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 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 6, 8, 10-14, 16, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tennebroek et al. (EP 3083736) in view of Becker et al. (CN 111032234A).
As to claim 1, Tennebroek et al. discloses a process for forming a coating from an aqueous radiation-curable coating composition (see 0055) where the composition is applied to a substrate and exposed to radiation to cure the coating (see 0055). The composition comprises a water-dispersible polyurethane having a urea group concentration of 1.11 meq/g (see 0018, Example 3 of table 1 and 2) and free of ethylenically unsaturated bonds; at least one radiation-curable diluent (DiTMPTA) having a molar mass of 467 g/mol having an acrylate functionality of 3, and water (see table 1, Example 3) wherein the amount of polyurethane is 60% and the reactive diluent is 40% based on total amounts (see example).
Tennebroek et al. fails to teach drying to form a partially dried coating composition, irradiating the at least partially dried coating composition with UV light at a weight length less than or equal to 220nm under inert atmosphere, followed by irradiating with UV light having a wavelength greater than 300 nm or with electron beam as required by claim 1.
Becker et al. discloses a process for curing a radiation curable coating. Becker et al. teaches irradiating the coating in order to partially dry the coating (see 0017 of translation), followed by irradiating using a short wavelength UV in the range of 150 – 200 nm under inert atmosphere (see 0018 of the translation); and then irradiating with UV light having a wavelength of 300 – 420 nm range to complete the curing step (see 0019 of the translation). Becker et al. further states electron beam radiation as an alternative final curing step (see 0019 of the translation).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Tennebroek et al. to include the curing process described by Becker et al. One would have been motivated to do so since both are directed to radiation curable coatings applied to substrates where Becker et al. expressly addresses curing strategies to control surface properties of such coatings. Becker et al. teaches an alternative method for drying and curing the radiation curable coating and it is been established the mere substitution of one known method of curing a radiation-curable aqueous coating composition to another would yield predicable curing and surface effects.
As to claim 2, Tennebroek et al. teaches the urea group content is 1.11 meq/g (see example 3 of Tables 1 and 2).
As to claim 4, the acrylate functionality of DiTMPTA is 3.
As to claim 6, the diluent is di-TMPTA (see example 3 of Tennebroek).
As to claim 8, the amount of polyurethane is 60% and the reactive diluent is 40% based on total amounts (see example of Tennebroek et al.).
As to claim 10, Tennebroek et al. teaches the composition is preferably free of organic solvent (see 0015).
As to claim 11, the polyurethane is the reaction product of at least one polyisocyanate (see 0024); at least one isocyanate- reactive component that contains at least one salt group (see claim 1), at least one isocyanate-reactive polyol having an OH number within the claimed range (See 0069 and Example 3), and water (see 0049).
As to claim 12, the isocyanate reactive polyol has an OH in the claimed range (see Examples).
As to claim 13, the polyol A4 is 5-60 wt. percent (See abstract) which overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
As to claim 14, Tennebroek et al. teaches amine chain extenders (See 0045-0049).
As to claim 16, the polyurethane is free of ethylenically unsaturated bonds therefore meeting the claimed limitation.
As to claim 19, the UV light has a wavelength of 150 – 200 nm under inert atmosphere (see Becker et al.).
As to claim 20, Becker et al. the use of UV curing as the final cure and Tennebroek et al. teaches photoinitiators within the composition (See 0014).
Claim(s) 3, 5, 9, 15 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Tennebroek et al. (EP 3083736) in view of Becker et al. (CN 111032234A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Van Casteren et al. (US 9631116).
The teachings of Tennebroek et al. and Becker et al. as applied to claim 1 are as stated above.
Tennebroek et al. and Becker et al. fail to teach the average molecular weight as required by claim 3.
Van Casteren et al. discloses a radiation curable coating composition formed of a polyurethane and a radiation curable component (see abstract). Van Casteren states the measured average molecular weight is in the range of 4,000 to 40,000 g/mol (see col. 3, lines 50-65). The weight range overlaps that of the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Tennebroek in view of Becker et al. To include using polyurethane urea dispersion having molecular weights as taught by Van Casteren et al. in order to optimize the integrity and mechanical performance of the coating.
As to claim 5, Van Casteren et al. teaches combining multifunctional acrylates (see col. 9, lines 45-67) and controlling average functionality to tune crosslink density and aesthetic properties (gloss). The average acrylate functionality between the materials is 3. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Tennebroek in view of Becker et al. to include the mixture of acrylates of Van Casteren et al. to tune the crosslink density and aesthetic properties of the resulting coating.
As to claim 9, Van Casteren et al. teaches aqueous UV curable coatings having 25-55 wt.% solids (see col. 11, line 54), which overlaps the claimed range.
As to claim 15, Van Casteren et al. states the acid value of the polyurethane may vary depending on the hydrophobicity of the polyurethane and the degree of pre-crosslinking (see col. 5, lines 18-20). Van Casteren et al. states the acid value is in the range of 0.5-25 KOH/g (see col. 5, lines 21-24).
As to claim 17, Van Casteren et al. state the average particle size of the polyurethane, diluent and water is less than 1900 nm (see col. 3, line 42). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tennebroek et al. (EP 3083736) in view of Becker et al. (CN 111032234A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Van Casteren et al. (US 2010/0144915).
The teachings of Tennebroek et al. and Becker et al. as applied to claim 1 are as stated above.
Tennebroek et al. and Becker et al. fail to teach the radiation curable diluent is a mixture of one or more of di-TMPTA, PET4A or pentaeythriotol tetra-acrylate comprising alkoxy groups and one or more of GPTA, DPGDA and dipropyleneglycol diacrylate comprising additional alkoxy groups as required by claim 7.
Van Casteren et al. discloses a radiation curable composition that comprise a mixture of a higher-functionality acrylate like (PET4A, TMPTA) with a lower functionality acrylate (DPGDA, GPTA) in order to control gloss and crosslink density (see 0077).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Tennebroek et al. and Becker et al. to include the mixture of diluents as taught by Van Casteren et al. in order to control the properties (gloss) and crosslink density of the material.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tennebroek et al. (EP 3083736) in view of Becker et al. (CN 111032234A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fischer et al. (US 2014/0371384).
The teachings of Tennebroek et al. and Becker et al. as applied to claim 1 are as stated above.
Tennebroek et al. and Becker et al. fail to teach the claimed dry thickness as required by claim 18.
Fischer teaches a method for forming coatings on a substrate that are formed of radiation curable materials. Fischer et al. applies a coating and irradiates the coating with UV radiation at different wavelengths to cure. Fischer states the desirable coating thickness is under 20 microns and the uncured thickness is in the range of 5-650 microns in order to provide a coating that does not wrinkle (see 0005, 0037). Fischer does not provide the final cure thickness but one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the dry thickness of a coating of 5-20 microns would have a thickness slightly lower than that. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Tennebroek et al. and Becker et al. to provide the coating at a thickness described by Fischer. One would have been motivated to do so since both are directed to radiation curable coatings on substrates that are cured using a multistep curing process and Fischer et al. further states the coating thickness affects the surface texture.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Cachet I Proctor whose telephone number is (571)272-0691. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-4:30 pm.
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 at 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.
/CACHET I. PROCTOR/
Examiner
Art Unit 1715
/CACHET I PROCTOR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1715