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.
Claims 1-4 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fazel et al. (US 10,683,424 B2) in view of the evidence of Chemical Book (“1,3,5-tris(6-isocyanatohexyl)biuret”, hereinafter referred to as “Chemical Book 1”) and Chemical Book (“Aspartic acid, N,N-(methylenedi-4,1-cyclohexanediyl)bis-, tetraethyl ester”, hereinafter referred to as “Chemical Book 2”).
Regarding Claim 1, Fazel discloses a polyurea coating composition comprising a polyisocyanate and an isocyanate reactive agent containing a secondary diamine, which react to form a polyurea (Abstract). The isocyanate reactive agent comprises a secondary diamine product which may be an aliphatic diamine (Col 3, lines 40-65). The composition may comprise other organic polymer including polysilazane (Col 3, lines 10-11, 30, 35-37). The composition may be applied to a substrate to form a protective coating (Col 2, lines 40-45).
In light of the overlap between the claimed composition and that disclosed by Fazel, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a composition that is both disclosed by Fazel and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding Claims 2-4, 6, and 8-9, Fazel discloses all the limitations of the present invention according to Claim 1 above.
Fazel further discloses hexamethylene diisocyanate biuret (HDI biuret) is particularly useful as the polyisocyanate (col 4, lines 4-5, 48-54). HDI biuret is a diisocyanate oligomer and corresponds to the compound of Formula 2 recited in Claim 4. The composition comprises about 10-60 wt% polyisocyanate (Col 4, lines 51-54). According to the evidence of Chemical Book 1, HDI biuret has a molecular weight of 478.58, and therefore has an equivalent weight of 159.53 (478.58/3).
Fazel further discloses the isocyanate reactive agent has a structure according to the general formula (I):
PNG
media_image1.png
50
340
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Wherein R1-R4 may each be ethyl groups, and X is a divalent hydrocarbon group obtained by the removal of the amino groups from compounds including bis(4-aminocyclohexyl)methane or bis(4-amino-3-methylcycohexyl)methane (Col 3, lines 40-60), which correspond to polyaspartic ester compounds according respectively to Formula 4 and Formula 5, according to present Claim 8. The composition comprises about 20-70 wt% isocyanate reactive agent (Col 3, line 65-Col 4, line 1). According to the evidence of Chemical Book 2, the polyaspartic acid according to Formula 4 has a molecular weight of 554.72, and therefore has an equivalent weight of 277.36 (554.72/2).
Fazel further discloses the composition comprises 70-95% total organic polymers including the polyurea and polysilazanes (col 3, lines 33-39).
In light of the amounts cited above, the disclosure of Fazel includes embodiments that satisfy the aliphatic polyurea:polysilazane weight ratio of Claim 2 and the aliphatic polyisocyanate:aliphatic polyamine equivalent ratio of Claim 9.
For example, when the composition comprises 50% polyisocyanate of Formula 4, 35% HDI Biuret, and 10% polysilazane (95% total organic polymers) according to the disclosure of Fazel, the polyisocyanate and HDI Biuret would have an equivalent ratio of 0.82:1 (
50
*
159.53
35
*
277.36
) and form polyurea comprising 78.8% of the composition (50+0.82*35), so that the weight ratio of polyurea to polysilazane is 8.8:1.2 (78.8/(78.8+10)).
As another example, when the composition comprises 35% polyisocyanate of Formula 4, 20% HDI Biuret, and 15% polysilazane (70% total organic polymers) according to the disclosure of Fazel, the polyisocyanate and HDI Biuret would have an equivalent ratio of 1.01:1 (
35
*
159.53
20
*
277.36
) and form polyurea comprising 54.7% of the composition (20+(35/1.01)), so that the weight ratio of polyurea to polysilazane is 7.8:2.2 (54.7/(54.7+15)).
Regarding Claim 7, Fazel discloses all the limitations of the present invention according to Claim 1 above. Fazel further discloses the secondary diamine product has an amine equivalent weight from about 100-500, including about 200 (col 4, lines 1-3).
Claims 1, 3-8, and 12-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong (US 7,736,745 B2) in view of the evidence of Covestro (“Desmophen NH 1420”).
Regarding Claims 1 and 6, Hong discloses a coating disposed on a substrate to provide resistance to abrasion, wear, and erosion (i.e. forming a protective film), wherein the coating composition comprises organic polymers such as polyurea elastomer (Col 3, lines 32-37). The organic polymers may further comprise polysilazanes (Col 5, lines 5-12). The polyurea elastomer comprises isocyanate which may be aliphatic (Col 5, lines 13 and 21). The coating composition may comprise polyaspartic ester which may be aliphatic (Col 8, lines 28-30, 45-54) (i.e. aliphatic polyamide). The aliphatic isocyanate and the aliphatic polyaspartic ester react to form an aliphatic polyurea as claimed (Col 11, lines 4-5).
In light of the overlap between the claimed composition and that disclosed by Hong, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a composition that is both disclosed by Hong and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 3, Hong discloses all the limitations of the present invention according to Claim 1 above. Hong further discloses the isocyanate may be an aliphatic diisocyanate (Col 5, line 34).
Regarding Claim 4, Hong discloses all the limitations of the present invention according to Claim 1 above. Hong further discloses the isocyanate may be N,N',N''-tris-(6-isocyanatohexyl)-biuret and/or N,N',N''-tris-(6-isocyanatohexyl)-isocyanurate (Col 6, lines 5-9), which correspond to the Claimed compound of Formula 2 and compound of Formula 3, respectively.
Regarding Claim 5, Hong discloses all the limitations of the present invention according to Claim 1 above. Hong further discloses the isocyanate may be a prepolymer having isocyanate content of about 0.5-40 wt% (Col 7, lines 22-24).
Regarding Claim 7, Hong discloses all the limitations of the present invention according to Claim 1 above. Hong further discloses the polyaspartic ester may be DESMOPHEN NH 1420 (Col 9, lines 31-32), which according to the evidence of Covestro has an amine value of 199-203 mg KOH/g.
Regarding Claim 8, Hong discloses all the limitations of the present invention according to Claim 1 above. Hong further discloses the polyaspartic ester may have the structure of formula (III) (Col 8, line 55 – Col 9, line 15):
PNG
media_image2.png
130
342
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein R5 has the structure according to formulas (IV) or (V):
PNG
media_image3.png
214
342
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 12, Hong discloses all the limitations of the present invention according to Claim 1 above. Hong further discloses the coating composition may be applied to a primer layer (i.e. substrate), wherein the primer layer has a thickness of about 0.5-2.0 mils (12.7-50.8 microns) (Col 14, lines 6-12, 50-51).
Regarding Claim 13, Hong discloses all the limitations of the present invention according to Claim 1 above. Hong further discloses the coating composition may be applied as a top coat layer (Col 14, lines 6-12) having a thickness of 0.001-0.002 inches (25.4-50.8 microns) (Col 16, lines 58-59).
Regarding Claims 14-15, Hong discloses all the limitations of the present invention according to Claim 1 above. Hong further discloses the coating composition may be applied as both a primer layer and a top coat layer, wherein the primer layer has a thickness of about 0.5-2.0 mils (12.7-50.8 microns) (Col 14, lines 6-12, 50-51). The coating composition provides impact resistance (Col 4, lines 25-27) (i.e. the primer layer forms a first shock absorbing layer as claimed).
Regarding Claim 16, Hong discloses all the limitations of the present invention according to Claim 1 above. Hong further discloses the coating composition is applied to the leading edge of aircraft wings, rotor blades, propellor blades, and fan blades (col 4, lines 27-31), and therefore would form layers on both the top and bottom surfaces of the structures (i.e. forming first and second film portions as claimed).
Regarding Claim 17, Hong discloses all the limitations of the present invention according to Claim 16 above. Hong further discloses the coating composition may be applied as both a primer layer and a top coat layer (Col 14, lines 6-12). The coating composition provides impact resistance (Col 4, lines 25-27) (i.e. the primer layer forms a second shock absorbing layer as claimed).
Regarding Claim 18, Hong discloses a coating composition disposed on a substrate to provide resistance to abrasion, wear, and erosion (i.e. forming a protective film), wherein the coating composition comprises organic polymers such as polyurea elastomer (Col 3, lines 32-37). The organic polymers may further comprise polysilazanes (Col 5, lines 5-12). The polyurea elastomer comprises isocyanate which may be aliphatic (Col 5, lines 13 and 21). The coating composition may comprise polyaspartic ester which may be aliphatic (Col 8, lines 28-30, 45-54) (i.e. aliphatic polyamide). The aliphatic isocyanate and the aliphatic polyaspartic ester react to form an aliphatic polyurea as claimed (Col 11, lines 4-5).
Hong further discloses the coating composition has applications including coatings for motor vehicles and glass lamination, including windshield crack filler (col 4, lines 34-42) (i.e. may form an optical article comprising a display portion and the protective film).
In light of the overlap between the claimed composition and that disclosed by Hong, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a composition that is both disclosed by Hong and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of EMD Electronics ("Durazane").
Regarding Claim 10, Hong discloses all the limitations of the present invention according to Claim 1 above. Hong discloses the protective coating is used for automobiles (Col 4, lines 35-36). However, there is no disclosure that the polysilazane is a perhydropolysilazane.
EMD Electronics discloses the use of inorganic polysilazane (i.e. perhydropolysilazane) including Durazane 2000 (pg 4) in automobile coatings (pgs 3 and 6) for outstanding scratch resistance as well as excellent thermal and chemical resistance to coatings (pgs 4 and 10).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Hong to incorporate the teachings of EMD Electronics and use perhydropolysilazane Durazane 2000 as the polysilazane in the coating composition. Doing so would provide outstanding scratch resistance as well as excellent thermal and chemical resistance.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is 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.
Fazel, Hong, and EMD Electronics do not disclose the perhydropolysilazane having a structure according to Formula 6 as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BETHANY M MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-2109. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:00.
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.
/BETHANY M MILLER/Examiner, Art Unit 1787
/CALLIE E SHOSHO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights