DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on March 2, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 2, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the amendments to independent claim 1 overcome the prior art rejection of McQuown in view of Kalkanoglu. However, the examiner disagrees. Applicants submit that claim 1 is not anticipated because the McQuown reference does not describe a single layer coating system. However, the examiner notes that McQuown discloses a in [0059] that in some examples, the solar reflective coating composition is the sole coating layer over the substrate. McQuown discloses that the substrate may be (which also implies that it may not be) primed or treated. Further, McQuown discloses that this resin composition may include a thermosetting resin in [0016]. Thus, applicant’s arguments that the claim amendments overcome the present rejection are unpersuasive.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the single layer coating system” should be amended to read “the single layer thermoset coating system.” Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 6-8, 11-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McQuown et al. (US 2019/0127592) in view of Kalkanoglu et al. (US 2016/0107929).
McQuown et al. discloses the following claim limitations:
Regarding claim 1: a single layer thermoset coating system [0016], comprising: an unprimed substrate [0059] (in some examples, the solar reflective coating composition is the sole coating layer over the substrate); a coating composition applied thereon, the composition comprising: a binder resin component [0014]; optionally, a crosslinking component [0018]; and a dispersion comprising (a) at least one pigment that is reflective in the near-infrared (NIR) region and (b) at least one pigment that is transparent in the near-infrared region [0014], wherein the single layer coating system has total solar reflectance (TSR) of at least about 30 [0058] – [0058].
McQuown et al. do not disclose the single layer coating system is a dark colored coating system with L* value between 0 and 30; however, this is disclosed by Kalkanoglu et al. (claim 10). This is achieved by using a dark pigment with a L* of less than 30 [0016], [0017], [0057]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the coating system taught by McQuown et al. with the dark color pigments such that the coating system is a dark colored coating system with a L* value of between 0 and 30 of Kalkanoglu et al. in order to provide a layer that provides protective functions, as well as aesthetics.
Regarding claim 6: McQuown et al. teach the at least one pigment that is transparent in the NIR region is a perylene pigment [0022].
Regarding claim 7: McQuown et al. teach the at least one pigment that is transparent in the NIR region is a black perylene pigment [0022] – [0027].
Regarding claim 8: McQuown et al. teach the at least one pigment that is transparent in the NIR region demonstrates reflectance of at least 25% at a wavelength of 750 nm [0021] – [0023] (Paliogen Black).
Regarding claim 11: McQuown et al. teach the substrate is a metal substrate selected from aluminum, steel, galvanized aluminum, or combinations thereof [0047] – [0054].
Regarding claim 12: McQuown et al. teach the substrate is an inert material selected from glass, plastic, wood, concrete, composite materials, or combinations thereof [0047] – [0054].
Regarding claim 13: McQuown et al. teach the substrate is not reflective [0047] – [0054] (many substrates listed are not reflective).
Regarding claim 16: McQuown et al. teach the substrate defines an interior space [0047].
Regarding claim 17: McQuown et al. teach the substrate defines an exterior space [0047].
Regarding claim 20: McQuown et al. teach the interior or exterior space defined by the substrate forms at least part of a wall, roof, road, deck, railing, automotive surface, or combination thereof [0047] – [0054].
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McQuown et al. (US 2019/0127592) and Kalkanoglu et al. (US 2016/0107929) and further in view of Keuk et al. (US 8,753,443).
Regarding claim 4, McQuown et al. disclose the following claim limitations: at least one pigment that is reflective in the NIR region with one or more colors or mixtures thereof [0036] – [0044], Table 1. However, McQuown et al. and Kalkanoglu et al. do not disclose the at least one pigment that is reflective in the NIR region is a tint paste including two or more tint pastes each having one or more colors, or mixtures thereof. Keuk et al. teach disclose the at least one pigment that is reflective in the NIR region is a tint paste including two or more tint pastes each having one or more colors, or mixtures thereof (column 2, line 63 – column 3, line 8). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the coating system taught by McQuown et al. and Kalkanoglu et al. with the tint paste taught by Keuk et al. in order provide a colorant that reduces harm to humans and the environment and is compatible with a variety of coating systems.
Regarding claim 5, McQuown et al. discloses a transparent pigment that is a black pigment [0023]. However, McQuown et al. and Kalkanoglu et al. do not disclose the at least one pigment that is transparent in the NIR region is a tint paste including at least a black pigment. Keuk et al. teach the at least one pigment that is transparent in the NIR region is a tint paste including at least a black pigment (column 2, line 63 – column 3, line 8, column 5, lines 1-26). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the coating system taught by McQuown et al. and Kalkanoglu et al. with the tint paste taught by Keuk et al. in order provide a colorant that reduces harm to humans and the environment and is compatible with a variety of coating systems.
Further, it is noted, that McQuown et al. incorporates the use of Keuk et al. into its reference, further suggesting that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to modify McQuown et al. and Kalkanoglu et al. with Keuk et al.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McQuown et al. (US 2019/0127592) and Kalkanoglu et al. (US 2016/0107929) and further in view of Jakobi et al. (US 2004/0191540).
Regarding claim 9: McQuown et al. discloses the pigment that is transparent in the NIR region demonstrates reflectance [0021] – [0023]. However, McQuown et al. in view of Kalkanoglu et al. does not specifically disclose the pigment that is transparent demonstrates reflectance of at least 50% at a wavelength of 900 nm, as part of the coating composition. Jakobi et al. disclose the pigment that is transparent demonstrates reflectance of at least 50% at a wavelength of 900 nm, as part of the coating composition [0044]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the coating system taught by McQuown et al. and Kalkanoglu et al. with the pigment having a reflectance as taught by Jakobi et al. in order reduce the temperature of the substrate and maintain comfort inside the interior of dark vehicles.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McQuown et al. (US 2019/0127592) and Kalkanoglu et al. (US 2016/0107929) and further in view of Zalich et al. (WO 2017/116547).
Regarding claim 10, McQuown et al. discloses at least one pigment that is reflective in the NIR region [0014]. However, McQuown et al. and Kalkanoglu et al. do not disclose the at least one pigment that is reflective in the NIR region is present in an amount of about 7.5 vol%, based on the total pigment volume concentration (PVC) of the composition. Zalich et al. disclose the at least one pigment that is reflective in the NIR region is present in an amount of about 7.5 vol%, based on the total pigment volume concentration (PVC) of the composition [0069]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the coating system taught by McQuown et al. and Kalkanoglu et al. with the amount of pigment taught by Zalich et al. to have a better impact on sensor contrast in coating compositions.
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McQuown et al. (US 2019/0127592) in view of Kalkanoglu et al. (US 2016/0107929).
Regarding claim 18: McQuown et al. disclose the coating reducing the effect of infrared energy on the substrate and reducing the increase in temperature of the space defined by the substrate [0002] – [0003], [0068], Table 2. While McQuown et al. and Kalkanoglu et al. do not specifically disclose that these impacts would have been had on an interior space as defined by the substrate, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that these impacts would be had in any interior or exterior space of a substrate, as it is a property of the coating composition. Further, McQuown et al. discloses an exterior metal panel, leather or fabric seating areas (both interior and exterior car features) that the substrate can coat [0047], which further illustrates the benefits would be found on either interior or exterior substrates.
Regarding claim 19: McQuown et al. and Kalkanoglu et al. disclose the coating reducing the effect of infrared energy on the substrate and reducing the increase in temperature of the space defined by the substrate [0002] – [0003], [0068], Table 2. While McQuown et al. and Kalkanoglu et al. do not specifically disclose that these impacts would have been had on an exterior space as defined by the substrate, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that these impacts would be had in any interior or exterior space of a substrate, as it is a property of the coating composition. Further, McQuown et al. discloses an exterior metal panel, leather or fabric seating areas (both interior and exterior car features) that the substrate can coat [0047], which further illustrates the benefits would be found on either interior or exterior substrates.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Laura Martin whose telephone number is (571)272-2160. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30am - 3:30 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, Andrea Wellington can be reached at 571-272-4483. 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.
/LAURA MARTIN/ SPE, Art Unit 2855