DETAILED ACTION
An Office Action was mailed 10/17/2025. Applicant filed a response, and amended claims 1-3, 5 and 9-10, on 02/11/2026.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-15, 17, 19-23, 25-27 and 31 are pending.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-11, 13, 15, 17 and 19-21 are rejected.
Claims 12, 14, 22-23, 25-27 and 31 are withdrawn from consideration.
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 .
Examiner’s Note
Upon further consideration of Bates et al, WO 2012/112993 A2, the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections over Bates have been withdrawn. Specifically, because Bates partially cures the polymeric polymer coating on the substrate before adding the retroreflective microspheres, Bates does not teach a retroreflective powder coating comprising both (a) a binder comprising a film-forming resin; and (b) a plurality of particles in which at least a portion of the particles are at least partially coated with a metallic material as claimed (emphasis added), wherein the retroreflective powder coating composition has a glass plate flow of 40 mm or less.
However, upon further consideration and search, new sets of 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections are provided as set forth below. This Office Action is a second non-final.
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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 7-11, 13, 15, 17 and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCollough et al, WO 00/75242 A2 (McCollough) in view of ASTM Designation D4242-07, “Standard Test Method for Inclined Plate Flow for Thermosetting Coating Powders” (ASTM) and Wang, WO 2020/065562 A1 (Wang).
McCollough was cited in the IDS filed 10/20/2022.
Regarding claims 1 and 10, McCollough teaches a metallic automotive vehicle component having on at least a portion of a surface thereon a retroreflective outer coating comprising: (a) a crosslinkable film-forming material; and (b) a plurality of retroreflective microsphere beads (McCollough; page 2, lines 2-6; page 3, lines 26-28; and page 4, lines 3-5). In a preferred embodiment, the outer coating which includes the retroreflective microsphere beads is a monocoat, and can be applied as a powder (i.e., a retroreflective powder coating as claimed) ((McCollough; page 10, lines 11-12 and page 11, line 26-page 12, line 2).
The microsphere beads preferably are hemispherically coated (reflectorized over about half its surface area) with retroreflective means, wherein the retroreflective means include coatings of one or more metallic materials, such as aluminum (i.e., a plurality of particles in which at least a portion of the particles comprises particles at least partially coated with a metallic material) (McCollough; page 5, lines 5-8).
Preferably the monocoating composition is a crosslinkable composition comprising one or more thermosettable film-forming materials, such as polyesters (i.e., a binder comprising a film-forming resin, wherein the powder coating is a thermoset powder coating of claim 10) (McCollough; page 12, lines 5-9).
Given that McCollough discloses retroreflective coating compositions that overlap the presently claimed retroreflective powder coating compositions, including retroreflective powder coatings comprising particles which are at least partially coated with a metallic material and thermoset film-forming resins, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use such retroreflective powder coatings, which are both disclosed by McCollough and encompassed within the scope of the present claims.
McCollough does not explicitly teach wherein the powder coating composition has a glass plate flow of 40 mm or less, before addition to the plurality of particles.
Examiner note: the term “glass plate flow” has been interpreted as being determined in accordance with ASTM D424424-07(2017) as disclosed in the instant specification at ¶ [0041]. ASTM D 4242-07 (2017) is a reapproved version of ASTM D 4242-02 (2002).
With respect to the difference, ASTM discloses the “Standard Test Method for Inclined Plate Flow for Thermosetting Coating Powders.” The test method specifies a method for determining the flow characteristics of a fused thermosetting coating powder down a plane inclined at a set angle to the horizontal. The test gives an indication of the degree of melt flow that may occur during the curing of the coating powder. This characteristic contributes to the coherence of the coating, to its surface appearance, and to the degree of coverage over sharp edges. The test acts as a useful method for checking for batch to batch variation in the behavior of a given coating powder (ASTM; 1. Scope, para 1).
The test method is useful for selecting coating powders of similar characteristics of melt flow under minimal shear (ASTM; 5. Significance and Use).
ASTM is analogous art as it teaches a method for determining the glass plate flow of thermoset powder coatings.
Wang teaches a powder coating composition which comprises a first fluoropolymer, a second fluoropolymer, a polyester, and a curing agent (Abstract). A hard, thermoset coating is formed as a result of crosslinking between the reactive groups of the components (Wang; [00149]).
The pellet flow measured according to ASTM D 4242-02 of the composition is typically 30 to 150mm, more typically 31 to 45mm, and particularly 32 to 45 mm. Pellet flow is a measure of determining the performance of the films formed by curing the compositions. Pellet flow test interprets the effect of the combination of melt viscosity and curing dynamics (Wang; [00141]). Glass plate flow rates of 30 to 150mm, more typically 31 to 45mm, and particularly 32 to 45 mm, overlap in scope with the claimed glass plate flow rates of 40 mm or less.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
A film formed from the composition is formed by applying the composition on a base material, wherein base materials include an automobile member such as an automobile exterior, body or parts (Wang; [00145]).
Wang is analogous art as it teaches a thermoset powder coating composition which has a glass plate flow as claimed.
In light of the motivation provided by ASTM and Wang to test and optimize the glass plate flow rate of thermoset powder coatings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to test, optimize and adjust the glass plate flow of the thermosetting film-forming material in the powder coatings of McCollough, including over the presently claimed, in order to determine the performance of the cured films, and in order to obtain the desired melt flow, coherence, surface appearance, and degree of coverage over sharp edges of the cured powder coating, while minimizing the batch to batch variation in the behavior of the coating powder.
“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Regarding claim 7, McCollough in view of ASTM and Wang are relied upon as teaching the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.- McCollough teaches that the microsphere beads generally have an index of refraction ranging from about 1.5 to about 2.5. Preferably, the microsphere beads having hemispherical reflective means coated thereon have a refractive index of approximately 1.9 to provide efficient retroreflectivity and daytime unnoticeability (McCollough; page 6, lines 1-5).
Refractive indices of approximately 1.9 fall within the claimed range of greater than 1.5.
Regarding claim 8, McCollough in view of ASTM and Wang are relied upon as teaching the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.- McCollough teaches that the microsphere beads are preferably made from clear glass, silica or barium titanate (McCollough; page 5, lines 1-4).
Given that McCollough discloses microsphere beads that overlap the presently claimed particles, including barium titanate glass beads, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the barium titanate microsphere beads in the compositions of McCollough in view of ASTM and Wang, which are both disclosed by McCollough and encompassed within the scope of the present claims, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 9, McCollough in view of ASTM and Wang are relied upon as teaching the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.- The amount of the retroreflective microsphere beads included in the coating compositions can vary depending upon the average diameter of the beads and the particle size of the other components, such as pigments, in the coating compositions. Generally, the amount of retroreflective microsphere beads included in the coating compositions is that which is sufficient to provide nighttime retroreflectivity of the coated automobile component (McCollough; page 19, lines 12-21).
McCollough in view of ASTM and Wang do not explicitly teach wherein the particles at least partially coated with a metallic material comprise an amount within a range of from 1 weight % to 80 weight %, based on the total solids weight of the retroreflective powder coating composition, as claimed.
While McCollough in view of ASTM and Wang do not explicitly disclose a weight percent as presently claimed, it has long been an axiom of United States patent law that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of result-effective variables by routine experimentation. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages."); In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980) ("[D]iscovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art."); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955) ("[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation."). "Only if the 'results of optimizing a variable' are 'unexpectedly good' can a patent be obtained for the claimed critical range." In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (quoting In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620 (CCPA 1977)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the weight percent of retroreflective microsphere beads at least partially coated with a metallic material, including over the presently claimed, in the powder coating compositions of McCollough in view of ASTM and Wang, in order to provide nighttime retroreflectivity of the coated automobile component.
Regarding claim 11, McCollough in view of ASTM and Wang are relied upon as teaching the limitations of claim 10 as discussed above, wherein the powder coating is thermosettable.- The monocoat comprises one or more crosslinkable film-forming materials, and optionally crosslinking materials (McCollough; page 12, lines 5-7).
Given that McCollough discloses retroreflective powder coatings that overlap the presently claimed retroreflective powder coatings, including coatings comprising a crosslinker reactive with the crosslinkable film-forming materials, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a crosslinker in the compositions of McCollough in view of ASTM and Wang, which is both disclosed by McCollough and encompassed within the scope of the present claims, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 13, McCollough in view of ASTM and Wang are relied upon as teaching the limitations of claim 11 as discussed above, wherein the powder coating comprises a crosslinker. - The monocoat comprises one or more crosslinkable film-forming materials, including polyesters (McCollough; page 12, lines 5-7). Polyesters can be prepared in a known manner by condensation of polyhydric alcohols with polycarboxylic acids (i.e., a hydroxyl-functional polyester) (McCollough; page 12, line 23-page 13, line 2). Suitable crosslinking materials include blocked polyisocyanates (McCollough; page 13, lines 3-9 and page 6, lines 5-12).
Given that McCollough discloses crosslinkable film-forming materials that overlap the presently claimed film-forming resins and crosslinkers, including hydroxyl-functional polyesters and blocked isocyanates, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the hydroxyl-functional polyesters and blocked isocyanates in the compositions of McCollough in view of ASTM and Wang, which are both disclosed by McCollough and encompassed within the scope of the present claims, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 15, McCollough in view of ASTM and Wang are relied upon as teaching the limitations of claim 11 as discussed above, wherein the powder coating comprises a crosslinker. - The monocoat comprises one or more crosslinkable film-forming materials, including epoxies (McCollough; page 12, lines 5-9 and page 8, line 14-page 9, line 2).
Given that McCollough discloses crosslinkable film-forming materials that overlap the presently claimed film-forming resins, including epoxy resins, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the epoxy film-forming resins in the compositions of McCollough in view of ASTM and Wang, which are both disclosed by McCollough and encompassed within the scope of the present claims, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 17, McCollough in view of ASTM and Wang are relied upon as teaching the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Because McCollough does not teach or require the addition of flow aids to the retroreflective powder compositions, the powder coating compositions of McCollough in view of ASTM and Wang are substantially free of a flow control agent as claimed.
Regarding claims 19-20, McCollough in view of ASTM and Wang are relied upon as teaching the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. When the retroreflective microsphere beads are applied to the automotive vehicle component, they randomly orient themselves with respect to the plane of its surface, providing for retroreflection at a wider range of angles (McCollough; page 19, lines 3-8). The monocoating compositions can further comprise one or more pigments, including metallic pigments such as aluminum, silver, copper, or bronze flakes, mica, and untreated glass, i.e., metallic particles comprising aluminum, silver, copper or bronze (claims 19-20), and mica or glass-containing effect pigments (claim 19) (McCollough; page 14, lines 1-16).
Given that Bates discloses pigment additives that overlap the presently claimed additional particles that are different from the particles at least partially coated with a metallic material and which reflect light at two or more different angles, including aluminum, silver, copper, or bronze flakes, mica particles, and glass particles, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use metallic particles comprising aluminum, silver, copper or bronze, mica, or glass-containing effect pigments, in the compositions of McCollough in view of ASTM and Wang, which are both disclosed by McCollough and encompassed within the scope of the present claims, in order to provide for retroreflection at a wide range of angles, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 21, McCollough in view of ASTM and Wang are relied upon as teaching the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. The monocoating compositions may contain pigment particles, including, e.g., aluminum, silver, copper, or bronze flakes, carbon black, organic pigments, untreated glass beads (i.e., particles that are not coated with a metallic material or an additional material that lowers a surface energy of the particles). Transparent pigment particles yield improved retroreflectivity under nighttime conditions. Fluorescent or phosphorescent dyes can be used to provide daytime visibility (McCollough; page 14, lines 1-16).
In light of the motivation provided by McCollough to use pigments in the retroreflective powder coating compositions, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add noncoated pigment particles, differing from the metallic coated retroreflective microsphere beads, to the retroreflective powder coatings of McCollough in view of ASTM and Wang, in order to obtain the desired coating effect, such as improved retroreflectivity at night or daytime visibility, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCollough et al, WO 00/75242 A2 (McCollough) in view of ASTM Designation D4242-07, “Standard Test Method for Inclined Plate Flow for Thermosetting Coating Powders” (ASTM) and Wang, WO 2020/065562 A1 (Wang) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bates et al, WO 2012/112993 A2 (Bates).
Regarding claims 3 and 5, McCollough in view of ASTM and Wang are relied upon as teaching the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. McCollough teaches that when approximately 2,000 to 20,000 microsphere beads are deposited onto a square centimeter of automotive vehicle component, a portion of the microsphere beads will tend to gather on the upper surface of the lower lodged beads, forming multiple layers. The advantage of multi-tiered microsphere beads is they improve overall reflectivity of the substrate while maintaining desired levels of daytime unnoticeability (McCollough; page 23, line 20-page 24, line 9). Having microsphere beads in 2-3 layers increases nighttime reflectivity because there are more retroreflective microsphere beads located at higher elevations of the automobile components at different orientations. This is especially beneficial when children, pedestrians, bicyclists or other automobiles approach the road perpendicular to the direction the automobile is traveling (McCollough; page 25, lines 20-28).
McCollough does not explicitly teach wherein at least a portion of the particles are further coated with an additional material that lowers a surface energy of the particles (claim 3), or wherein the additional material comprises a silane containing material (claim 5).
With respect to the difference, Bates teaches a method of coating a substrate to form a hydrophobic, retro-reflective surface on a substrate (Bates; Abstract, [002]) comprising: applying a polymeric powder coating material to a substrate (step 2.), partially curing (step 3.), applying a retro-reflective material (step 4.), finish curing (step. 5), and then applying a surface treatment of hydrophobic nanoparticles (step 7.) (Bates; [013]).
The polymeric material of the powder coating includes thermoplastics, thermosets, and mixtures thereof. Thermoset resins that will chemically crosslink under the application of heat are preferred (Bates; [026-027]).
Preferred retro-reflective materials are spherical glass microspheres which may be hemispherically coated with metal so that they are more reflective (Bates; [045]).
Prior to applying the reflective material, the microspheres are treated such that they repel the polymeric coating (Bates; [055]). To achieve this, the microspheres are coated with a silane or a fluorochemical composition (i.e., at least a portion of the particles are further coated with an additional material that lowers the surface energy of the particles of claim 3, wherein the additional material comprises a silane containing material of claim 5) (Bates; [055]). The instant specification at ¶ [0026-0027] teaches that silanes and fluorinated materials are materials that can be used to lower the surface tension of the particles.
The end products for which the coating can be utilized include auto parts (Bates; [066]).
Bates is analogous art as it teaches powder coatings comprising thermoset resins and retroreflective glass microspheres which may be hemispherically coated with both metal and a silane or fluorochemical (Bates; [045]).
In light of the motivation by Bates to coat retroreflective glass microspheres which are hemispherically coated with metal with a silane or fluorochemical, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further coat the hemispherically metallic-coated, retroreflective microsphere beads in the powder coatings of McCollough in view of ASTM and Wang with a silane (or fluorochemical) as claimed in order to repel the powder polymeric coating, thereby distributing the microspheres to the surface of the coating, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention. Further, because McCollough is trying to achieve the same effect as Bates, i.e., retroreflective coatings with more retroreflective microsphere beads located at the surface of the substrate, and because both McCollough and Bates teach using the retroreflective powder coatings on automobile parts, those skilled in the art would have has a reasonable expectation of success in using the silane coatings of Bates on the microspheres of McCollough, absent a showing or teaching otherwise.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCollough et al, WO 00/75242 A2 (McCollough) in view of ASTM Designation D4242-07, “Standard Test Method for Inclined Plate Flow for Thermosetting Coating Powders” (ASTM) and Nachtman et al, US 2011/0300294 A1 (Nachtman).
Regarding claims 1-2, McCollough is relied upon above as teaching retroreflective powder coatings comprising: (a) a thermoset crosslinkable film-forming resin; and (b) a plurality of retroreflective microsphere beads, wherein microsphere beads are hemispherically coated with one or more metallic materials (McCollough; page 2, lines 2-6; page 4, lines 3-5; page 10, lines 11-12; page 11, line 26-page 12, line 2; page 5, lines 5-8; page 12, lines 5-9).
McCollough does not explicitly teach wherein the powder coating composition has a glass plate flow of 40 mm or less (claim 1), or 25 mm or less (claim 2), before addition to the plurality of particles.
With respect to the difference, ASTM is relied upon above as teaching the “Standard Test Method for Inclined Plate Flow for Thermosetting Coating Powders,” wherein the test gives an indication of the degree of melt flow that may occur during the curing of the coating powder. This characteristic contributes to the coherence of the coating, to its surface appearance, and to the degree of coverage over sharp edges. The test acts as a useful method for checking for batch to batch variation in the behavior of a given coating powder (ASTM; 1. Scope, para 1).
ASTM teaches that the test results may be referred to as “plate flow” or “pill flow” (ASTM; para 8.3 and 12. Keywords).
Nachtman teaches a writable-erasable surface prepared by a powder coating process, and a curable powder coating composition (Nachtman; Abstract and [0002]).
Nachtman teaches that the “pill flow” rate of a powder material can be determined by measuring powder flow-out when heated. Pressed “pills” are placed on a preheated glass plate and allowed to flow and gel, and the flow distances are then measured in millimeters (mm). For example, decorative coating pill flow rates measure from about 30-80mm, which indicates a relative smoothness of the cured film. The pill flow rate for precursor materials in powder form (emphasis added) (i.e., the claimed powder coating composition before addition of the plurality of particles) can be from about 10mm to about 100mm, e.g. from about 10mm to about 20mm, from about 20mm to about 30mm, from about 30mm to about 40mm, etc. (Nachtman; [0065]).
Nachtman is analogous art as it teaches “pill flow” or glass plate flow rates for powder coating compositions.
In light of the motivation provided by ASTM and Nachtman to test and optimize the glass plate flow rate of thermoset powder coating compositions, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to test and optimize the glass plate flow of the crosslinkable film-forming resins in the precursor powder coatings of McCollough, i.e., before addition to the retro-reflective particles, in order to obtain the desired melt flow, coherence, surface appearance, and degree of coverage over sharp edges of the cured powder coating, while minimizing the batch to batch variation in the behavior of the coating powder. Further, in light of the motivation provided by Nachtman to use powder coatings having a pill flow rate of 10-100mm, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select a crosslinkable film-forming material which has a glass plate flow (or “pill flow”) range of from about 10mm to about 100mm, including from about 10mm to about 20mm, from about 20mm to about 30mm, or from about 30mm to about 40mm, in order to ensure a smoothness of the coated film.
10-100nm overlaps with the claimed range of 40mm or less (claim 1), and 25mm or less (claim 2), and the exemplified ranges of 10-20mm, 20-30mm and 30-40mm fall within the claimed corresponding ranges.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Response to Arguments
1) Applicant’s Amendments filed 02/11/2026 have overcome the claim objections previously of record.
2) Applicant’s Amendments filed 02/11/2026 have overcome the 35 USC § 112(b) rejections previously of record.
3) Applicant’s Remarks and amendments filed 02/11/2026, with respect to the 35 USC 102(a)(1) / 35 USC 103 rejection over Bates et al, WO 2012/112993 A2, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1, 3 and 10-11 has been withdrawn. Specifically, Bates does not teach coating compositions having a glass plate flow of 40mm or less as required by the presently claimed invention.
4) The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections over Bates; over Bates in view of ASTM Designation D4242-07, “Standard Test Method for Inclined Plate Flow for Thermosetting Coating Powders” (ASTM) and Nachtman et al, US 2011/0300294 A1 (Nachtman); and over Bates in view of ASTM and Nachtman, and further in view of Agawa et al, JP 2003-055612 A (Agawa), have been withdrawn for the reasons set forth in the Examiner’s Note on page 2 above. Specifically, because Bates partially cures the polymeric coating on the substrate before adding the retroreflective microspheres, Bates does not teach a powder coating comprising both (a) a binder comprising a film-forming resin; and (b) a plurality of particles in which at least a portion of the particles are at least partially coated with a metallic material as claimed (emphasis added), wherein the retroreflective powder coating composition has a glass plate flow of 40 mm or less.
However, upon further consideration and search, new sets of rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 are provided as set forth below.
5) Applicant's arguments filed 02/11/2026 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive for the following reasons.
Applicant primarily argues:
“As noted in paragraph [0041] of the present specification, it was found that formulating a coating composition having a glass plate flow (GPF) of 40 mm or less, such as 25 mm or less, before addition of the plurality of particles, can increase the amount of retroreflective particles in the final coating composition located in the surface region of the coating layer formed from the retroreflective powder coating composition.”
Remarks, pages 2-3.
Examiner respectfully traverses for the following reasons. McCollough in view of in view of ASTM and Wang or Nachtman teach using glass flow plate rates in order to determine the performance of the films formed by curing the compositions, and in order to obtain the desired melt flow, coherence, surface appearance, and degree of coverage over sharp edges of the cured powder coating, while minimizing the batch to batch variation in the behavior of the coating powder.
The reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed.Cir. 2006); Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1323, 76 USPQ2d 1662,1685 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Linter, 458 F.2d 1013, 173 USPQ 560 (CCPA 1972) (discussed below); In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 904 (1991). MPEP 2144 IV.
6) Applicant further agues:
“Neither ASTM, which merely iterates the standard test method for determining inclined plate flow for thermosetting coating powders, nor Nachtman … teach or suggest the claimed retroreflective powder coating composition.”
Remarks, page 3.
Examiner respectfully disagrees because as explained in 5) above, ASTM and Nachtman provide motivation to adjust the glass plate flow rate in powder coating compositions to within ranges as claimed in order to achieve powder coatings with the desired smoothness of the coated film, melt flow, coherence, surface appearance, and degree of coverage over sharp edges of the cured powder coating, while minimizing the batch to batch variation in the behavior of the coating powder.
Therefore, Applicant’s Remarks have been fully considered, but are not deemed persuasive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cospheric, “By Coating,” teaches sodium barium titanate glass microspheres that are hemispherically coated with a thin aluminum coating, and then further coated with either silane (for aqueous systems) or fluorochemical (for solvent-based systems) to offer exceptional retroreflective properties.
Schleifstein, US 6,482,519 B1, teaches microparticle glass beads which are coated to enable them to be distributed adjacent to the surface of, e.g., plastic coatings, wherein the coatings comprise silanes or fluorochemicals (Abstract and claim 4).
Giordano et al, US 4,609,587, teaches retroreflective materials made by coating glass particles with both hydrophobic polymers and silane coupling agents in order to reduce the surface energy on the glass (Abstract; col. 1, lines 29-65; and col. 2, lines 29-35).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAROLINE D LIOTT whose telephone number is (703)756-1836. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5.
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, Coris Fung can be reached at (571)270-5713. 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.
/CDL/Examiner, Art Unit 1732
/CORIS FUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1732
