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 .
Response to Amendment
No new grounds of rejection are set forth below. Thus, the following action is made final.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1, 4-5, 7-8, 14 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asami et al (US 2006/0173127) in view of Jung et al (US 6,270,855) and Moens et al (US 2003/0153640).
The rejection is adequately set forth in paragraph 6 of the Office Action mailed on January 16, 2026 and is incorporated here by reference.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asami et al (US 2006/0173127) in view of Jung et al (US 6,270,855) and Moens et al (US 2003/0153640) with evidence provided by Nozaki et al (US 5,229,470).
The rejection is adequately set forth in paragraph 7 of the Office Action mailed on January 16, 2026 and is incorporated here by reference.
Response to Arguments
The 35 USC 112(b) rejection in paragraph 4 of the office action mailed on January 16, 2026 has been withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendment filed on April 13, 2026.
Applicant's arguments filed April 13, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the reasons set forth below:
Applicant’s argument: Moens fails to disclose the feature of “the second polyester resin accounts for no less than 40 wt % of the second powder coating component B and weight parts of the acrylic resin are less than those of the second polyester resin”. It actually teaches away from this combination.
Examiner’s response: Looking to Table 5 of Moens, applicant has pointed to Example 29 as a teaching away. However, Moens clearly indicates that this is an inventive formulation and not a comparative example, so this indicates that it is an endorsement of this formulation and not a teaching away.
Applicant’s argument: Applicant has provided a declaration showing that when the amount of the acrylic resin is less than that of the second polyester resin, there is a more stable matting effect and better impact resistance and gloss.
Examiner’s response: The examiner has considered the declaration and notes the comparative example given in the declaration and notes the poorer performance of the supplemental comparative example 1 compared to that of the inventive examples. However, there is still not enough data to show the criticality of the other parameters of the claimed invention to arrive at the effect desired by the applicant. For example, no comparative examples show polyester acid values of less than 15, ratios of component A:B outside the claimed range of 0.2:1 to 5:1. Also, there are no examples with the acid values higher than 80 (which would be within the scope of the claimed invention, and therefore should show excellent properties). What about curing agents in an amount of less than 10 parts by weight (such as 2 wt% which would be within the scope of the claimed invention, and therefore should show excellent properties)? Therefore, applicant's argument of unexpected results is not persuasive.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DORIS L LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-3872. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am - 5 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, Arrie Lanee Reuther can be reached at 571-270-7026. 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.
DORIS L. LEE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1764
/DORIS L LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights