 to Tshihiro et al. and further in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2003/0055179 to Ota et al.
As to claims 2 and 13, Hayakawa discloses a coating composition (III) comprising 20 to 55% by weight of an ethylene-alpha-olefin copolymer elastomer (25:45-60), 10 to 30% by weight of a polystyrene thermoplastic elastomer such as SEBS (26:39-63), and 1 to 40% by weight of a polyethylene resin including low density polyethylene and linear low density polyethylene (27:50-67). The composition contains thermoplastic elastomers and resins within amounts that overlap the claimed ranges. Accordingly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. A person of ordinary skill in the art could routinely work through the amounts taught in Hayakawa to arrive at the presently claimed composition based on desired properties of the coating. For example, the addition of the low density polyethylene improves rigidity, impact strength, and impact resistance (28:1-4).
Hayakawa discloses suitable additives to the coating composition. However, the reference does not teach anti-fogging characteristics.
However, within the same field of endeavor Tshihiro discloses surface coating compositions for obtaining an anti-fogging surface for plastics (Introduction) comprising aqueous solutions of vinyl acetate resins, styrene resins, and ethylene resins used in combination with 2 to 50% by weight of a mixtures of antifogging agents including glycerin fatty acid esters, sorbitan fatty acid esters, and polyoxyethylene fatty alcohol ethers such as n-dodecyl polyoxyethylene (Paragraph 2 of translation).
Hayakawa discloses the use of porous organic carriers such as copolymers of alpha-olefins (19:28-35).
Hayakawa does not teach the amount of porous carrier.
However, within the same field of endeavor Ota discloses polymers for surface coatings comprising olefin block copolymers and organic porous carriers (0438) including copolymers of alpha-olefins (0462) or polyethylene (0462) used in amounts of 1 gram of carrier per 0.05 to 100 grams of olefin polymer (0466).
At the time of filing it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include the carrier taught in Hayakawa within the amounts disclosed in Ota because the amounts are taught as suitable in analogous applications.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL L LEONARD whose telephone number is (571)270-7450. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 7:00-4:00.
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, Joseph Del Sole can be reached at 571-272-1130. 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.
/MICHAEL L LEONARD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763
Prosecution Insights