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 .
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-17 and 19-20 are pending.
Claims 10-15 are withdrawn from further consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6 July 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 9,276,389 to Elbaz cited in previous Office action (herein Elbaz) in view of U.S. Pre-grant Publication 2013/0120916 to Leslie et al. cited in previous Office action (herein Leslie), U.S. Pre-grant Publication 2018/0304307 to Yeh et al. cited in previous Office action (herein Yeh), and U.S. Pre-grant Publication 2020/0290086 to Xu et al. (herein Xu). Examiner notes that Leslie incorporates by reference U.S. Pre-grant Publication 2012/0045954 to Bleecher et al. cited in previous Office action (herein Bleecher, see paragraph 0050 of Leslie).
Regarding claim 1, Elbaz teaches an electrical device cover including an access panel having an orifice and an adapter plate (abstract) wherein the access panel corresponds to the body recited in the instant claims and would inherently have a proximal end and a distal end.
Elbaz is silent as to there being a coating present as claimed.
Leslie teaches a coating composition for an electrical system (abstract) wherein the coating can be applied in a multiple-step process resulting in a base coat corresponding to the first coating recited in the instant claims and a topcoat corresponding to the second coating recited in the instant claims (paragraph 0054). Leslie teaches that the coating composition comprises a binder material, microparticles, and nanoparticles (paragraph 0054) and that the coating composition imparts at least one of hydrophobicity, superhydrophobicity, and oleophobicity and imparts a resistance to exfoliation, i.e. resistance to abrasion (paragraph 0039).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrical device cover of Elbaz to include the coating system of Leslie because it give the cover improved protection against a harsh environment (paragraph 0009).
Leslie is silent as to the base coating being tinted and the topcoat being clear.
Regarding the base coat being tinted, Yeh teaches a coating system (abstract) for electrical equipment housings (paragraph 0011) wherein the coating system has a first primer layer, a second layer, and a third layer (paragraph 0011). Yeh teaches that the second layer is a basecoat layer and can contain a dye or a pigment (paragraph 0018).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the base coat of Leslie to include the dye or pigment as taught by Yeh because it has been held to be obvious to use known techniques to improve similar products in the same way. See MPEP 2143(I)(C).
Regarding the topcoat being clear, Xu teaches a multi-layer coating system including a first basecoat applied over at least a portion of a substrate, a second basecoat layer applied over the first basecoat layer (abstract), and a topcoat layer applied over the second basecoat layer (paragraph 0074). Xu teaches that the first and second basecoat layers contain pigments or dyes (paragraphs 0058 and 0070). Xu teaches that the topcoat layer is a clear coating layer which can contain colorants such as pigments provided the colorants do not interfere with the opacity of the clear topcoat layer (paragraph 0075). Xu teaches that suitable clear topcoat layers include ceramic coating such as Ceramiclear from PPG Industries (paragraph 0076).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the topcoat layer of Leslie to be a clear topcoat layer as taught by Xu because it has been held to be obvious to apply a known technique to a known product to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
Regarding the coatings being a polyceramic, Leslie teaches that suitable coating compositions include those taught by Bleecher (paragraph 0050). Bleecher teaches that the coating compositions can include ceramic microspheres (Table 1). The instant specification provides no guidance as to what constitutes a polyceramic coating beyond a coating containing a ceramic (see pages 3 and 7 of the instant specification). Therefore, the electrical device cover of Elbaz as modified according to Leslie meets the claimed limitation of having a polyceramic coating. Similarly, the instant specification provides no guidance as to how the claimed polyceramic compound is configured to protect the underlying coatings/substrate from abrasion beyond being a coating containing a ceramic. Therefore, the coating containing ceramic microspheres as taught by Bleecher and Leslie can be considered to meet the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 2, Elbaz, Leslie, Xu, and Yeh teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Leslie teaches that suitable coating compositions include those taught by Bleecher (paragraph 0050). Bleecher teaches that the coating compositions can include ceramic microspheres (Table 1). The instant specification provides no guidance as to what a polyceramic coating beyond a coating containing a ceramic. Therefore, the electrical device cover of Elbaz as modified according to Leslie meets the claimed limitation of having a polyceramic coating. Furthermore, the base coating of Leslie as modified according to Yeh meets the limitations of being a tinted polyceramic coating layer.
Regarding claims 3, 8, and 9, Elbaz, Leslie, Xu, and Yeh teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Elbaz is silent as to the electrical device cover receiving a surface treatment.
Leslie teaches that suitable coating compositions include those taught by Bleecher (paragraph 0050). Bleecher teaches that a surface to which the coating is applied can receive a treatment such as abrasion, cleaning with solvents, or application of one or more primers (paragraph 0170) which correspond to the claimed sanding, chemical wash, and third coating of primer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrical device cover of Elbaz to receive the surface treatment taught by Leslie and Bleecher because it would improve adherence of the coatings (Bleecher, paragraph 0170).
Regarding claim 6, Elbaz, Leslie, and Yeh teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Figures 4 and 5 of Elbaz shows the access panel 12 which has a thickness, i.e. a first side, a second side, and a third side connecting the two, and an orifice 50 (Figs 4 and 5 and Col 3, line 61-Col 4, line 8).
Regarding claim 7, Elbaz, Leslie, and Yeh teach all the limitations of claim 6 as discussed above.
Figure 6 of Elbaz shows adapter plates 52, 54, 56, and 58 which fit into orifice 50 (Col 4, lines 9-25). Figures 2, 4, and 6 of Elbaz show that the adapter plates have a flanges 64 and 66 that fit into platform 68 of the access panel to facilitate alignment.
Claim(s) 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elbaz in view of Leslie, Xu, and Yeh as applied to the claims above and in further view of U.S. Pre-grant Publication 2015/0259540 to Sutou et al. cited in previous Office action (herein Sutou).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Elbaz, Leslie, Xu, and Yeh teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Elbaz, Leslie, Xu, and Yeh are silent as to there being a graphic pattern layer comprising a PVA hydrographic film.
Sutou teaches a hydraulic transfer film (abstract) for providing a decorated molded product (paragraph 0012) wherein the film is formed of polyvinyl alcohol or a vinyl acetate-containing polymer (paragraph 0027). Sutou teaches that the transfer film receives a protective topcoat layer after transfer (paragraph 0104).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the coating system of Leslie to include the hydraulic transfer film of Sutou because it would allow for decorations such as wood grain or metallic luster (paragraph 0002).
Examiner notes that one of ordinary skill in the art making the above modification would place the transfer layer between the base coat and topcoat layers of Leslie in order to ensure the transfer film has the protective topcoat as taught by Sutou.
Furthermore, changing the decorative design imparted by the hydraulic transfer film such that at least part of the base coat of Leslie is visible amounts to an aesthetic design change and, therefore, would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(I).
Claim(s) 16-17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elbaz in view of Leslie, Xu, and Yeh.
Regarding claim 16, Elbaz teaches an electrical device cover including an access panel having an orifice and an adapter plate (abstract) wherein the access panel corresponds to the body recited in the instant claims and would inherently have a proximal end and a distal end. Figures 4 and 5 of Elbaz shows the access panel 12 which has a thickness, i.e. a first side, a second side, and a third side connecting the two, and an orifice 50 (Figs 4 and 5 and Col 3, line 61-Col 4, line 8).
Elbaz is silent as to there being a coating present as claimed.
Leslie teaches a coating composition for an electrical system (abstract) wherein the coating can be applied in a multiple-step process resulting in a base coat corresponding to the first coating recited in the instant claims and a topcoat corresponding to the second coating recited in the instant claims (paragraph 0054). Leslie teaches that the coating composition comprises a binder material, microparticles, and nanoparticles (paragraphs 0054, 0058, and 0059) and that the coating composition imparts at least one of hydrophobicity, superhydrophobicity, and oleophobicity and imparts a resistance to exfoliation, i.e. resistance to abrasion (paragraph 0039).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrical device cover of Elbaz to include the coating system of Leslie because it give the cover improved protection against a harsh environment (paragraph 0009).
Leslie is silent as to the base coating being tinted and the topcoat being clear.
Regarding the base coat being tinted, Yeh teaches a coating system (abstract) for electrical equipment housings (paragraph 0011) wherein the coating system has a first primer layer, a second layer, and a third layer (paragraph 0011). Yeh teaches that the second layer is a basecoat layer and can contain a dye or a pigment (paragraph 0018).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the base coat of Leslie to include the dye or pigment as taught by Yeh because it has been held to be obvious to use known techniques to improve similar products in the same way. See MPEP 2143(I)(C).
Regarding the topcoat being clear, Xu teaches a multi-layer coating system including a first basecoat applied over at least a portion of a substrate, a second basecoat layer applied over the first basecoat layer (abstract), and a topcoat layer applied over the second basecoat layer (paragraph 0074). Xu teaches that the first and second basecoat layers contain pigments or dyes (paragraphs 0058 and 0070). Xu teaches that the topcoat layer is a clear coating layer which can contain colorants such as pigments provided the colorants do not interfere with the opacity of the clear topcoat layer (paragraph 0075). Xu teaches that suitable clear topcoat layers include ceramic coating such as Ceramiclear from PPG Industries (paragraph 0076).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the topcoat layer of Leslie to be a clear topcoat layer as taught by Xu because it has been held to be obvious to apply a known technique to a known product to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
Regarding the coatings being a polyceramic, Leslie teaches that suitable coating compositions include those taught by Bleecher (paragraph 0050). Bleecher teaches that the coating compositions can include ceramic microspheres (Table 1). The instant specification provides no guidance as to what a polyceramic coating beyond a coating containing a ceramic (see pages 3 and 7 of the instant specification). Therefore, the electrical device cover of Elbaz as modified according to Leslie meets the claimed limitation of having a polyceramic coating. Similarly, the instant specification provides no guidance as to how the claimed polyceramic compound is configured to protect the underlying coatings/substrate from abrasion beyond being a coating containing a ceramic. Therefore, the coating containing ceramic microspheres as taught by Bleecher and Leslie can be considered to meet the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 17, Elbaz, Leslie, Xu, and Yeh teach all the limitations of claim 16 as discussed above.
Leslie teaches that suitable coating compositions include those taught by Bleecher (paragraph 0050). Bleecher teaches that the coating compositions can include ceramic microspheres (Table 1). The instant specification provides no guidance as to what a polyceramic coating beyond a coating containing a ceramic. Therefore, the electrical device cover of Elbaz as modified according to Leslie meets the claimed limitation of having a polyceramic coating.
Regarding claim 20, Elbaz, Leslie, Xu, and Yeh teach all the limitations of claim 16 as discussed above.
Figure 6 of Elbaz shows adapter plates 52, 54, 56, and 58 which fit into orifice 50 (Col 4, lines 9-25). Figures 2, 4, and 6 of Elbaz show that the adapter plates have a flanges 64 and 66 that fit into platform 68 of the access panel to facilitate alignment.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elbaz in view of Leslie, Xu, and Yeh as applied to the claims above and in further view of Sutou.
Regarding claim 19, Elbaz, Leslie, Xu, and Yeh teach all the limitations of claim 16 as discussed above.
Elbaz is silent as to the electrical device cover receiving a surface treatment.
Leslie teaches that suitable coating compositions include those taught by Bleecher (paragraph 0050). Bleecher teaches that a surface to which the coating is applied can receive a treatment such as abrasion, cleaning with solvents, or application of one or more primers (paragraph 0170) which correspond to the third coating of primer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrical device cover of Elbaz to receive the surface treatment taught by Leslie and Bleecher because it would improve adherence of the coatings (Bleecher, paragraph 0170).
Elbaz, Leslie, Xu, and Yeh are silent as to there being a graphic pattern layer comprising a PVA hydrographic film.
Sutou teaches a hydraulic transfer film (abstract) for providing a decorated molded product (paragraph 0012) wherein the film is formed of polyvinyl alcohol or a vinyl acetate-containing polymer (paragraph 0027). Sutou teaches that the transfer film receives a protective topcoat layer after transfer (paragraph 0104).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the coating system of Leslie to include the hydraulic transfer film of Sutou because it would allow for decorations such as wood grain or metallic luster (paragraph 0002).
Examiner notes that one of ordinary skill in the art making the above modification would place the transfer layer between the base coat and topcoat layers of Leslie in order to ensure the transfer film has the protective topcoat as taught by Sutou.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Leslie not teaching a clear topcoat have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed 6 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the ceramic microspheres of Bleecher would result in a white or gray topcoat layer (Remarks, pages 8-9). White or gray microspheres would not necessarily yield a white or gray topcoat layer. If the index of refraction of the microspheres is close to that of the matrix resin, the resulting layer would not have any visible particles in it. Furthermore, Xu teaches in paragraph 0075 that pigments can be added to a clear topcoat layer provided that they do not interfere with the transparency of the topcoat layer. Therefore, even if the microspheres of Bleecher provided some white or gray coloring, it would still result in a clear topcoat layer.
Applicant argues that Leslie does not teach that the topcoat layer is not configured to protect the underlying coating and the substrate from abrasions (Remarks, pages 9-10). As Applicant states, Leslie explicitly teaches that the coating resists mechanical abrasions (paragraph 0039). A coating that resists mechanical abrasions is by definition configured to protect the underlying coating layers or substrates from abrasions. Furthermore, as Applicant states, the claimed coating is configured to protect from abrasions merely by being present as a topcoat layer and containing a ceramic compound Remarks, page 10). Therefore, the topcoat of Leslie which is present as a topcoat and contains ceramic microspheres meets the requirements and, as such, would be reasonably considered to protect the underlying coating layers and substrate from abrasions. Applicant has provided no showing of evidence demonstrating how the claimed invention achieves abrasion resistance that the coating of the prior art cannot.
Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach a first coating layer containing a polyceramic compound (Remarks, page 10). As discussed above, Leslie teaches a base coat containing ceramic microspheres.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY M DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-6957. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-4:30, off 2nd Friday.
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, Maria V Ewald can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
/ZACHARY M DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783
