DETAILED ACTION
Claim Interpretation
It is noted that the instant specification has defined the term “carboxyl moiety” to include a carboxylic group, an ester, an anhydride, or a salt. See instant specification, pg. 11, ln. 21-26.
Additionally, the instant specification defines ‘vinyl moiety’ as a chemical group -CR=CR’R”) where R, R’ and R” can be H, linear, aromatic or cyclic alkyl, with or without heteroatoms.
Thus, the instant specification redefines the terms ‘carboxyl moiety’ and ‘vinyl moiety’ to be different than commonly accepted definitions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 16, 21, 25, 29, 33-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mitchell (US 5,900,437).
Mitchell teaches an example which includes divinyl benzene, polyacrylic acid, and ethylene glycol diglycidyl ether (col. 5, ln. 54-67) corresponding to claimed compounds A, B, and C respectively. The composition of Mitchell is cured (col. 6, ln. 9-14) and is thus a curable composition. Mitchell teaches combining the components and curing (col. 5, ln. 54-col. 6, ln. 14).
Polyacrylic acid meets the structure of formula (II) recited in claim 21 when R2 is a linear alkyl group, R1 is H, and n is greater than 2.
Ethylene glycol diglycidyl ether meets the structure of formula (III) of claim 25 when R4-R6 are H.
Claim(s) 16-18, 25-26, 29, 31, 33-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Daly (US 6,777,027).
Daly teaches curable compositions (abstract) and provides an example having a bisphenol A epoxy, a urethane divinyl ether, an acrylic oligomer, and an unsaturated polyester (col 13, Table 1). Bisphenol A epoxy is a compound having two epoxide moieties and is synonymous with bisphenol A diglycidyl ether and meets claims 25-26. A urethane divinyl ether contains two vinyl moieties and meets formula I when R8 is an alkyl group with heteroatoms. Both an unsaturated polyester and an acrylic oligomer meet the compound B having at least two carboxyl moieties. Daly teaches compounding the components and curing the composition (col. 14, ln., 1-4). As the phr of the polyester and acrylic oligomer is greater than the amount of divinyl ether, there are more carboxyl moieties present than vinyl moieties, which meets claim 31. Daly teaches an example where the composition is a two component system where the polyester and divinyl ether are added together in one part and then mixed with the second part having the epoxy group containing compound (col. 14, ln. 28-50) which meets claim 35.
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) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daly (US 6,777,027).
The discussion with respect to Daly above is hereby incorporated by reference.
Daly does not explicitly recite an example using a divinyl ether of claims 19-20.
Daly teaches suitable vinyl ethers include diethyleneglycol divinyl ether (col. 5, ln. 3-22) which meets claims 19-20.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the divinyl ethers as taught by Daly which meets the instant claims because Daly teaches they are suitable vinyl ethers and because “a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art…” Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See MPEP 2123.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 22-24, 27-28, 30, 32 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
No prior art is presented over claims 22-24, 27-28, 30, 32.
Claims 22 and 27 recite compound B has the formula (IIa) and claims 23-24 depend from claim 22.
Claims 24 and 28 recites specific acids for the compound B.
Claims 30 recite molar ratios of vinyl moieties to carboxyl moieties.
Claim 32 recites formulas of the cured reaction product.
Relevant prior art includes Mitchell (US 5,900,437), Daly (US 6,777,027), Woodruff (US 3,340,217), and Melisaris (US 2002/0177073).
Mitchell teaches an example which includes divinyl benzene, polyacrylic acid, and ethylene glycol diglycidyl ether (col. 5, ln. 54-67) corresponding to claimed compounds A, B, and C respectively. The composition of Mitchell is cured (col. 6, ln. 9-14) and is thus a curable composition. Mitchell teaches combining the components and curing (col. 5, ln. 54-col. 6, ln. 14)
Daly teaches curable compositions (abstract) and provides an example having a bisphenol A epoxy, a urethane divinyl ether, an acrylic oligomer, and an unsaturated polyester (col 13, Table 1). Bisphenol A epoxy is a compound having two epoxide moieties and is synonymous with bisphenol A diglycidyl ether and meets claims 25-26. A urethane divinyl ether contains two vinyl moieties and meets formula I when R8 is an alkyl group with heteroatoms. Both an unsaturated polyester and an acrylic oligomer meet the compound B having at least two carboxyl moieties.
Woodruff teaches adding methacrylic acid, divinyl benzene, and glycidyl methacrylate together in order to form a polymer (col. 5, ln. 5-45). Woodruff fails to teach a composition using a compound having two or more carboxyl groups.
Melisaris teaches mixing a polyglycidyl compound with a free radical curable compound and cationic reactive modifier (¶ 37-38) where the composition includes divinyl ethers (¶ 49). Melisaris fails to teach an additional compound comprising at least two carboxyl groups.
The prior art of record fails to teach the missing limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT C BOYLE whose telephone number is (571)270-7347. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 10am-4pm.
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.
/ROBERT C BOYLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights