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Claims 10-15 are withdrawn from further consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention.
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) and U.S. Pre-grant Publication 2018/0304307 to Yeh et al. cited in previous Office action (herein Yeh). 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, Leslie does not teach that the topcoat provides any sort of opacity to the coating; therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably consider the topcoat of Leslie to meet the limitations of being a clear coat.
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, 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, 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 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, and Yeh teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Elbaz, Leslie, 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 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, Leslie does not teach that the topcoat provides any sort of opacity to the coating; therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably consider the topcoat of Leslie to meet the limitations of being a clear coat.
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, 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, 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 and Yeh as applied to the claims above and in further view of Sutou.
Regarding claim 19, Elbaz, Leslie, 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, 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 filed 23 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the coating of Leslie as modified according to Yeh does not teach the claimed coating because the polyurethane binder of the coating of Leslie is an organic compound which is incompatible with the water-borne coatings taught by Yeh (Remarks, pages 9-10). Applicant is correct in that a polyurethane is an organic compound, a reference to the fact that it is a carbon-containing compound; however, this is completely different from and has no relation to Yeh’s reference to organic solvent-borne or water-borne coatings. Yeh does not teach away from using an organic polymer as a binder; Yeh teaches away from using an organic solvent such as benzene. While Leslie teaches that the polyurethane can use an organic solvent (paragraph 0048), Leslie also explicitly teaches that the polyurethane can be water-based (paragraph 0050). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be discouraged from combining the teachings of Leslie and Yeh.
Applicant argues that modifying the coating of Leslie to include the microspheres of Bleecher does not yield the claimed coating because the ceramic microspheres of Bleecher are not the nanoparticles of Leslie that are only in the top layer (Remarks, pages 12-13). Leslie incorporates the teachings of Bleecher by reference (paragraph 0050). Therefore, no modification of Leslie is required because the teachings of Bleecher are considered to be part of the teachings of Leslie. See MPEP 608.01(p) and 2163.07(b). Furthermore, Applicant is relying on an embodiment of Leslie wherein the layers of the coating do not contain all the components; however, Leslie teaches that the different layers of the coating can contain binder and nanoparticles. Furthermore, the ceramic microspheres of Bleecher include particles having a size smaller than 1 micron, i.e. nanoparticles.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
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