DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 14 and 15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 6/25/26.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-13, in the reply filed on 6/25/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Lin fails to teach each of the elements of the shared technical feature of Groups I and II. This is not found persuasive because as described below, Larimer in view of Lin describe each of the share elements of Groups I and II and thus the shared technical feature is not a special technical feature and thus there exists no unity of invention.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 12, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larimer et al. (US 2017/0174906, “Larimer”) in view of Lin et al. (US 2018/0037708, “Lin”).
Regarding claim 1, Larimer teaches a composition (may be considered a plastisol in that it may contain particles, e.g., [0033]) that may comprise an acrylate polymer ([0018], may include (meth)acrylate resins), and an epoxy resin having more than one epoxide groups per molecule ([0028]), a hardener ([0028]), and a plasticizer ([0044]). Larimer teaches that its epoxy components are not specifically limited ([0019]) but fails to specifically teach that the epoxy should not be based on bisphenol structural units or that it is liquid at room temperature. However, in the same field of endeavor of resin compositions ([0001] – [0010]), Lin teaches a liquid epoxy resin is suitable for use as a reactive diluent ([0014] – [0018] and see [0023], including for example, preferred epoxide D.E.R. ® 736 from Dow, which is a diepoxide that is not derived from a bisphenol compound). It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have substituted one of the epoxy resins of Lin for that of Larimer in order to use the component in applications where pumping or moving the material at room temperature is desirable (see, e.g., Lin [0002] – [0009]). The Examiner notes that the simple substitution of a known element or compound that would have had predictable results (in this case an epoxy resin component that would react) would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of filing. Please see MPEP 2143.
Regarding claim 2, Larimer additionally teaches that the epoxy functionality may be two ([0028]) and that the epoxy may have an epoxy equivalent weight of greater than 400 ([0020] – [0023]).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Larimer teaches that epoxy and acrylate components may be used ([0018]) and that either or both may be used in an amount of from 15 weight % to 93 weight % ([0025]). The Examiner notes that 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Please see MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 5, Larimer additionally teaches that the acrylate may be a (meth)acrylate ([0018]).
Regarding claim 12, Larimer additionally teaches that the composition may include, for example, fillers (e.g., [0044], [0045]).
Regarding claim 13, Larimer additionally teaches that the epoxy described above may be the only epoxy (e.g., [0018]) and does not teach the inclusion of PVC (e.g., [0020] – [0030], wherein Larimer does not teach to include a PVC compound).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larimer in view of Lin as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Holtgrewe et al. (US 2019/0112437, “Holtgrewe”)
Regarding claim 6, Larimer fails to specifically teach the viscosity of the epoxy resin. However, in the same field of endeavor of epoxy resins compositions ([0001] – [0010]), Holtgrewe teaches that a suitable viscosity is less than 100 mPas in order to be able to wet fiber materials, for example, and thus it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan to have adopted an epoxy component having such a viscosity (i.e., for improved workability, Holtgrewe [0016]).
Claim(s) 7, 8, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larimer in view of Lin as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Aoyama et al. (JP 2001585247, “Aoyama” a machine translation of which is provided and used as the citation copy).
Regarding claim 7, while Larimer teaches the inclusion of a hardener, it fails to teach a specific type of hardener. However, in the same field of endeavor of epoxy resin compositions (e.g., pp. 1-2), Aoyama teaches to use, for example, a dicyandiamide latent hardener and that such a curing agent improves storage stability and viscosity properties (p. 3, latent hardeners suitably activated at temperature higher than 60C, see also pp 4-5). It therefore would have been obvious to have included the latent hardener of Aoyama in the composition of Larimer in order to improve storage stability and viscosity properties of the composition of modified Larimer (pp 3-5). Additionally, the simple substitution of a known element or compound that would have had predictable results (in this case effective hardening of an epoxy system) would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of filing. Please see MPEP 2143.
Regarding claim 8, modified Larimer (Aoyama) additionally teaches to include the hardener in an amount of from 40:1 to 10:1 epoxy to hardener (Aoyama, pp. 4-5).
Regarding claim 11, modified Larimer (Aoyama) additionally teaches to include an amount reading on the range of from 0.1 to 1.5 wt% of latent hardener (Aoyama, pp. 3-5).
Claim(s) 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larimer in view of Lin as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Zhou et al. (US 2019/099991, “Zhou”).
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Larimer teaches to include a plasticizer but fails to teach that this plasticizer is liquid at room temperature of the amount to be included. However, in the same field of endeavor of resin compositions ([0001] – [0010]), Zhou teaches that it is known to use a plasticizer in a PLA or aliphatic polyester and that is liquid at room temperature in order to decreases the tensile modulus of a film and increase its tensile elongation ([0128] – [0130]). Zhou additionally teaches to use the plasticizer in an amount of from 5 to 35 wt% (Zhou, [0129]). It therefore would have been obvious to have substituted the plasticizer of Zhou for a plasticizer of Larimer in order to decreases the tensile modulus of the resin of Larimer while increasing its tensile elongation ([0128] – [0130]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY J FROST whose telephone number is (571)270-5618. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday, 8:00am to 4:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Aaron Austin, can be reached on 571-272-8935. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANTHONY J FROST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights