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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-24 pending
Claim Objections
Claim 23 objected to because of the following informalities: state “1-nonene);” in line 7, page 5.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 12-13 and 23 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.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the third reagent” in page 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 state “the ratio ranges from 10: to 1:10”, in line 25 page 3, as the ratio is from a value to a value or X:X. As “10:” is missing the ending value.
Claim 23 states “vinyl-functionalized siloxanes, vinyl alkyl siloxanes, …” in line 15, page 5. However, it seems that a prior statement is missing from this paragraph.
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) 1-12, 17-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan (PG Pub 2019/0077988 A1).
Consider Claims 1-3 and 17, Yan teaches the process of forming a coated coating of a fabric with a hydrophobic coating (abstract), articles such as woven textile [0084], and where the prepared coating material is fluorine-free [0007]. Yan teaches the process of coating the coating material onto the article/textile followed by the step of curing the coated textile forming hydrophobic coated articles [0069].
Although Yan does not explicitly teaches the use of pressing process or applying a pressure during the curing process, however, it would be obvious for ordinary skilled person in the art that the process is performed in the ambient pressure (760 mm Hg), with reasonable and predictable expectation of success.
Yan teach the coating material comprises the hydrosilylation reaction between (1) crosslinker and (2) functional terminal group and (3) metal catalyst [0062]; (1) crosslinker such as pentaerythritol triacrylate (PT) (having C=C bond), (2) functional terminal group such as polymethylhydrosiloxane (PMHS) (having Si-H group), and (3) metal catalyst such as Karstedt's catalyst [0062].
Consider Claim 4, Yan teaches the coating material is formed by reacting the (1) crosslinker and (2) functional terminal group and (3) metal catalyst forming an addition of Si—H bonds occurs across the unsaturated bonds, where an examples of the unsaturated bonds-containing functional group include alkyne C≡C bond [0062] resulting in having a -Si-H bond with C=C bond as one C-C was used for the -Si-H group addition.
Consider Claim 5, Yan teaches the coating material from (1) crosslinker and (2) functional terminal group and (3) metal catalyst [0062].
Consider Claims 6-7, Yan teaches the coating material are ready to use after preparation (with less than one hour) [0079], and cured at temperature of 50℃-100℃ [0069]. 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). (MPEP 2144.05).
Consider Claims 8-9, Yan teaches the coating material from (1) crosslinker and (2) functional terminal group and (3) metal catalyst [0062]; (1) crosslinker such as pentaerythritol triacrylate (PT) having C=C bond/vinyl group and acrylate group as second reagent, (2) functional terminal group such as polymethylhydrosiloxane (PMHS) (having Si-H group) as first reagent, and (3) metal catalyst such as Karstedt's catalyst or platinum(0)-1,3-divinyl-1,1,3,3-tetramethyl di siloxane (claim 29).
Consider Claim 10, Yan teaches the coating material to include poly(methyl hydrosiloxane-co-methylphenylsiloxane) to be combined with coating material [0045], as third reactant having siloxane group and vinyl/phenol group.
Consider Claim 11, Yan teaches the coating material to include polydimethylsiloxane as inert silicone to be combined with coating material [0045].
Consider Claims 12 and 22, Yan teaches the coating material use of solvent/toluene as a third reagent [0054].
Consider Claim 18, Yan does not teaches the process of pressing during the curing.
Consider Claims 19-21, Yan teaches the coating of woven and non-woven textile, knitted fabric, made from nylon, polyester [0066].
Consider Claim 23, Yan teaches the coating material from (1) crosslinker and (2) functional terminal group and (3) metal catalyst [0062]; (1) crosslinker such as pentaerythritol triacrylate (PT) having C=C bond/vinyl group and acrylate group as second reagent, (2) functional terminal group such as polymethylhydrosiloxane (PMHS) (having Si-H group) as first reagent.
Claim(s) 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan (PG Pub 2019/0077988 A1) in view of Shiotani (PG Pub 2021/0214545 A1).
Consider Claims 13-16, Yan teaches the process or forming coating material using the siloxane compound such as polymethylhydrosiloxane (PMHS) and acrylate combined such as pentaerythritol triacrylate (PT) [0062].
Yan does not teach the ratio of first reagent to the second reagent.
However, Shiotani is in the prior art of forming non-fluorinated polymer (abstract) using block segment (A) with segment (B) [0074], where segment (A) include acrylic monomer [0076], and where segment (B) include (B2) [0140], and where segment (B2) include silicon-containing monomer include a monomer having a dimethylsiloxane group having a carbon-carbon double bond such as a (meth)acrylic group [0177]. Shiotani teaches the ratio between segment (A) and segment (B) (or (B2)) 99:01 to 30:70 [0240], with amount of acrylic monomer 30 % or more to 99 % mol or less [0239], leading to 0.3:70 (30/99:70). 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). (MPEP 2144.05).
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention would combine Yan with Shiotani to block copolymer exhibits better performance such as liquid repellency [0073].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 24 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mohammad Mayy whose telephone number is (571)272-9983. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 11:00AM-7:00PM EST.
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.
/Mohammad Mayy/
Art Unit 1718
/GORDON BALDWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights