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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okazaki et al. (US 2020/0398308).
Regarding claim 1, Okazaki et al. teaches a multilayer coating film comprising a colored paint (X) on a substrate and an effect pigment dispersion (Y) on (X) (paragraph [0010]), wherein (X) comprises carbon black (paragraph [0034]), i.e. absorbent pigment, and does not include flake-form effect pigments and (Y) contains an effect pigment comprising a metal oxide coated flake base material (paragraph [0072]) which includes mica pigments coated with titanium oxide and/or iron oxide as well as metal oxide coated alumina flakes (paragraphs [0073] and [0077]-[0078]) in an amount of 1 to 90 parts (paragraph [0083]). 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); see MPEP 2144.05.
Given that Okazaki et al. teaches coating comprising materials and structure identical to that presently claimed, the coating of Okazaki et al. would necessarily be capable of functioning as a radar-compatible coating as well as necessarily have a colour separation as presently claimed.
Regarding claim 2, given that Okazaki et al. teaches coating comprising materials and structure identical to that presently claimed, the coating of Okazaki et al. would necessarily have a lightness L* as presently claimed, absent evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claim 3, given that Okazaki et al. teaches coating comprising materials and structure identical to that presently claimed, the coating of Okazaki et al. would necessarily have a flop index as presently claimed, absent evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claim 4, Okazaki et al. teaches that the first layer has a black colour and comprises organic absorption pigments or inorganic absorption pigments (paragraphs [0034]-[0036]).
Regarding claim 5, Okazaki et al. teaches flake-effect pigment (B) for use in the effect pigment dispersion (Y) may include iron oxide (paragraphs [0072]-[0080]). Given that Okazaki et al. teaches pigment identical to that presently claimed, it is reasonable to expect the interference pigment to have a silver-grey absorption colour as presently claimed, absent evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claim 7, Okazaki et al. teaches that the flake-effect pigment (B) has a content of 1 to 90 parts by mass (paragraph [0083]) which encompasses the claimed range of 10 to 40% by weight.
Regarding claim 8, Okazaki et al. teaches that the second layer has a layer thickness in the range from 3 to 100 μm (paragraph [0103]) and when dried 0.05 to 3 μm (paragraph [0104]).
Regarding claim 10, Okazaki et al. teaches that the substrate is a plastic film (paragraph [0017]).
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Okazaki et al. teaches that a further layer of clear paint (Z) may be applied to effect coating film (Y) (paragraphs [0107]-[0108]).
Regarding claim 13, Okazaki et al. teaches that it is a vehicle finish (paragraph [0002]).
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okazaki et al. (US 2020/0398308) in view of Yagi et al. (US 2010/0129558).
Okazaki et al. is relied upon as disclosed above.
Regarding claim 9, Okazaki et al. fails to teach that the second layer consists of two or more part-layers arranged one above the other.
However, Yagi et al. teaches paint films comprising an undercoat paint film layer and a top-coat paint film layer (See Abstract), wherein the undercoat paint film layer comprises carbon black (paragraph [0025]) and the top-coat paint film layer comprises titanium oxide, red iron oxide, etc. (paragraph [0039]), and wherein another layer, the same as the top-coat paint film layer, may be formed over the top-coat paint film layer (paragraph [0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a second layer in the coating of Okazaki et al. in order to impart the desired heat-radiating properties (Yagi et al., paragraph [0052]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that there is absolutely no mention of any requirement with regard to radar-compatibility of the coating disclosed by Okazaki. In contrast, in paragraph (0034) of Okazaki it is described that the coatings can contain metallic pigments which the present invention does omit.
It is agreed that Okazaki does not explicitly disclose radar-compatibility of the coating. However, given that Okazaki et al. teaches coating comprising materials and structure identical to that presently claimed, the coating of Okazaki et al. would necessarily be capable of functioning as a radar-compatible coating as presently claimed, absent evidence to the contrary. Further, while other pigments are disclosed in paragraph [0034] of Okazaki, it is noted these pigments are not required and only alternative options.
Applicant argues that Yagi, cited regarding claim 9 only as a secondary reference, concerns paint films which have excellent heat-radiating properties and a method for their formation. In contrast, the claims herein, including claim 9, are concern with coatings compatible with radar waves having a frequency range of 76 - 81 GHz.
However, note that while Yagi does not disclose all the features of the present claimed invention, Yagi is used as teaching reference, and therefore, it is not necessary for this secondary reference to contain all the features of the presently claimed invention, In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973), In re Keller 624 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). Rather this reference teaches a certain concept, namely a second layer, and in combination with the primary reference, discloses the presently claimed invention.
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 CHENG HUANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7387. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday from 7 AM to 5 PM.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHENG YUAN HUANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787