DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
2. The amendment filed on January 2, 2026 has been entered in the above-identified application. Claim 1 amended. New claims 98-107 have been added. Claims 2-97 are canceled. Claims 1 and 98-107 are pending and under consideration.
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 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.
3. Claims 1, 98, 99, 101, and 103-107 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bowman et al. (US 2009/0047546 A1).
Bowman et al. disclose a process for forming a color-clear multilayer coating on a substrate. The clear topcoat (equivalent to the energy curable coating of the claimed invention) comprises a polyene (equivalent to the acrylate monomer or oligomer of the claimed invention) and a polythiol (equivalent to the thiol monomer or oligomer component) that is radiation curable. Suitable polyenes that can be used include compounds or polymers having in the molecule olefinic double bonds that are polymerizable by exposure to radiation. Examples of such materials are (meth)acrylic-functional (meth)acrylic copolymers, epoxy resin (meth)acrylates, polyester (meth)acrylates, polyether (meth)acrylates, polyurethane (meth)acrylates, amino (meth)acrylates, silicone (meth)acrylates, and melamine (meth)acrylates. The binders may be used singly or in mixture. The polythiols that can be used include polyfunctional materials containing two or more thiol functional groups (SH). Non-limiting examples of suitable polythiol functional materials can include, ethylene glycol bis (thioglycolate), ethylene glycol bis(mercaptopropionate), trimethylolpropane tris (thioglycolate), trimethylolpropane tris (mercaptopropionate), pentaerythritol tetrakis (thioglycolate) and pentaerythritol tetrakis (mercaptopropionate), and mixtures thereof (meeting the limitations of claims 104 and 105). Typically, the polyene is present in the clear topcoat composition in amounts of 80 to 98, more typically 90 to 95 percent by weight (meeting the concentration limitations of claims 1 and 103), and the polythiol material is typically present in amounts of 2 to 20, more usually 5 to 10 percent by weight (meeting the concentration limitation of claim 103). The percentages by weight are based on total weight of polyene and polythiol. The topcoat composition may contain a photoinitiator (equivalent to the photoinitiator component of the claimed invention) when exposed to ultraviolet radiation. Suitable photoinitiators are, for example, those that absorb within the wavelength range of 190 to 600 nm. The photoinitiators when present are used in quantities of, for example, from 0.1 to 7 wt. %, preferably 0.5 to 5 wt. % (meeting the concentration limitations of claims 1 and 103), with reference to the weight of polyene and polythiol and photoinitiators. Examples of photoinitiators for radiation systems are benzoin and benzoin derivatives, acetophenone, and acetophenone derivatives such as, for example, 2,2-diacetoxyacetophenone, benzophenone and benzophenone derivatives, thioxanthone and thioxanthone derivatives, anthraquinone, 1-benzoylcyclohexanol, organophosphorus compounds such as, for example, acyl phosphine oxides (meeting the limitations of claim 101). The photoinitiators when present are used in quantities of, for example, from 0.1 to 7 wt. %, preferably 0.5 to 5 wt. %, with reference to the weight of polyene and polythiol and photoinitiators. The photoinitiators may be used singly or in combination. The transparent clear topcoat composition may contain diluents such as organic solvents and/or water. However, preferably the compositions are 100 percent solids (meeting the limitations of claim 99). The clear topcoats may also contain transparent pigments, such as colloidal silica (meeting the limitations of claim 106), and colorants that are soluble in the coating composition such as dyes. These ingredients, if present, are present in the composition in amounts of up to 20, typically up to 10 percent by weight based on weight of the topcoat composition (meeting the limitations of claim 107). After the clear topcoat composition is applied to the basecoat, the clear topcoat is cured by exposure to radiation. The radiation can be high-energy radiation or actinic radiation. A class of actinic radiation useful herein is ultraviolet light and curing periods of from 1 second to 15 minutes are typical. Preferably, low energy ultraviolet radiation falling within the 200-400 nanometer wavelength interval is preferred (meeting the limitations of claim 98). Example A (in paragraph 0034) recites the use of a free radical inhibitor (equivalent to the radical inhibitor of the claimed invention). (see Abstract, Detailed Description, and Examples).
All limitations of claims 1, 98, 99, 101, and 103-107 are disclosed in the above reference.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 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.
4. Claim 100 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bowman et al. (US 2009/0047546 A1) in view of Preis et al. (US 2007/0043135 A1).
Bowman et al., as discussed above, do not teach that the acrylate monomer / oligomer comprises tripropylene glycol diacrylate; triethylene glycol diacrylate; neopentyl glycol diacrylate; hexanediol diacrylate; trimethylolpropane triacrylate; trimethylolpropane ethoxylate triacrylate; tricyclodecane dimethanol diacrylate; tris (2-hydroxyethyl) isocyanurate triacrylate; or a combination thereof.
Preis et al. disclose an energy curable coating formulation comprising oligomeric acrylate and additional optional ingredients include photoinitiators, wetting agents, flow and leveling agents, fillers, and coloring components. The main component of radiation curable coating formulations is an oligomeric and exemplary multifunctional monomers such as but not limited to glycerolpropoxylated triacrylate (GPTA) and trimethylolpropane triacrylate (TMPTA). Preis et al. teach that multifunctional monomers promote a high rate of cross-linking due to their polyfunctionality. In a conventional coating formulation, the proportions of oligomeric acrylate and multifunctional monomer may be varied quite substantially, and that it is a matter of routine experimentation to vary the proportions of these main components to optimize formulation cost and performance, where performance includes both cure rate and energy requirements, and properties of the cured film, such as mar resistance. (See Abstract and paragraphs 0087-0091).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to replace the polyene taught by Bowman et al. with a acrylate monomer / oligomer such as trimethylolpropane diacrylate, as taught by Preis et al., given that Preis et al. teach that such multifunctional monomers promote a high rate of cross-linking due to their polyfunctionality and the proportions can be optimized for formulation cost and performance.
5. Claim 102 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bowman et al. (US 2009/0047546 A1) in view of Rolland et al. (US 2016/0137839 A1).
Bowman et al., as discussed above, do not teach that the radical inhibitor comprises N-nitrosophenylhydroxylamine; hydroquinone; monomethyl ether hydroquinone; benzoquinone; methoxy hydroquinone; tert-butyl catechol; phenothiazine; pyrogallol; 1,4-benzenediol, 1,4-dihydroxybenzene; 4-hydroxyanisole; 4-tert-butyl catechol; N-nitrosophenylhydroxylamine aluminum salt; or a combination thereof.
However, Rolland et al. teach curable composition and specifically state that radical inhibitors such as hydroquinone (100-500 ppm) can be used to inhibit polymerization of (meth)acrylates during the reaction.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use a radical inhibitors such as hydroquinone (100-500 ppm) in the composition taught by Bowman et al. given that Rolland et al. teach that sch compounds can be used to inhibit polymerization of (meth)acrylates during the reaction.
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 98-107 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
7. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHEEBA AHMED whose telephone number is (571)272-1504. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7am-6pm.
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, CALLIE SHOSHO can be reached at 571-272-1123. 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.
/SHEEBA AHMED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787