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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parizat et al. (US 10,988,590 B2) in view of Govek et al. (WO 9953357 A1) and in view of the evidence of Dow B48N (Dow, “Technical Data Sheet: Paraloid B-48N Solid Grade Thermoplastic Acrylic Resin”) and Dow B72 (Dow, “Technical Data Sheet: Paraloid B-72 Solid Grade Thermoplastic Acrylic Resin”).
Regarding Claims 1-3, 6-9, 12-15, and 17-20, Parizat discloses a cellulose triacetate support film (a) with a multi-functional coating (b) (Abstract) which is a cover film (Col 3, line 15). Parizat further discloses the cellulose triacetate of the support film may be derived from wood pulp (Col 4, lines 12-16) and the coating comprises polymers (Col 6, line 56).
Parizat further discloses Exemplary Embodiment 1 comprising a film containing cellulose triacetate (Col 14, lines 41-42) and a dried coating comprising by mass 22% acrylate copolymer mixture (consisting of 75% Paraloid B48N and 25% Paraloid B72), 1.5% cellulose acetate propionate, and 1.5% plasticizers (Col 14, line 55 – Col 15, line 3).
The Paraloid B48N corresponds to the claimed polymer A. According to the evidence Dow B48N, Paraloid B48N is an MMA/BA copolymer (pg 1) (methyl methacrylate/butyl acrylate).
The cellulose acetate propionate corresponds to the claimed polymer B1 cellulose acetate. The present specification discloses that cellulose acetate propionate is a preferred cellulose acetate for polymer B1 (para 0059). Parizat further discloses the cellulose acetate propionate is CAP-482-x from Eastman (Col 8, lines 13-14), which according to the present specification has a Hansen solubility parameter distance to xylene of 14 MPa0.5 (paras 0099, 0113-0114, Component B-4, Table 1).
The Paraloid B72 corresponds to the claimed polymer B2. According to Dow B72, Paraloid B72 is an EMA copolymer (pg 1) (ethyl methacrylate).
Parizat does not disclose polymer B2 has a crosslinking structure or that the polymer layer has a residual rate as presently claimed.
Govek discloses cover for specimen slides for optical microscopy (page 1, lines 5-7). The cover comprises a transparent polymer film and adhesive on the first surface (page 2, line 28-30). The transparent polymer film comprises cellulose triacetate (page 5, line 11). The adhesive includes crosslinked acrylate copolymer made from (meth)acrylate monomers (page 7, line 24 and page 12, lines 3-26). The crosslinking increases internal cohesiveness (page 12, line 25).
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 Parizat to incorporate the teachings of Govek and crosslink the Paraloid B72 (polymer B2) of Parizat. Doing so would increase the cohesiveness of the coating of Parizat.
It is calculated that the coating comprises 16.5% Paraloid B48N (22*0.75) and 5.5% Paraloid B72 (22*0.25). Therefore, with the 1.5% cellulose acetate propionate, the coating has a ratio of polymer A to polymers B of 2.4 (16.5/(5.5+1.5)).
The Examples disclosed in the present specification include a ratio of polymer A to polymer(s) B ranging from 1.08 to 2.5 (13/12 to 20/8) (Table 1).
Therefore, since the coating of Parizat in view of Govek comprises materials corresponding to each of the claimed polymer A, polymer B1, polymer B2, and plasticizer(s), and the ratio of polymer A to polymer(s) B falls within the range of ratios used in the present Examples, the coating of Parizat in view of Govek would necessarily have a residual rate as presently claimed.
Regarding Claim 4, Parizat in view of Govek discloses all the limitations of the present invention according to Claim 2 above. Parizat further discloses the acrylate copolymers of the coating have an average molecular weight between 10,000 and 300,000 g/mol (Col 6, lines 56-59). There is no disclosure that the molecular weight is “weight-average” molecular weight. However, if the average molecular weight disclosed by Parizat is weight average, it would overlap that presently claimed. If the molecular weight is number average molecular weight, given the relationship between weight average molecular weight (Mw) and number average molecular weight (Mn), i.e. Mw/Mn>1, it is clear that the weight average molecular weight of the acrylate copolymer disclosed by Parizat would necessarily overlap that presently claimed.
Regarding Claims 5 and 11, Parizat in view of Govek discloses all the limitations of the present invention according to Claims 1-2 above. Parizat further discloses the acrylate copolymers of the polymer layer have a glass transition temperature of at least 35 °C (Col 6, lines 56-59).
Regarding Claims 10 and 16, Parizat in view of Govek discloses all the limitations of the present invention according to Claims 1-2 above. Parizat further discloses the coated film is used as a cover film for microscopy slides or as an alternative to glass cover slides for microscopic applications (Col 10, lines 52-57).
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
Prosecution Insights