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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments, filed 1/30/2026, have been fully considered and reviewed by the examiner. The examiner notes the amendment to the claims, cancellation of claim 22, 26 and 31. Claims 1-20 and 32 remain pending with claims 4-5, 9, 14, 18 are withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1-3, 6-8, 10-13, 15-17, 19-20, and 32 are examined on the merits.
In view of the amendment to the claims, the examiner has withdrawn the 35 USC 112b rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive as they are directed against the newly added claim requirements that are addressed 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.
Claim(s) 11 and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2017170160 by Satoshi, hereinafter WO 160 (citations to machine translation) taken collectively with WO 2019037262, hereinafter WO 262 with US Patent Application Publication 20210170730 by Zhao et al. and Jana et al. (Development of a copper-graphene nanocomposite based transparent coating with antiviral activity against influenza virus)
WO 160 discloses a method of manufacturing an apparatus comprising a base material, the method comprising: (a) feeding a liquid coating material comprising an antimicrobial material to an applicator; and (b) coating the liquid material upon an outside surface of the base material, (see spraying includes applicator, see additive includes antibacterial material). WO 160 discloses slush molding the base material in a mold (slush mold could reasonably read on “rotational mold” as this does not impart any process steps to the mold) to create a three-dimensionally formed skin of polymeric material (PVC skin), applying the coating material as a surface onto the skin, and mounting the skin onto a rigid substrate (WO 160 discloses forming a laminate with a PU foam molded body as well as an automobile which can reasonably be considered a rigid substrate).
WO 160 discloses forming a molded surface and a spray coating layer separately; however, fails coating after spraying the molded product after the PVC mold has been cured. However, WO 262, also in the art of forming a PVC plastic skin discloses forming the PVC plastic skin and thereafter applying a spray coating thereto (see Example 2), where the spray coating including a color (claimed pigment), see Step 1. WO 262 discloses prior to spraying, preheating the PVC skin and remove the skin and spraying with the coating material (see Example 2). WO 262 discloses after spraying the PVC skin with the coating material, curing the coating to provide a skin material with a coating disposed thereon (see example 2). Therefore, taking the references collectively, as WO 160 discloses applying a coating to a PVC layer, it would have been obvious to have modified WO 160 to have sprayed the PVC layer after preheating and removal and include a pigment as WO 262 discloses such is known and suitable in the art of PVC skin coating to form the coating layer. WO 262 discloses the PU layer and the coating are flexible after curing both the PVC skin and the coating layer (see e.g. airbag).
The totality of the prior art illustrates the curing and pressure of the PVC skin layer (see WO 160) is higher than the curing pressure and temperature of the coating material (see WO 262). Here, at the very least, the pressure and temperature of the curing would have been obvious as predictable, directly affecting the curing process (too low temperature/pressure and no curing occurs, too high pressure and temperature would destroy the PVC skin/coating) and thus it would have been obvious to have determined the optimum curing conditions, including pressure and temperature, through routine experimentation to reap the benefits of successfully curing.
Additionally, Zhao, also in the art of coating a molded automobile product discloses that the molded product can be coating during molding or spray coated after molding (0027-0028) and Zhao discloses a method of manufacturing an apparatus comprising a base material, the method comprising: (a) feeding a liquid coating material comprising an antimicrobial material to an applicator; and (b) coating the liquid material upon an outside surface of the base material, the base material being flexible at least before the coating (0027-0028, see spraying includes applicator, see graphene, Class A Finish Coat on outside surface, flexible occurs at molding and/or is not defined to encompass any more than some flexibility and the process of Zhao would reasonably be flexible in some regard, i.e. flexible material, flexible use, flexible application technique).
Therefore taking the references together, it would have been obvious to have modified WO 160 to spray coat the molded product as taught by Zhao as such is taught as a known alternative to coating in the mold and include graphene particles as taught by Zhao to reap the benefits of their inclusion as WO 160, WO 262, and Zhang disclose the forming of a spray coating layer for the automobile product.
As for the requirement of the antiviral material comprising graphene and cuprous oxide, the examiner cites here Jana, also in the art of coating and discloses applying a antiviral graphene/cuprous oxide in liquid resin (see Figure 8 and accompanying text, abstract). Therefore, taking the references collectively and all that is known to one of ordinary skill in the art, it would have been obvious to include the known antiviral coating, including both graphene and cuprous oxide, as suggested by Jana, to reap the benefits of providing a highly transparent coating that retains high antiviral activity.
Claim 15: WO 160 disclose an automotive interior trim panel (Description of embodiments, interior part can reasonably be considered a trim panel within the scope of the broadly drafted claim). WO 160 with Zhao discloses spraying a PVC skin as discussed above; however, fails to disclose the spraying of the polyurethane. However, WO 262, also in the art of forming a skin for automobile instrument panel, discloses including the polyurethane sprayable coating onto the PVC skin provides the benefits of improving the properties of the PVC skin material (background, summary) and discloses polyurethane coating on skin layer by spraying after curing the skin layer and therefore taking the references collectively it would have been obvious to include the polyurethane spray material as taught by WO 238 to reap the benefits as outlined by WO 262, that is improving the properties of the PVC skin layer.
Claim 16: WO 262 discloses the base material and substrate are flexible after curing (see discussion above).
Claim 17: Zhao discloses graphene applied in the amount of 1-20 wt% in the polymer matrix (0028) and discloses the coating is thinner than the molded product (see Figure 5) and curing (0028). Claims include comprising language and the graphene as taught by Zhao would necessarily “comprise” 1-10 layers of graphene as the claimed are broadly drafter using open ended language (i.e. does not foreclose graphene having more than 10 layers as the graphene would still comprises 10 layers) and thus by its disclosure the graphene would include at least one layer. In other words, the claims as draft merely require the graphene to include at least 1 graphene layer (i.e. due to comprising language the graphene as taught by the prior art would include/comprise a layer of graphene)
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 160 taken with WO 262, Zhao, and Jana taken with CA 2722975, hereinafter CA 975.
WO 160 taken with WO 262 , Zhao, and Jana fails to disclose the claimed pellets. However, CA 975 discloses polymer pellets for use during the processing and therefore modifying WO 160 taken with WO 262 , Zhao, and Jana to use pellets to be used in processing would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention as using polymer pellets for storage and using them for processing is taught by CA 975 as well known method for providing polymers for processing (see e.g. page 39 stating “ one could conceive of adding the composition polymer, which would serve as a thermoplastic additive, as powder or pellets directly during the processing step such as extrusion, injection molding etc or could be pelletized prior to actually processing”).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 160 taken with WO 262 , Zhao, and Jana with WO 2015130238, hereinafter WO 238
Claims 13 and 20: WO 160 with WO 262 , Zhao, and Jana discloses all that is taught above with respect to claim 11. The references fail to disclose the robot head with the nozzle to spray the liquid. However, WO 238 discloses that automotive parts are known to be coated by spraying with a robot with a nozzle, and using primarily liquid phase (abstract, Figures, see entire reference) and therefore taking the references collectively it would have been obvious to have used the known spraying technique for automobiles as taught by WO 238. A predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions to achieve a predictable result is prima facie obvious. See KSR Int’l Inc. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S Ct. 1727, 1741, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 160 taken with WO 262 , Zhao, and Jana, taken with CA 2722975, hereinafter CA 975.
Claim 19: References fail to disclose the inclusion of the claimed antiviral material. However, CA 975 discloses including a polymer composition that provides antimicrobial properties and discloses silver oxide or zinc oxide are included (see e.g. claim 108) and discloses using such for interior automotive applications, including trim, etc. (see e.g. Potential uses) and thus taking the references collectively it would have been obvious to include the well-known antimicrobial materials as WO 160 with Zhao and Jana with antimicrobial materials for automotive interior applications and CA 975 explicitly discloses that antimicrobial materials for automotive interior applications include silver oxide and/or zinc oxide. The selection of something based on its known suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie case of obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP 2144.07.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3, 6-8 and 10, 20 and 32 are deemed allowable. Claims 4-5 and 9 are withdrawn from consideration as directed toward a non-elected species. The species requirement will be withdrawn upon issuance of claim 1 with respect to claims 4-5 and 9; however, the election of species is maintained due to the presence of rejected claim 11 and dependents.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 1 and dependents. None of the prior art cited or reviewed by the examiner, alone or in combination, reasonably discloses or makes obvious the totality of the claims as drafted, specifically, 6-10 layers of antiviral graphene particles within a polymeric matrix, where the proportions of the antimicrobial material to liquid coating material and to the entire coated base combination are within the ranges as claimed.
Claim 20 and dependents. None of the prior art cited or reviewed by the examiner, alone or in combination, reasonably discloses or makes obvious the combination of claimed steps as now embodied by claim 20.
Closest prior art to the above claims are cited above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID P TUROCY whose telephone number is (571)272-2940. The examiner can normally be reached Mon, Tues, Thurs, and Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached on 571-272-5166. 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.
/DAVID P TUROCY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights