DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. The present application is continuation of application 17/307,379, issued as US 11,981,764.
3. Please note that the examiner assigned to the current application has been changed. The new examiner's name and contact information are stated at the end of this action. Applicant is requested to take note of the change.
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.
4. Claims 4 and 6 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.
5. Claim 4 refers to “polyacid component”, but does recite a preposition “the” or “said” in front of it; therefore, it is not clear of “polyacid component”of claim 4 is the same or different from that of claim 1.
Claim 6 refers to “the TACD”, however, there is a lack of antecedent basis in said claim, since claim 1 is silent with respect to TACD and it is not clear what TACD stands for.
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.
6. Claims 1, 3-11, 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuo (US 6,576,717) in view of US 4,973,656, incorporated therein by reference.
7. As to instant claims 1, 16, 17, Kuo discloses a coating composition comprising:
A) an acrylic-modified polyester resin prepared by copolymerization of:
(I) a polyester made of the moieties of polycondensation products:
(a) at least one difunctional dicarboxylic acid which is not a sulfomonomer (col. 2, lines 57-60, as to instant claim 18), specifically succinic acid, glutaric acid, adipic acid col. 6, lines 31-58);
(b) at least one glycol including 2,2,4,4-tetramethyl-1,3-cyclobutane diol and 2-methyl-1,3-propanediol (col. 7, lines 8-18);
(c) at least one ethylenically unsaturated monomer containing at least one carboxyl group, preferably maleic anhydride or maleic acid (col. 7, lines 34-40, as to instant claim 3);
(d) a multifunctional reactant including a trimethylolpropane (col. 2, line 65-col. 3, line 1-21; col. 8, lines 1-5, as to instant claim 7), with
(II) at least one ethylenically unsaturated monomer, specifically (meth)acrylic acid (col. 3, lines 29-30; col. 8, lines 55-60); and
B) a crosslinking agent comprising melamine (col. 3, lines 33-45; col. 11, lines 3-6, as to instant claim 10).
The composition appears to be free from bisphenol A, bisphenol F, or their combination (as to instant claim 11).
It is noted that the limitation “…obtainable by grafting an acid-functional acrylic polymer with a polyester material…” is a product-by-process limitation. 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 the 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, 777F.2d 695,698,227 USPQ 964,966 (Fed.Cir.1985).
8. Based on the teachings of Kuo, it would have been obvious to a one of ordinary skill in the art to choose and use the combination of 2,2,4,4-tetramethyl-1,3-cyclobutane diol and 2-methyl-1,3-propanediol as the at least one glycol component (b) (as to instant claim 7), maleic acid or maleic anhydride comprising ethylenically unsaturated double bond as the component (c) and (meth)acrylic acid as the component (II), to form the acrylic-modified polyester resin as well, since it would have been obvious to choose material based on its suitability. Case law holds that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports prima facie obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co vs. Interchemical Corp., 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1045). Case law holds that the mere substitution of an equivalent (something equal in value or meaning, as taught by analogous prior art) is not an act of invention; where equivalency is known to the prior art, the substitution of one equivalent for another is not patentable. See In re Ruff 118 USPQ 343 (CCPA 1958).
9. The process for preparing the acrylic-modified polyester component A) comprises
i) reacting the reactants (a)-(d) to produce a polyester and ii) reacting under addition copolymerization conditions in the presence of a free-radical initiator the polyester produced in the step i) with the ethylenically unsaturated monomer II) (col. 9, lines 5-20). Since the (meth)acrylic acid of the component (II) is cited as being addition copolymerized with the polyester, therefore, said (meth)acrylic acid will intrinsically and necessarily be, at least partially, in polymerized form. Since the polyester prepared using the maleic acid or maleic anhydride as the component (c) comprises ethylenically unsaturated bond, therefore, the free-radical addition copolymerization reaction of said ethylenically unsaturated polyester with the ethylenically unsaturated (meth)acrylic acid component II) will intrinsically and necessarily lead to grafting of said polymerized (meth)acrylic acid onto said polyester via said ethylenically unsaturated bond of the polyester as well. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). MPEP 2112.01(I). Since PTO cannot conduct experiments the proof of burden is shifted to the applicants to establish an unobviousness difference, see In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP § 2112.01.
10. As to instant claims 1, 9, 16, 17, the polyester is having a number average molecular weight Mn of 800-5,000 and acid number being less than 10 (col. 8, lines 48-54). For further teachings of the polyester component (I) Kuo refers to US 4,973,656, incorporated by reference in its entirety (see col. 8, lines 29-32 of Kuo).
US 4,973,656 recites said polyesters having Mn of 1,000-5,000, acid number of less than 10 and Tg of greater than 30⁰C (col. 7, lines 7-15 of US 4,973,656), specifically exemplified polyesters having acid number of 4-8, hydroxyl value of 60-64 and Mn of 2000 (Table 2 of US 4,973,656, as to instant claims 1, 5, 8-9, 16-17).
11. As to instant claim 1, 15, the coating composition comprises 20-65%wt of the acrylic-modified polyester and 30-70%wt of water (col. 3, lines 32-44); therefore, the composition is aqueous and comprises solid content of 20-65%wt.
12. As to instant claims 16 and 17, the limitations of “electrodepositable coating“ and powder coating” are cited in preamble and are intended use limitations. Case law holds that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963).
Further, since the coating composition of Kuo is substantially the same as that claimed in instant invention, it would be reasonably expected to be, at least partially, electrodepositable and suitable to be applied by powder coating as well. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). MPEP 2112.01(I). Since PTO cannot conduct experiments the proof of burden is shifted to the applicants to establish an unobviousness difference, see In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP § 2112.01.
13. As to instant claim 18, since the at least one difunctional dicarboxylic acid component (a) is specifically cited as containing not a sulfomonomer (col. 2, lines 57-60); polyol comprises 2,2,4,4-tetramethyl-1,3-cyclobutane diol and 2-methyl-1,3-propanediol, therefore, both the polyacid and the polyol components appear to be free from sulfomonomer as well. Though Kuo recites the polyester further comprising difunctional monomers containing a sulfogroup, said groups is cited to be attached to a nucleus such as benzene or diphenyl, and is not required be part of the polyacid or polyol.
14. The coating composition is coated on a substrate including metals, glass or films like polyester, polyethylene or polypropylene (col. 10, lines 53-57, as to instant claim 2).
15. As to instant claim 4, the exemplified polyester is made by using 11.8 g of maleic anhydride per 240 g of neopentyl glycol (col. 12, lines 20-30), i.e. 5%wt based on the weight of the polyol component.
16. Claims 1-11, 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuo (US 6,576,717) in view of US 4,973,656, incorporated therein by reference, in further view of Argyropoulos et al (US 2015/0099837).
17. The discussion with respect to Kuo (US 6,576,717) in view of US 4,973,656, incorporated therein by reference, set forth in paragraphs 6-15 above, is incorporated here by reference.
18. Though Kuo does not explicitly recite the use of 2,2,4,4-tetramethyl-1,3-cyclobutane diol to form the polyester, the polyester having hydroxyl number of 10-30 and the coating composition being used for preparing coated packages,
Argyropoulos et al discloses coating compositions comprising polyesters formed from one or more polyacids and one or more polyols comprising 2,2,4,4-tetramethylcyclobutanediol and 1,4-cyclohexanedimethanol ([0014], as to instant claims 1, 7, 16-17),
wherein the polyacids comprise a combination of phthalic acid, isophthalic acid, and further unsaturated polyacids including maleic anhydride and maleic acid ([0015]),
and wherein said polyester is having Tg of 70-125⁰C (as to instant claim 5), Mn of 6,000-20,000 ([0017], as to instant claims 1, 16-17) and hydroxyl number of 5-18 mgKOH/g or 7-15 mgKOH/g ([0017], as to instant claims 8, 19).
The coating composition of Argyropoulos et al is used to form coated containers or closures, such as beverage cans, food cans, tubes, and can be coated on metal, glass or plastic surfaces ([0085], as to instant claim 2).
19. Since both Kuo and Argyropoulos et al are related to coating compositions based on unsaturated polyesters comprising maleic anhydride/acid units, and thereby belong to the same field of endeavor, wherein Argyropoulos et al teaches said unsaturated polyesters having Tg of 70-125⁰C, Mn of 6,000-20,000 and hydroxyl number of 5-18 mgKOH/g or 7-15 mgKOH/g, and wherein said polyester can be used for making coated food or beverage cans, therefore, it would have been obvious to a one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Kuo and Argyropoulos et al, and to choose and use, or obvious to try to use, at least partially, the unsaturated polyester of Argyropoulos et al as the component (I) in the composition of Kuo, so that the coating composition produced by grafting of said polyester of Argyropoulos et al with (meth)acrylic polymer would be suitable to be used as coating for food and beverage cans, as taught by Argyropoulos et al as well, and further prepare food and beverage cans coated with said coating, since it would be obvious to choose material based on its suitability, thereby arriving at the present invention. Case law holds that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports prima facie obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co vs. Interchemical Corp., 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1045). Case law holds that the mere substitution of an equivalent (something equal in value or meaning, as taught by analogous prior art) is not an act of invention; where equivalency is known to the prior art, the substitution of one equivalent for another is not patentable. See In re Ruff 118 USPQ 343 (CCPA 1958). The key to supporting any rejection under 35 USC 103 is the clear articulation of the reason(s) why the claimed invention would have been obvious. The Supreme Court in KSR noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 USC 103 should be made explicit. The Court quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006), stated that "‘[R]ejections on obviousness cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.’" KSR, 550 U.S. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(E) "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art; (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141
20. Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuo (US 6,576,717) in view of US 4,973,656, incorporated therein by reference, in further view of Moussa et al (US 2012/0301647).
21. The discussion with respect to Kuo (US 6,576,717) in view of US 4,973,656, incorporated therein by reference, set forth in paragraphs 6-15 above, is incorporated here by reference.
22. Though Kuo discloses the composition further comprising coating additives (col. 10, lines 15-16), Kuo does not explicitly teach said additives including adhesion promoter, such as an acidic polyester material.
23. Moussa et al discloses a coating composition comprising a resinous binder comprising polyester and acrylic polymers ([0035]-[0040]) and further a phosphatized polyester, wherein said phosphatized polyester enhances adhesion of the coating to a container substrate (Abstract, as to instant claim 12), and where the composition is substantially free from bisphenol A and bisphenol A diglycidyl ether (Abstract, as to instant claim 11).
The phosphatized polyester comprises a reaction product of:
a) a polyester having Mn of 2000-10,000, a hydroxyl number of 20-75, and an acid value of 15-25, the polyester being a polycondensate of:
i) a polyol component comprising a mixture of diols and triols;
ii) a polyacid component comprising an alpha, beta-ethylenically unsaturated polycarboxylic acid and
iii) a phosphorus acid ([0005]-[0009], as to instant claims 13-14).
24. Since both Moussa et al and Kuo are related to coating compositions based on polyester and polyacrylate polymers, used for coating metal or plastic surfaces, and thereby belong to the same field of endeavor, wherein Moussa et al discloses said compositions further comprising phosphatized polyester to improve adhesion to metal food cans, therefore, it would have been obvious to a one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Kuo and Moussa et al, and to include, or obvious to try to include, at least in minor amount, the phosphatized polyester of Moussa et al into the coating composition of Kuo, to further improve adhesion of the coating compositions of Kuo to metal substrates, and so that said coating composition of Kuo would be suitable to be coated onto food cans as well, and since it would be obvious to choose material based on its suitability, thereby arriving at the present invention. Case law holds that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports prima facie obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co vs. Interchemical Corp., 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1045). Case law holds that the mere substitution of an equivalent (something equal in value or meaning, as taught by analogous prior art) is not an act of invention; where equivalency is known to the prior art, the substitution of one equivalent for another is not patentable. See In re Ruff 118 USPQ 343 (CCPA 1958). The key to supporting any rejection under 35 USC 103 is the clear articulation of the reason(s) why the claimed invention would have been obvious. The Supreme Court in KSR noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 USC 103 should be made explicit. The Court quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006), stated that "‘[R]ejections on obviousness cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.’" KSR, 550 U.S. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(E) "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art; (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141
25. Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuo (US 6,576,717) in view of US 4,973,656, incorporated therein by reference, and Argyropoulos et al (US 2015/0099837), in further view of Moussa et al (US 2012/0301647).
26. The discussion with respect to Kuo (US 6,576,717) in view of US 4,973,656, incorporated therein by reference, and Argyropoulos et al (US 2015/0099837), set forth in paragraphs 16-19 above, is incorporated here by reference.
27. Though Kuo in view of Argyropoulos et al disclose the coating composition further comprising coating additives (col. 10, lines 15-16 of Kuo), and the food cans covered with said coating composition ([0085] of Argyropoulos et al), Kuo in view of Argyropoulos et al do not explicitly teach said additives including adhesion promoter, such as an acidic polyester material.
28. Moussa et al discloses a coating composition comprising a resinous binder comprising polyester and acrylic polymers ([0035]-[0040]) and further a phosphatized polyester, wherein said phosphatized polyester enhances adhesion of the coating to a container substrate (Abstract, as to instant claim 12), and where the composition is substantially free from bisphenol A and bisphenol A diglycidyl ether (Abstract, as to instant claim 11).
The phosphatized polyester comprises a reaction product of:
a) a polyester having Mn of 2000-10,000, a hydroxyl number of 20-75, and an acid value of 15-25, the polyester being a polycondensate of:
i) a polyol component comprising a mixture of diols and triols;
ii) a polyacid component comprising an alpha, beta-ethylenically unsaturated polycarboxylic acid and
iii) a phosphorus acid ([0005]-[0009], as to instant claims 13-14).
29. Since both Moussa et al and Kuo in view of Argyropoulos et al are related to coating compositions based on polyester and polyacrylate polymers, used for coating food and beverage cans, and thereby belong to the same field of endeavor, wherein Moussa et al discloses said compositions further comprising phosphatized polyester to improve adhesion to metal food cans, therefore, it would have been obvious to a one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Kuo in view of Argyropoulos et al and Moussa et al, and to include, or obvious to try to include, at least in minor amount, the phosphatized polyester of Moussa et al into the coating composition of Kuo in view of Argyropoulos et al, so to further improve adhesion of the coating composition of Kuo in view of Argyropoulos et al to food and beverage cans, as well, and since it would be obvious to choose material based on its suitability, thereby arriving at the present invention. Case law holds that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports prima facie obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co vs. Interchemical Corp., 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1045). Case law holds that the mere substitution of an equivalent (something equal in value or meaning, as taught by analogous prior art) is not an act of invention; where equivalency is known to the prior art, the substitution of one equivalent for another is not patentable. See In re Ruff 118 USPQ 343 (CCPA 1958). The key to supporting any rejection under 35 USC 103 is the clear articulation of the reason(s) why the claimed invention would have been obvious. The Supreme Court in KSR noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 USC 103 should be made explicit. The Court quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006), stated that "‘[R]ejections on obviousness cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.’" KSR, 550 U.S. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(E) "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art; (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Obviousness Double Patenting Rejection I
30. Claims 1-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-26 of US 11,981,764. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following reasons.
31. US 11,981,764 claims an aqueous coating composition, the aqueous coating composition comprising:
a) a graft acrylic polyester resin, obtainable by grafting an acid-functional acrylic polymer with a polyester material,
the polyester material being obtainable by polymerizing:
i) a polyacid component, with
ii) a polyol component, including
- 2,2,4,4-tetraalkylcyclobutane-1,3-diol wherein one of the polyacid component or the polyol component comprises a functional monomer operable to impart functionality on to the polyester resin, such that the acid-functional acrylic polymer is grafted with the polyester material via the use of said functionality,
b) a crosslinking material,
the polyester material comprises an Mn from 1,000 Daltons (Da = g/mole) to 15,000 Da (as to instant claim 1).
32. Further claimed a package coated on at least a portion thereof with a coating, the coating being derived from said aqueous coating composition, wherein the package packaging comprises a metal packaging container, a food or beverage can; a monobloc aerosol can; a metal cap or closure; screw top cap and lid; a plastic bottle, plastic tube, or laminate or flexible packaging (as to instant claim 2).
33. The functional monomer comprises an ethylenically unsaturated monomer (as to instant claim 3).
The functional monomer is present as a proportion of the dry weight of the polyol or polyacid component in an amount of 0.5 to 10 wt% (as to instant claim 4).
The TACD comprises 2,2,4,4-tetramethylcyclobutane-1,3-diol ("TMCD") (as to instant claim 6).
The polyol component comprises 2,2,4,4-tetramethylcyclobutane-1,3-diol ("TMCD") in combination with 2-methy-1,3 propanediol, cyclohexanedimethanol and/or trimethylolpropane (as to instant claim 7).
The polyester material has a gross OHV of from 0 to 120 mg KOH/g and an AV from 0 to 20 KOH/g (as to instant claims 8-9).
The crosslinking material comprises one or more of a phenolic resin, benzoguanamine or melamine (as to instant claim 10).
The aqueous coating composition is substantially free of bisphenol A (BPA), bisphenol F (BPF) and derivatives thereof (as to instant claim 11).
The aqueous coating composition further comprises an adhesion promoter comprising an acidic polyester material (as to instant claims 12-13), wherein the acidic polyester comprises the reaction product of: (a) a polyester having an Mn of 2000 to 10,000, a hydroxyl number of 20 to 75, and an acid value of 15 to 25; the polyester being a polycondensate of:(i) a polyol component comprising a mixture of diols and triols, (ii) a polyacid component comprising an alpha, beta-ethylenically unsaturated polycarboxylic acid, and (b) a phosphorus acid (as to instant claim 12-14).
The coating composition has a solids content of from 10 to 60% by weight of the coating composition (as to instant claim 15).
Neither the polyacid component nor the polyol component comprises a sulfomonomer (as to instant claim 18).
The polyester material has a hydroxyl value of 10 to 30 (as to instant claim 19).
34. Further claimed an electrodepositable coating composition comprising:
a) a graft acrylic polyester resin, obtainable by grafting an acid-functional acrylic polymer onto a polyester material, the polyester material being obtainable by polymerizing:
i) a polyacid component, with
ii) a polyol component, including
- 2,2,4,4-tetraalkylcyclobutane-1,3-diol wherein one of the polyacid component or the polyol component comprises a functional monomer operable to impart functionality on to the polyester resin, such that the acid-functional acrylic polymer is grafted onto the polyester material via the use of said functionality, and
b) a crosslinking material.
35. Further claimed a powder coating composition, the powder coating composition comprising: a) an acrylic polyester resin, obtainable by grafting an acid-functional acrylic polymer with a polyester material, the polyester material being obtainable by polymerizing:
i) a polyacid component, with
ii) a polyol component, including - 2,2,4,4-tetraalkylcyclobutane-1,3-diol wherein one of the polyacid component or the polyol component comprises a functional monomer operable to impart functionality on to the polyester resin, such that the acid-functional acrylic polymer may be grafted with the polyester material via the use of said functionality,
b) a crosslinking material,
the polyester material comprises an Mn from 1,000 Daltons (Da = g/mole) to 15,000 Da.
36. Thus, the limitations claimed in instant invention are substantially the same as the limitations claimed in US 11,981,764.
Obviousness Double Patenting Rejection II
37. Claims 1-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-34 of US 11,421,067. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following reasons.
38. US 11,421,067 claims an aqueous coating composition, an electrodepositable coating composition or powder coating composition, wherein the aqueous coating composition comprising:
a) acrylic polyester resin, obtained by grafting an acrylic polymer with a polyester material,
the polyester material being obtainable by polymerizing:
i) a polyacid component, with
ii) a polyol component, including
- 2,2,4,4-tetraalkylcyclobutane-1,3-diol (claim 7) and 1,4-cyclohexanedimethanol, wherein one of the polyacid component or the polyol component comprises a functional monomer operable to impart functionality on to the polyester resin, such that the acid-functional acrylic polymer is grafted with the polyester material via the use of said functionality,
b) a crosslinking material comprising melamine (as to instant claim 10),
the polyester material comprises an Mn from 1,000 Daltons (Da = g/mole) to 15,000 Da (as to instant claim 1).
39. Further claimed a package coated on at least a portion thereof with a coating, the coating being derived from said aqueous coating composition.
40. The functional monomer comprises an ethylenically unsaturated monomer.
The polyester material has a gross OHV of from 0 to 120 mg KOH/g.
The aqueous coating composition is substantially free of bisphenol A (BPA), bisphenol F (BPF) and derivatives thereof.
The aqueous coating composition further comprises an adhesion promoter comprising an acidic polyester material, wherein the acidic polyester comprises the reaction product of: (a) a polyester having an Mn of 2000 to 10,000, a hydroxyl number of 20 to 75, and an acid value of 15 to 25; the polyester being a polycondensate of:(i) a polyol component comprising a mixture of diols and triols, (ii) a polyacid component comprising an alpha, beta-ethylenically unsaturated polycarboxylic acid, and (b) a phosphorus acid.
The coating composition comprises 50-99%wt of the acrylic polyesrer, i.e. solids content.
The polyacid component is free from a sulfomonomer (as to instant claim 18).
41. Thus, the limitations claimed in instant invention are obvious variations of the limitations claimed in 11,421,067.
Obviousness Double Patenting Rejection III
42. Claims 1-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of US 11,708,444. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following reasons.
43. US 11,708,444 claims an aqueous coating composition, powder coating composition, wherein said coating composition comprising:
a) a graft acrylic polyester resin, obtainable by grafting an acid-functional acrylic polymer with a polyester material,
the polyester material being obtainable by polymerizing:
i) a polyacid component, with
ii) a polyol component, including
- 2,2,4,4-tetraalkylcyclobutane-1,3-diol and cyclohexanedimethanol, wherein one of the polyacid component or the polyol component comprises a functional monomer,
b) a crosslinking material comprising a phenolic resin or melamine,
the polyester material comprises an Mn from 1,000 Daltons (Da = g/mole) to 15,000 Da.
44. Further claimed a package coated on at least a portion thereof with a coating, the coating being derived from said aqueous coating composition.
45. The functional monomer comprises an ethylenically unsaturated monomer.
The aqueous coating composition is substantially free of bisphenol A (BPA), bisphenol F (BPF) and derivatives thereof.
The aqueous coating composition further comprises an adhesion promoter comprising an acidic polyester material, wherein the acidic polyester comprises the reaction product of: (a) a polyester having an Mn of 2000 to 10,000, a hydroxyl number of 20 to 75, and an acid value of 15 to 25; the polyester being a polycondensate of:(i) a polyol component comprising a mixture of diols and triols, (ii) a polyacid component comprising an alpha, beta-ethylenically unsaturated polycarboxylic acid, and (b) a phosphorus acid.
The coating composition has a solids content of from 10 to 60% by weight of the coating composition.
The polyacid component is free from a sulfomonomer.
The polyester material has a hydroxyl value of 7-40.
46. Thus, the limitations claimed in instant invention are obvious variations of the limitations claimed in US 11,708,444.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IRINA KRYLOVA whose telephone number is (571)270-7349. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm EST M-F.
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.
/IRINA KRYLOVA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights