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 Objections
Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities: a comma should be inserted between digital printing and gravure printing in line 4 of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-3, 5, 31, 33, and 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (US 6300422).
As to claim 1, Wu et al. discloses a formaldehyde-free thermosetting aqueous coating composition comprising an aqueous dispersion solution of hydroxyl-functional polymer and tris (C1-C6 alkoxycarbonylamino) triazine crosslinker, where the composition is free of formaldehyde-based compounds (see abstract, col. 2, lines 51-67). Wu et al. further teaches the composition contains hydroxyl-functional acrylic latexes as the primary film forming component and are crosslinkable and form thermoset coatings after cure. The hydroxyl functional latex is provided at 10-90 wt.% (see col. 4, lines 16-19.
Wu et al. fails to expressly disclose that the hydroxyl functional acrylic emulsion is present in an amount of 50-95wt % based on the total weight of the composition as required by claim 1. However, Wu et al. does teach the amount of the hydroxyl functional acrylic emulsion of 10-90 wt. % 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).
As to claim 2, Wu et al. fails to teach the 60-90 wt.% of crosslinkable, OH-functional acrylic emulsion as required by the claim. Wu et al. does teach the amount of the hydroxyl functional acrylic emulsion of 10-90 wt. % 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).
As to claim 3, Wu et al. stares the solids content of the emulsion is 20-60% (see col. 4, lines 17-18).
As to claim 5, Wu et al. teaches the composition can further comprise 0-20 weight % of coalescing agents, 0-8 weight % of wetting agents (see col. 4, line 22-23) which overlaps the claimed ranges. 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).
As to claim 31, Wu et al. teaches the OH-functional acrylic emulsion has a hydroxy number of 10 to 140 mg KOH/g (see col. 4, line 19).
As to claim 33, the pH can be 4-10 (see col. 6, line 37).
As to claim 34, Wu et al. does teach the amount of the hydroxyl functional acrylic emulsion of 10-90 wt. % 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). It would have been obvious to use the claimed range through routine experimentation in order to optimize the solids content the coating and successfully provide a film.
Claim(s) 10, 18, 19, 36-38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (US 6300422) in view of Liu et al. (US 2020/0165483).
The teachings of Wu et al. as applied to claim 1 are as stated above.
Wu et al. fails to teach the composition further comprises an aqueous hardener component containing isocyanate in an amount of 1 to 25 wt. % based on the total weight of the aqueous hardener component as required by claim 10.
Liu et al. teaches the use of blocked isocyanate crosslinking agents in coating compositions to eliminate production of formaldehyde. Formaldehyde can cause harm to the environment and human health (see 0002-0003). Liu et al. further states the agent is present at 5-12 wt. % based on the weight of the composition (see 0027).
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 aqueous topcoat composition of Wu et al. to incorporate isocyanate crosslinking system of Liu et al. One would have been motivated to do so because both references are directed to teach a desire to provide formaldehyde free compositions where Liu et al. teaches an alternate method of providing a crosslinking agent for acrylic polymers that prevents the need for formaldehyde within the coating. The substitution of Liu’s isocyanate hardener system into the aqueous hydroxyl-functional acrylic coating composition of Wu et al. would have yielded predictable results and represented no more than routine use of a known cross linking technology to improve the properties of a known coating composition.
As to claim 18, Wu et al. modified by Liu teaches coating compositions in which blocked isocyanates react with hydroxyl-functional resins during curing to form crosslinked coatings (see 0021-0029 of Liu et al.). The coating composition is applied to a substrate (see 0006).
As to claim 19, the ratio of polymer to crosslinker is about 4:1 to 100:1 (see col. 3, lines 1-7) 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).
As to claims 36-37, Liu et al. teaches the when the coating composition is subjected to high temperature baking , the blocked monofunctionality material and isocyanate linkage breaks, and the isocyanate opens rings and releases -NCO functional groups which crosslinks with the hydroxy group to form the film (see 0027-0028). The -NCO functional group content is a result effective variable. It would have been obvious to use the claimed range of NCO content in through routine experimentation to optimize the crosslinking of the resin to form the film.
As to claim 38, Liu et al. teaches the hardener contains 5-12% of the isocyanate (see 0028). 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).
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 10, 18, 19, 26, 29-33, and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nienhaus et al. (US 5670600) in view of Liu et al. (US 2020/0165483).
As to claim 1, Nienhaus et al. discloses an aqueous polyurethane coating composition used as a topcoat (see abstract, col. 3, lines 30-34). The composition comprises a crosslinkable, OH-functionally acrylic emulsion at 50 wt.% (see col. 9, lines 45-50).
Nienhaus et al. fails to explicitly state the composition is free of formaldehyde based compounds as required by claim 1.
Liu et al. teaches the use of blocked isocyanate crosslinking agents in coating compositions to eliminate production of formaldehyde. Formaldehyde can cause harm to the environment and human health (see 0002-0003). Liu et al. further states the agent is present at 5-12 wt. % based on the weight of the composition (see 0027).
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 aqueous topcoat composition of Nienhaus et al. to incorporate isocyanate crosslinking system of Liu et al. One would have been motivated to do so because Liu et al. teaches the use of isocyanate and the importance of providing a formaldehyde free composition to prevent environmental and human health issues.
As to claim 3, the solids content is 30-50 wt.% (see col. 9, line 48 of Nienhaus).
As to claim 5, auxiliary additives can be included in the composition such as thickeners and wetting agents at 1 to 5 wt.% (see col. 11, lines 29-32 of Nienhaus). 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).
As to claim 10, the amount of isocyanate is 15% (see col. 15,line 33 of Nienhaus).
As to claim 18, Nienhaus modified by Liu et al. disclose providing a carrier material, applying the topcoat composition, and crosslinking (see col. 15, line 30 – col. 16, line 46).
As to claim 19, the weight ratio of topcoat to hardener is 60:40 to 90:10 (see col. 10, lines 56-59 of Nienhaus) which overlaps the claimed range of 20:1 and 1:1. 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).
As to claim 26, the emulsion is an acrylic-methacrylic-styrene copolymer emulsion (see col. 12, lines 44-55 of Nienhaus).
As to claim 29, the viscosity is 240 mPas (see col. 6, line 42 of Nienhaus).
As to claim 30, the glass transition temperature is between -40 to 60C (see abstract) and a film forming temperature of 110-160C (see examples of Nienhaus).
As to claim 31, the hydroxyl number is 40-200mg KOH/g (see abstract of Nienhaus). 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).
As to claim 32, Nienhaus and Liu et al. fail to teach to teach the claimed flow time. Nienhaus states the composition has a viscosity suitable for spraying. 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 flow time within the claimed range in order to optimize the coating composition and even appearance of the coating.
As to claim 33, the pH of the topcoat is 7 to 8.5 (see col. 9, lines 32-36 of Nienhaus).
As to claim 35, the emulsion is a copolymer emulsion (see abstract, claims of Nienhaus).
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nienhaus et al. (US 5670600) in view of Liu et al. (US 2020/0165483) as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Hayes et al. (EP2301736).
The teachings of Nienhaus and Liu et al. as applied to claim 18 are as stated above.
Nienhaus and Liu et al. fail to teach printing on a carrier material with an ink layer as required by claim 22.
Hayes et al. teaches forming decorative panels having a carrier layer, a digital image deposited thereon, and a top clear outer surface that can be applied to automobiles (see abstract).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the top coat of Nienhaus modified by Liu on the decorative film of Hayes et al. One would have been motivated to do so since both are directed to films applied to automotives and the topcoat improves abrasion resistance, scratch resistance, and durability which is desired on automobiles.
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 7-3 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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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 1712
/CACHET I PROCTOR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights