DETAILED ACTION
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.
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.
Claims 1, 2, and 4-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Becker et al (WIPO Patent Publication WO2019/034675A1; national stage U.S. Patent # 11,969,753 is referenced hereafter as an English translation).
In the case of claims 1 and 15, Becker teaches a method for producing a cured coating having a low gloss/matt surface from a radiation curable coating composition/Formulation F (Abstract). Becker teaches that the composition/formulation F was aqueous and therefore comprised water (Column 15 Lines 3-8). The method of Becker comprised applying the composition/formulation F onto a substrate surface followed by drying the composition (Column 19 Lines 17-29). Becker further teaches having irradiated the dried composition with UV light which lied substantially in the wavelength range of 250 to 420 nm to partially cure/gel the coating (Column 20 Lines 35-44). Becker teaches that the term “lies substantially in the wavelength range” means that at least 80% or the radiation output/power applied was within the disclosed wavelength range (Column 5 Lines 29-35) and therefore Becker teaches that at least 60% of the radiation power applied was within the wavelength range of 250 to 420 nm. Following partial curing Becker teaches having finished curing the coating film with UV radiation (Column 21 Line 60 through Column 22 Line 3).
As was discussed previously, the UV light wavelength range of Becker used to partially cure the coating composition/formulation was 250 to 420 nm which overlapped with the claimed range of 231 to 280 nm. 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). See section 2144.05.I of the MPEP.
Becker further teaches that step ii, which corresponds to step (3) of the claims, and step iv, which corresponds to step (4) of the claims, were performed under ambient atmosphere comprising air (Column 20 Lines 60-67 and Column 22 Lines 39-49).
Furthermore, Becker teaches that the coating composition/formulation F comprised at least one polymer (Column 6 Lines 14-38) and at least one reactive diluent (Column 10 Line 60 through Column 11 Line 6).
As for claim 2, Becker teaches that the polymers of the composition/formulation comprised polyurethanes and polyesters (Column 6 Lines 29-38).
As for claim 4, Becker teaches that the reactive diluent had a molecular weight/molar mass of 100 to 400 g/mol (Column 10 Lines 60-65), which overlapped with the claimed range of higher than 125 g/mol and lower than 800 g/mol. As was discussed previously, overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness.
As for claim 5, Becker teaches that the reactive diluent/monomer had acrylate functionality in the form of acrylate groups (Column 11 Lines 1-6) including diluents with a functionality in the range of 1 to 6 in the form of diacylates and triacrylates (Column 11 Lines 43-55).
As for claim 6, though Becker teaches that the reactive diluent/monomer included diluents with different acrylate functionalities (Column 11 Lines 43-55) Becker did not specifically teach that the composition/formulation comprised at least two acrylate functional diluents with different acrylate functionalities wherein the average of the acrylate functionality was 1.1 to 3.5. However, Becker does teach that one or more monomers/reactive diluents were included in the composition (Column 10 Lines 60-65). Furthermore, "It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art." In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP section 2144.06.I.
Therefore, at the time the present invention was effectively filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the different acrylate functional diluents of Becker because Becker taught using more than monomer/reactive diluent in the composition.
As for claim 7, Becker teaches that the polymer was present in the amount of at least 50 wt% based on the total amount of polymer and reactive diluent/monomer in the composition and that the ration of polymer to reactive diluent/monomer was 1:1 (Column 12 Lines 3-15) and therefore the amount of reactive diluent/monomer in the composition was at least 50 wt% based on the total amount of polymer and reactive diluent/monomer of the composition. Both ranges overlapped with the claimed ranges of from 35 to 80 wt% and 20 to 65 wt%, respectively, for the polymer and reactive diluent and as was discussed previously, overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness.
As for claims 8 and 9, Becker teaches that when the composition was aqueous, the total amount of curable constituents present in the composition/formulation, which would included the polymer and reactive diluent/monomer, was in the range of 10 to 50 wt% based on the entire weight of the composition (Column 15 Lines 3-8) meaning that the water was present in the amount of 50 to 90 wt% of the entire weight of the composition. Both ranges are within the claimed ranges of claims 8 and 9.
As for claim 10, Becker teaches that the reactive diluent/monomer was aliphatic (Column 11 Lines 7-12).
As for claim 11, Becker teaches that the at least one polymer was aliphatic (Column 10 Lines 24-41).
As for claim 12, Becker teaches that the cured coatings had a gloss units of less than 52 when measured at 60˚ angle (GU60˚) and gloss units of less than 60 when measured at angle of 85˚ (GU85˚) (Column 28 Table 3 and Column 29 Table 4).
As for claims 13 and 14, as was discussed previously the final/finish curing used UV light. Becker further teaches that the composition/formulation included at least one photo-initiating system in the form of a photoinitiator which had an absorption peak/maximum in the range of 220 to 420 nm (Column 12 Lines 38-52), which overlapped with the claimed range. Furthermore, Becker teaches an embodiment wherein the composition comprised a photoinitiator in the form of photoinitiator I which had an absorption peak/maximum of higher than 280 nm and a photoinitiator II which had an absorption peak/maximum in the range of 230 to 320 nm, which overlapped with the claimed range of 231 to 280 nm (Column 13 Lines 22-44).
Claims 3 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Becker et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tielemans et al (U.S. Patent # 10,023,747).
The teachings of Becker as it applies to claim 1 have been discussed previously and are incorporated herein.
In the case of claims 3 and 17, as was discussed previously in the rejection of claim 2, Becker taught that the aqueous emulsion/dispersion composition/formulation comprised a polymer that was a polyurethane or a polyester. As was discussed previously in the rejection of claims 4 and 5, Becker taught that the composition comprised a reactive diluent with a molar mass/weight of less than 800 g/mol having an acrylate functionality in the range of 1 to 6. Furthermore, as was discussed in the rejection of claim 7, Becker taught that the polymer and the reactive diluent were within the concentration ranges required by the claims.
However, Becker did not teach that the polymer was a particle dispersed within the composition. Becker does teach that the specific polymers included polyester (meth)acrylates and urethane (meth)acrylates (Column 6 Lines 39-50).
Tielemans teaches an aqueous radiation curable composition comprising a compound (A) having at least one ethylenically unsaturated compound (Abstract) wherein the compound was used to form a low gloss coating (Column 22 Lines 44-56). Tielemans teaches that the compound (A) was a water-insoluble compound which formed particles within the water and comprised such polymers as urethane (meth)acrylate and polyester (meth)acrylates (Column 3 Lines 18-53 and Column 4 Lines 51-58).
Based on the teachings of Tielemans, at the time the present invention was effectively filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided the polymers of the composition/formulation of Becker as particles because this was a known polymer form for curable polymers in aqueous curable compositions.
Conclusion
Claims 1 through 15 and 17 have been rejected. No claims were allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL P WIECZOREK whose telephone number is (571)270-5341. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 6:00 AM - 3:30 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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at (571)272-1418. 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.
/MICHAEL P WIECZOREK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights