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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 27 August 2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 (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 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.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
1. Claims 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or (a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US 2011/011124 to Schellekens et al. (“Schellekens”) with M-EU336B Eastman AdvantisTM 510W Chlorine-Free Waterborne Adhesion Promoter; Eastman; June 2009 (“Eastman I”) serving as evidence as to the composition of Advantis 510W.
With regard to Claims 17 and 20, Schellekens teaches a method of preparing a primed substrate comprising applying an aqueous primer composition via conventional printing techniques such as flexographic printing and gravure printing, and drying (see Abstract; ¶ [0155]). Schellekens teaches the claimed types of substrates (see ¶ [0155]). According to Schellekens, the primer compositions comprise crosslinkers, pigment, and Advantis 510W as an adhesion promoter (see ¶¶ [0152], [0155], [0162], [0174]).
Eastman I describes a waterborne composition suitable as a primer constituent comprising a maleated polyolefin type adhesion promoter (AdvantisTM 510W) that does not contain a non-oxidized, non-maleated, non-chlorinated, crystalline polyolefin (see Pgs. 1-3; compare with Instant Specification at ¶¶ [0029]-[0030]). Eastman I expressly indicates formulations comprising up to 40% of the maleated polyolefin type adhesion promoter (see Results at Pg. 2). Eastman I also discloses usage of the polyolefin type adhesion promoter as a wash primer (see Pgs. 1-3). Per Eastman I, the polyolefin type adhesion promoter typically features 24% solids and wash primer formulations feature the polyolefin type adhesion promoter thinned down to 10% solids, thus implying primer formulations comprising ~42% polyolefin type adhesion promoter and a balance of thinner (Compare Table at Pg. 3 with Footnote, Pg. 2).
Accordingly, Eastman I describes the features of the composition included in the water-based primer of Claim 1. To the extent that water content is not expressly addressed by the reference, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have employed water as a thinning agent for production of wash primer formulations since the maleated polyolefin adhesion promoter is waterborne.
With regard to Claims 18-19 Eastman I teaches the maleated polyolefin type adhesion promoter is free of all halogens (specifically mentioning Chlorine) and APEO (see Pg. 1).
With regard to Claim 21, Schellekens teaches applying an ink on the primed substrate (see ¶ [0249]). To the extent the reference does not expressly teach printing said ink, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used any conventional printing technique, including those indicated for use for applying the primer composition, with a reasonable expectation of success. Similarly, allowing ink to dry after printing is considered a known conventional step in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael P Rodriguez whose telephone number is (571)270-3736. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 6:00 Eastern 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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached on 571-272-5166. 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 P. Rodriguez/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1715
Prosecution Insights