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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on July 18, 2025 has been considered by the examiner.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 1-6 and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al. (US 5681890) in view of Suzuki et al. (US 2022/0372351). Tanaka et al. disclose a coating composition containing 100 parts by weight of a resin composition consisting of 30 to 90 parts by weight of (A) a hydroxyl group-containing polyester resin and 10 to 70 parts by weight of (B) a melamine resin curing agent selected from the group consisting of a mixture of methyl etherified melamine resin with butyl etherified melamine resin (abstract). In a preferred embodiment, the first invention provides a coating composition which contains 100 parts by weight of a resin composition consisting of 60 to 85 parts by weight of the hydroxyl group-containing polyester resin (A) having a number average molecular weight of 4,000 to 30,000;, a glass transition temperature of -5.degree. C. to 35.degree. C. and a hydroxyl number of 3 to 25 mg KOH/g, and 15 to 40 parts by weight of the melamine resin curing agent (B) having a methyl etherified melamine resin (col 3, ln 10-25). The oil-free polyester resin is mainly an esterified product between a polybasic acid and polyhydric alcohol. Examples of the polybasic acid may include at least one dibasic acid selected from terephthalic acid and adipic acid and the like. Regarding claim 4, examples of polyhydric alcohol may include mainly dihydric alcohol such as ethylene glycol diethylene glycol and neopentyl glycol (col 4, ln 16-30). A mixing ratio of the polyester resin (A) to the melamine resin curing agent (B) in the coating composition of the present invention is such that (A)/(B) as a solid content weight ratio is in the range of 30/70 to 90/10 (col 7, ln 36-39). Regarding claim 6, Tanaka disclose a curing catalyst selected from the group consisting of p-toluenesulfonic acid and dodecylbenzene sulfonic acid (col 3, 43-45). Regarding claim 7, silica (i.e. silicon dioxide) is also included in the coating composition (col 8, ln 29-31). The composition also may contain a solvent (col 8, ln 3-18). Tanaka et al. disclose the claimed invention except for the specific teaching of a saturated aliphatic diol is in the composition and that the film is coated onto a base fabric.
Suzuki et al. (US 2022/0372351) disclose a polyester adhesive composition prepared from an aromatic compound and a polycarboxylic acid compound and a polyol (0014). The aromatic compound comprises terephthalic acid (0015). As required, the polyethylene terephthalate may be modified with a substance such as adipic acid compound or sebacic acid compound (0041). Examples of the divalent aliphatic diol include: acyclic aliphatic diols such as ethylene glycol, diethylene glycol, and neopentyl glycol (0061). The substrate can be fabrics made of synthetic fibers, including polyester resin (0196). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have used Suzuki’s adipic or sebacic acid along with the terephthalic acid of Tanaka et al., motivated by the desire to ensure that the polyester composition has more excellent adhesiveness.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, it would have been obvious to have used the fabric substrate of Suzuki et al. as the substrate along with the Tanaka coating composition, motivated by the desire to create a substrate with increased stain and impact resistance.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al. (US 5681890) in view of Suzuki et al. (US 2022/0372351), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of AU 5791494 (hereinafter AU ‘494). Tanaka et al. and Suzuki et al. disclose the claimed invention except for the specific teaching of the particle size of the silica material.
AU ‘494 disclose a polyester film for use as an electrical insulator. The polyester film is suitable formed from terephthalic acid and ethylene glycol (pg 2, ln 9-21). The polymeric film also comprises a particulate inorganic filler (page 5, ln 15-21), such as silica, having an average particle size of from 0.1 to 10 µm (page 6, ln 9-21). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have made the silica of Tanaka et al. and Suzuki et al. have the particle size be from 0.1 to 10 µm, motivated by the desire to create a composition that has improved handling properties.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ULA CORINNA RUDDOCK whose telephone number is (571)272-1481. 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, Srilakshmi K Kumar can be reached at 571-272-7769. 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.
/ULA C RUDDOCK/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights