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 Interpretation
Claims 6, 14-15, and 18-21 utilize the term “groups” in reference to the alkylene glycol moieties within the claimed components. The word “group” as applied in chemistry parlance typically refers to functional groups. However, the instant Application uses “group” to refer to a repeating structure which contains many “units” (c.f. p. 56, lines 12-21). Claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation, in light of the specification, as would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2111). Therefore “groups” is interpreted as referring to a repeating structure, while “units” are interpreted as functional groups. For example, the limitation in claim 6 requiring that the “first multi-functional curable material does not include alkylene glycol groups or includes only 1 or two alkylene glycol groups” is interpreted as indicating that the claimed material may include 0, 1, or 2 sets of repeating alkylene glycol moieties, wherein each set (“group”) may have multiple repeating functional group “units.”
Claims 6 and 14 stipulate on the number of alkylene glycol groups within the claimed “first multi-functional curable material.” Claim 6 requires that said component either “does not include alkylene glycol groups” or “includes only 1 or 2 alkylene glycol groups” (emphasis added). By contrast, claim 14 is drafted differently -- requiring that the “first multi-functional curable material comprises one or two alkylene glycol groups” (emphasis added). The applicant has therefore drafted claim 14 to add the word “comprises” as a transitional phrase referring to the alkylene glycol groups and has not used the word “only,” which was previously used in the claims to indicate that no more than one or two groups are included in the “first multi-functional curable material.”
Therefore, consistent with the Applicant’s drafting, claim 14 is interpreted to require at least one or two alkylene glycol groups (i.e., materials containing 3 alkylene glycol groups or more are additionally included therein, if said material also meets the remaining limitations as claimed).
Claim 12 utilizes the term “aromatic branching unit,” and claims 13-18 and 21 depend either directly or indirectly on claim 12 and are therefore subject to the same term. The word “branching” as applied in chemistry parlance typically refers to a non-linear structure (i.e., a structure having 3 or more sections attached at a central point). However, the instant application uses “aromatic branching unit” to include linear structures (c.f. claim 13, which depends on claim 12 and thus requires an “aromatic branching unit,” but is simultaneously requires that the material is di-functional, and the instant Specification explicitly states on p. 34, lines 27-28 that “in some embodiments, the second multi-functional curable material is a difunctional material, and the branching unit is accordingly a difunctional unit.”). Claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation, in light of the specification, as would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2111). Therefore an “aromatic branching unit” is interpreted as including difunctional aromatic units such as bisphenol A.
Claim 20 requires a difunctional material having at least 3 alkylene glycol groups and claim 22 depends directly on claim 20 and is therefore subject to this same limitation. The claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation, in light of the specification, as would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2111). In this case, the instant Specification discloses the following information:
The instant Specification explicitly supports the “first multi-functional curable material” as being ethoxylated and having at least 3 alkylene glycol groups (c.f. p. 31, lines 3-4) and specifically states that ethoxylated curable materials can be difunctional (c.f. p. 30, lines 27-31).
The Specification specifically states that, within the “first multi-functional curable material,” alkylene glycol groups can be linked together to form an alkylene glycol “chain” which is attached to a branching unit. This same passage specifically supports an ethoxylated “first multi-functional curable material” having 2 alkylene glycol moieties linked to one another and to the branching unit, and another alkylene glycol moiety linked to a branching unit (p. 31, lines 5-12). This passage lays the foundation for interpretation of how the “difunctional material” having “at least 3 alkylene glycol groups” required by claims 20 and 22 is supported by the Specification. Put simply, the Specification supports “chains” of linked alkylene glycol “groups” which are, in turn, composed of linked alkylene glycol “units.” Thus, not every of the claimed “alkylene glycol groups” must independently correspond to its own (meth)acrylate-based curable functional group.
Regarding the limitations of how the Specification defines an alkylene glycol “group,” p. 56, line 12-21 indicates that an alkylene glycol group can be a linking group having one or more repeat units (i.e., “y” is indicated as being an integer of 1 or more).
Therefore, claims 20 and 22 require that the “first multi-functional curable material” is difunctional and contains at least 3 alkylene glycol groups. Meanwhile the Specification teaches that Alkylene glycol groups are broadly defined as including even a single alkylene oxide (e.g., ethoxy) repeat unit, and that alkylene glycol groups may be linked together to form a chain (c.f. bullet points 2 and 3 above). Therefore, the claim is interpreted such that a difunctional component containing 3 or more alkylene glycol functional groups falls within the scope of the claimed material.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-22 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, and 10-11 of co-pending Application No. 18/768,089 in view of Belkacem (EP 2436510 A1).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are both drawn to extremely similar formulations containing overlapping or identical components possessing overlapping characteristics. Regarding all the claimed characteristics that are not expressly mentioned by the reference claims, said characteristics are rendered obvious by the teachings of Belkacem below, in view of the claim interpretations set forth above. For example, while the reference claims do not require particular glass transition temperatures, Belkacem renders these characteristics obvious within compositions which meet or likewise render obvious the other remaining limitations (see the rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Belkacem set forth below).
Regarding differences between the structural characteristics of the components within the claimed and reference compositions, Belkacem renders said differences as obvious because prima facie the substitution of equivalents based on art-recognized suitability is obvious (See MPEP 2144.06). The disclosure of Belkacem encompasses/overlaps each of the claimed components in terms of structural characteristics and compositional amounts, as described in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections below, and therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to substitute said characteristics into the formulation(s) of the reference application to meet the composition as presently claimed.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Furthermore, Claims are 1-22 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,042,985 B2 in view of Belkacem (EP 2436510 A1).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are both drawn to extremely similar formulations containing overlapping or identical components possessing overlapping characteristics. Regarding all the claimed characteristics that are not expressly mentioned by the reference claims, said characteristics are rendered obvious by the teachings of Belkacem below, in view of the claim interpretations set forth above. For example, while the reference claims do not require particular glass transition temperatures, Belkacem renders these characteristics obvious within compositions which meet or likewise render obvious the other remaining limitations (see the rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Belkacem set forth below).
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.
Claims 1 and 3-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belkacem (EP 2436510 A1). Sartomer 494, 540, and 348 (Technical Datasheets for the respective commercial products) and Ligon (Advanced Applications of Thiol-Ene Formulations) are cited as evidentiary references.
Regarding claim 1, Belkacem teaches a system and resin for rapid prototyping ([0001]), wherein the resin is a photocurable composition ([0010]) including between 0.1 to 20 % by weight of a core shell nanoparticulate filler (F), optionally comprising silica, preferably having particle sizes within the range of 0.01 to 10 microns (Corresponding to a range of 10 to 10,000 nm, [0056]), which overlaps the claimed range of “1 to 1000 nm,” establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. Regarding the claimed compositional amount of “about 30% by weight” of the silica particles, the instant Specification specifically states that the term “about” as contemplated by the instant application includes the listed value(s) +/- 10% (c.f. instant Specification at p. 47, third-from-last paragraph). Therefore, the claimed range includes weight percentage values spanning from 20% to 40% by weight. The range of 0.1 to 20% by weight of Belkacem therefore overlaps the claimed range, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
Belkacem further teaches the incorporation of 1-20% by weight of at least one tetrafunctional acrylate or methacrylate component (component (D), [0054]), which may be, inter alia, Sartomer 494 ([0083]), which reads on the claimed “first multi-functional curable material” because the instant Specification states that Sartomer SR494 is a suitable example thereof (c.f. instant Specification at p. 32, lines 9-11). Furthermore, Sartomer SR494 is an ethoxylated pentaerythritol tetraacrylate having a molecular weight of 569 g/mol (c.f. Sartomer 494 p. 1). The molecular weight of 569 g/mol falls within the claimed range of “from 300 gram/mol to 1,000 gram/mol,” establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
Belkacem further teaches the incorporation of 0.1-50 % by weight of a difunctional acrylate or methacrylate component (component (E), [0054]), which may be, inter alia, Sartomer 540 ([0090]), which reads on the claimed “second multi-functional curable material” because the instant Specification states that Sartomer 540 is a suitable example thereof (c.f. instant Specification at p. 35, lines 1-3). Sartomer 540 has a molecular weight of 540 g/mol (c.f. Sartomer 540 p. 1), which falls within the claimed range of “lower than 1,000 gram/mol,” establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
Belkacem finally teaches the incorporation of 10-70% by weight of a monofunctional material (optionally an acrylate or methacrylate, component (B), [0054]), which may be, inter alia, acryloyl morpholine ([0074], whose structure is shown to be 4-acryloyl morpholine at p. 17, Table 1a), which reads on the claimed “mono-functional curable material” because the instant Specification states that 4-acryloyl morpholine (Abbreviated as ACMO) is a suitable example thereof (c.f. instant Specification at p. 37, lines 5-6). ACMO has a molecular weight of 141.17 g/mol. This value falls within the claimed range of “no more than 300 gram/mol,” establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claim 3, as described above, Belkacem teaches the incorporation of a difunctional acrylate or methacrylate component (Component (E), [0054]), which reads on the claimed “second multi-functional curable material.” This component therefore meets the claimed limitations of the second multi-functional curable material as defined by claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, as described in the rejection of claim 1, above, Belkacem teaches the incorporation of Sartomer 494 which reads on the claimed “first multi-functional curable material.” Sartomer 494 has a cured glass transition temperature of 64°C (c.f. Sartomer 494 p. 1), which falls within the claimed ranges of “at least 50°C or in a range of from 50 to 250 °C,” establishing prima facie cases of obviousness.
Regarding claim 5, as described in the rejection of claim 1 above, Belkacem teaches the incorporation of a tetrafunctional (meth)acrylate (exemplified by Sartomer 494, [0083]) and a di-functional (meth)acrylate (exemplified by Sartomer 540, [0090]). In the rejection of claim 1, above, Sartomer 494 is indicated as reading on the claimed “first multi-functional curable material,” while Sartomer 540 is indicated as reading on the claimed “second multi-functional curable material.” These components within Belkacem read on their respectively claimed components because they meet all their respectively claimed limitations including functionalities and molecular weights.
In the alternative, Sartomer 494 additionally reads on the claimed “second multi-functional curable material” and Sartomer 540 reads on the claimed “first multi-functional curable material.” This is because both materials are multi-functional and possess molecular weights which simultaneously fall within both claimed ranges for the “first” and “second” materials.
From the perspective wherein Sartomer 540 reads on the claimed “second multi-functional curable material,” Sartomer 540 also reads on the limitation of claim 5 requiring that the “second multi-functional curable material is a di-functional methacrylate” because Sartomer 540 is a difunctional methacrylate (c.f. Sartomer 540 p. 1). Sartomer 540 likewise meets the Tg limitation of claim 5 because Sartomer 540 has a cured Tg of 108°C (c.f. Sartomer 540 p. 1). The value of 108°C falls within the claimed ranges of “at least 50°C” and “in a range of from 50°C to 250°C,” establishing prima facie cases of obviousness.
Regarding claim 6, In addition to mentioning Sartomer 494 as the tetrafunctional (meth)acrylate component, Belkacem alternatively teaches that pentaerythritol tetraacrylate may be used ([0083]). It therefore would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to utilize pentaerythritol tetraacrylate as the tetrafunctional (meth)acrylate component of Belkacem. Pentaerythritol tetraacrylate reads on “the first multi-functional curable material” of both claims 1 and 6 because it is a multi-functional curable material, possesses a molecular weight of 352.339 g/mol (which falls within the claimed range of “from 300 gram/mol to 1,000 gram/mol,” establishing a prima facie case of obviousness), and contains no alkylene glycol groups.
In the alternative, as described above, Belkacem teaches the use of Sartomer 540 which reads on the claimed “first multi-functional curable material” within claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 5, above, which explains how both of Sartomer 494 and Sartomer 540 read on both of the first- and second- multi-functional curable materials as claimed). The structure of Sartomer 540 contains two sets of alkylene glycol repeat units (c.f. Sartomer 540 p. 1) and therefore meets the claimed limitation requiring “only 1 or 2 alkylene glycol groups.” See the Claim Interpretation section, above.
Regarding claim 7, as described above, Belkacem teaches the incorporation of Sartomer 540 as the difunctional (meth)acrylate component, which reads on the claimed “second multi-functional curable material” of claim 1. Belkacem indicates that Sartomer 540 contains (4) ethoxy subunits ([0090]), which falls within the claimed ranges of “from 2 to 20” and “from 2 to 6,” establishing prima facie cases of obviousness.
Regarding claim 8, as described in the rejections of claim 5 above, Sartomer 540, taught by Belkacem, meets the limitations of the “second multi-functional curable material” as required by claim 1. Sartomer 540 possesses a cured Tg of 108°C (c.f. Sartomer 540 p. 1), which falls within the claimed ranges of “at least 80°C” and “from 80 to 250°C,” establishing prima facie cases of obviousness.
Regarding claim 9, as described above, Belkacem teaches the incorporation of Sartomer 540 as the difunctional component, which reads on the claimed “second multi-functional curable material” of claim 1. Belkacem indicates that Sartomer 540 contains (4) ethoxy subunits ([0090]), which likewise falls within the claimed ranges of “from 2 to 20” and “from 2 to 6,” establishing prima facie cases of obviousness.
Regarding claim 10, as described above, Belkacem teaches the optional incorporation of 0.1 to 50 wt% of a difunctional (meth)acrylate component ([0054]). Also as described in the rejection of claim 1 above, Sartomer 540, which is indicated as a preferred example of this difunctional component ([0090]), reads on the claimed “second multi-functional curable material.”
However, Belkacem specifically states that a mixture of difunctional (meth)acrylate components may be used ([0054]). Furthermore, the formulation of claim 1 (and claim 10) indicates that the claimed formulation “comprises” the claimed components (i.e., other non-named components are additionally included therein).
Given Belkacem’s disclosure of mixtures of difunctional (meth)acrylate components, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to utilize more than one difunctional (meth)acrylate component within Belkacem. In addition to Sartomer 540, Belkacem indicates the suitability of Sartomer 348L, an ethoxylated difunctional bisphenol (meth)acrylate having (2) ethoxy units ([0090]).
Viewed from this perspective, Sartomer 540 reads on the reads on the claimed “second multi-functional curable material” for the reasons stated above and Sartomer 348L reads on the claimed “first multi-functional curable material” because it is a multi-functional curable material having a molecular weight of 460 g/mol (c.f. Sartomer 348 p. 1, which falls within the claimed range of “300 gram/mol to 1,000 gram/mol of claim 1, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness), is a di-functional methacrylate, and comprises 2 ethylene glycol units (which falls within the claimed ranges of “from 2 to 20” and “from 2 to 6,” establishing prima facie cases of obviousness).
Regarding claim 11, Sartomer 540 has a Tg when cured of 108°C (c.f. Sartomer 540 p. 1), which falls within the claimed ranges of “at least 80°C” and “from 80 to 250°C,” establishing prima facie cases of obviousness.
Regarding claim 12, as described above, Belkacem teaches the incorporation of Sartomer 540 as the difunctional (meth)acrylate component, which reads on the claimed “second multi-functional curable material” of claim 1. Belkacem indicates that Sartomer 540 contains (4) ethoxy subunits ([0090]), which likewise falls within the claimed ranges of “from 2 to 20” and “from 2 to 6,” establishing prima facie cases of obviousness.
Furthermore, Sartomer 540 contains a bisphenol A-based difunctional unit in the center of the molecule (c.f. Sartomer 540 p. 1) and therefore meets the claimed limitation requiring an “aromatic branching unit” (c.f. the Claim Interpretation section, above).
Regarding claim 13, as described above, Sartomer 540 additionally features a Tg of 108°C when cured (c.f. Sartomer 540 p. 1), which falls within the claimed ranges of “at least 80°C” and “from 80 to 250°C,” establishing prima facie cases of obviousness.
Regarding claim 14, as described above, Sartomer 494 reads on the claimed “first multi-functional curable material.” Sartomer 494 likewise contains four alkylene glycol groups, which reads on the limitation requiring that the component “comprises one or two alkylene glycol groups.” See the Claim Interpretation section above regarding claims 6 and 14.
Regarding claim 15, as described in the rejection of claim 10, above, the combination of Sartomer 540 and Sartomer 348, rendered obvious by Belkacem, alternatively meets all the limitations of claim 1 (on which claim 15 indirectly depends), wherein Sartomer 348 reads on the claimed “first multi-functional curable material” and Sartomer 540 reads on the claimed “second multi-functional curable material.
This combination likewise meets the limitations of claim 12 (on which claim 15 directly depends) because Sartomer 540 is an ethoxylated multi-functional curable material having an aromatic branching unit and 4 ethoxy units (c.f. the rejection of claim 12 above; also see the claim interpretation above).
Regarding the limitations of claim 15, SR 348 (which reads on the claimed “first multi-functional curable material” as described above) is a difunctional methacrylate comprising two ethylene glycol groups (c.f. Ligon p. 2, figure 1).
Regarding claim 16, SR 348 (which reads on the claimed “first multi-functional curable material” as described above) has as cured Tg of 115°C (c.f. Sartomer 348 p. 1), which falls within the claimed ranges of “at least 50°C” and “from 50 to 250°C,” establishing prima facie cases of obviousness.
Regarding claim 17, as described above, Sartomer 494 reads on the claimed “first multi-functional curable material” of claim 1 (and of claim 12, which does not stipulate further thereon). Sartomer 494 possesses a cured Tg of 64°C (c.f. Sartomer 494 p.1), which falls within the claimed ranges of “at least 50°C” and “in a range of from 50 to 250°C,” establishing prima facie cases of obviousness.
Regarding claim 18, as described in the rejection of claim 10, above, the combination of Sartomer 540 and Sartomer 348, rendered obvious by Belkacem, alternatively meets all the limitations of claim 1 (on which claim 18 indirectly depends), wherein Sartomer 348 reads on the claimed “first multi-functional curable material” and Sartomer 540 reads on the claimed “second multi-functional curable material.
This combination likewise meets the limitations of claim 12 (on which claim 18 indirectly depends) because Sartomer 540 is an ethoxylated multi-functional curable material having an aromatic branching unit and 4 ethoxy units (c.f. the rejection of claim 12 above; also see the claim interpretation above).
This combination likewise meets the limitations of claim 13 (on which claim 18 directly depends) because Sartomer 540 has a cured Tg of 108°C (c.f. Sartomer 540 p. 1), which falls within the claimed ranges of “at least 80°C” and “from 80 to 250°C,” establishing prima facie cases of obviousness.
Regarding the limitations of claim 18, SR 348 (which reads on the claimed “first multi-functional curable material” as described above) is a difunctional methacrylate comprising two ethylene glycol groups and featuring a cured Tg of 115°C (c.f. Ligon p. 2, figure 1 and Sartomer 348 p. 1). The cured Tg value falls within the claimed ranges of “at least 50°C” and “from 50 to 250°C,” establishing prima facie cases of obviousness.
Regarding claim 19, as described above, Sartomer 494 reads on the claimed “first multi-functional curable material” of claim 1. Sartomer 494 is an ethoxylated multi-functional curable material comprising 4 alkylene glycol groups (c.f. Sartomer 494 p.1). the value of 4 alkylene glycol groups falls within the claimed range of “at least 3 alkylene groups,” establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claim 20, as described above, Belkacem teaches the incorporation of Sartomer 540, which reads on the claimed “first multi-functional curable material,” and which contains 4 alkylene glycol functional groups. Aligned with the claim interpretation section, above, the 4 alkylene glycol functional groups of Sartomer 540 reads on the limitation requiring “at least 3 alkylene glycol groups.”
Regarding claim 21, as described in the rejection of claim 12 above, Sartomer 540 reads on the claimed “second multi-functional curable material” of claim 12. As indicated in the rejection of claim 1 above, Sartomer 494 reads on the claimed “first multi-functional curable material” within claim 1 when Sartomer 540 is viewed as reading on the claimed “second multi-functional curable material.” Sartomer 494 is an ethoxylated multi-functional curable material comprising 4 alkylene glycol groups (c.f. Sartomer 494 p.1). the value of 4 alkylene glycol groups falls within the claimed range of “at least 3 alkylene groups,” establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claim 22, as described above, Sartomer 540 has a cured Tg of 108°C (c.f. Sartomer 540 p. 1), which falls within the claimed ranges of “at least 50°C” and “from 50 to 250°C,” establishing prima facie cases of obviousness.
Claims 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belkacem (EP 2436510 A1) in view of Evonik (TEGO Nanoresins Technical Brochure 2015).
Regarding claim 2, Belkacem further exemplifies the aforementioned nanoparticle fillers as commercially available products including inter alia Nanocryl nanosilica particles ([0095]) but differs from claim 1 because it is silent with regard to the particular incorporation of nanoparticulate silicas having surface functionality.
In the same field of endeavor, Evonik teaches Nanocryl resins as colloidal dispersions containing up to 50 w/w% of amorphous silica in acrylates (p. 4) and specifically teaches Nanocryl C 153 as a Nanocryl product containing 50 w/w% SiO2 (p. 7). It is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its art-recognized suitability for its intended use (see MPEP 2144.07). It therefore would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to utilize Nanocryl C 153 within the formulation of Belkacem, as Belkacem teaches the suitability of Nanocryl resins and because Evonik teaches Nanocryl C 153 as a nanosilica resin. The instant Specification states that Nanocryl C 153 is suitable within an exemplified composition (see Instant Specification p. 60, Example 3), and therefore Nanocryl C 153 meets the claimed limitation requiring surface functionality.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA CALEB BLEDSOE whose telephone number is (703)756-5376. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. EST.
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, Robert Jones can be reached at 571-270-7733. 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.
/JOSHUA CALEB BLEDSOE/ Examiner, Art Unit 1762
/ROBERT S JONES JR/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1762
Prosecution Insights