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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Yoshizawa (US 2021/0096288) in view of Hellring (US 2012/0308724), further in view of Conley (CA 2982663), as evidenced by Dow web article (Dow) and as evidenced by BASF web article (BASF).
Re claims 1-16 and 20, Yoshizawa discloses an infrared transmissive product comprising a body that has a base material made of transparent plastic having infrared (IR) transmissivity and a black layer having a thickness of 5 to 50 microns (0.2-2 mils) formed on the rear surface (Abstract). The black layer comprises a transparent plastic and at least two types of pigments/dyes [11]. The transparent plastic includes acrylic resin [33]. Given that the base is a transparent plastic having infrared (IR) transmissivity it would necessarily inherently have transmittivity that spans NIR and SWIR bands.
There is no disclosure of coating as presently claimed.
Hellring discloses coating composition that transmits IR radiation (0001). The aqueous composition comprises acrylic film-forming binder and infrared transparent pigments [6, 17, 28] as well as dispersing agent [32]. The pigment includes that known under the tradename L0086 [23] which is identical to that used in the present invention and therefore would necessarily inherently have the same diameter as claimed. Given that there is a dispersing agent present, the pigment would necessarily be de-aggregated. The pigment is present in an amount of 0.1-50 wt.% [69]. The ratio of pigment to dispersant is 0.1:1 to 100:1 [58]. The coating composition exhibits color stability [0001].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the coating composition of Hellring in the black layer in Yoshizawa in order to produce a black layer with good color stability.
There is no disclosure in Yoshizawa in view of Hellring of the rheology modifier or properties as claimed.
Conley discloses paint comprising acrylic polymer, colorant, and an associative thickener, i.e. rheology modifier (page 1, lines 17-22). The associative thickener includes Acrysol DR-110 which is identical to the rheology modifier used in the present invention. The associative thickener decreases the viscosity sensitivity (Abstract, page 7, lines 13-14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the rheology modifier of Conley in Yoshizawa in view of Hellring in order to produce a coating composition with decreased viscosity sensitivity.
Dow discloses acrylic resin known under the tradename Rhoplex AC-261F which is identical to that used in the present invention and that is suitable for paints providing good adhesion and abrasion resistance. Given that the dispersant is identical to that used in the present invention it would necessarily inherently have cut-off wavelength as claimed.
BASF discloses dispersant known under the tradename EFKA PX4310 which is identical to that used in the present invention and that provides improved color strength, optimum pigment dispersion, and strong viscosity reduction. Given that the dispersant is identically to that used in the present invention, it would necessarily inherently be a hydrophobically modified alkali-soluble rheology modifier that is an acrylate-based block copolymer with molecular weight of more than 2000 as presently claimed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Rhoplex AC-261F of Dow as the acrylic resin and EFKA PX4310 of BASF as the dispersing agent in Yoshizawa in view of Hellring in order to produce a coating composition with good adhesion and abrasion resistance, proved color strength, optimum pigment dispersion, and strong viscosity reduction.
Given that Yoshizawa in view of Hellring, Conley, Dow, and BASF disclose coating including acrylic latex, dispersing agent, pigment, and rheology modifier identical to that presently claimed, it is clear that the coating and its components would necessarily inherently have the same transmissivity in visible, NIR, and SWIR bands as presently claimed, the coating would necessarily inherently cure at ambient temperature and pressure as presently claimed, the pigment would necessarily inherently be highly dispersed though out the coating to absorb in the visible band and have same cut-off as presently claimed, and the acrylic resin and dispersing agent would necessarily inherently have average transmittance as presently claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the references to what is taught; however, alleges that the oil soluble teaching of Yoshizamwa teaches away from a water solvent. However, this why the supplemental reference, Hellring, was used to disclose an aqueous composition comprising similar ingredients, namely an acrylic film-forming binder and infrared transparent pigments [6, 17, 28] as well as dispersing agent [32]. The pigment includes that known under the tradename L0086 [23] which is identical to that used in the present invention and therefore would necessarily inherently have the same diameter as claimed. Given that there is a dispersing agent present, the pigment would necessarily be de-aggregated. The pigment is present in an amount of 0.1-50 wt.% [69]. The ratio of pigment to dispersant is 0.1:1 to 100:1 [58]. The coating composition exhibits color stability [0001]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the rheology modifier of Conley in Yoshizawa in view of Hellring in order to produce a coating composition with decreased viscosity sensitivity. See again the combination as set forth prior.
Further applicant doesn’t preclude oil in the open comprising claims.
Applicant argues Conley’s use of a thickeners and a non-ionic thickener contrasts with an anionic thickener. However, Conley was used to teach the exact rheology modifier. The compositional raw materials combine to teach applicant’s claimed composition for a prima facie case of obviousness.
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 TAMRA L. DICUS whose telephone number is (571)272-2022. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am 4:00 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, Callie Shosho can be reached at 571-272-1123. 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.
TAMRA L. DICUS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1787
/TAMRA L. DICUS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights