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 .
Claims 1-19 are pending.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 9-11, 13, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2015-105297 A (“Nakamizu”) in view of KR 20180118970 A (“Lee”) and JP H08-245913 (“Uramatsu”).
Partial machine translations of JP 2015-105297 A, KR 20180118970 A, and JP H08-245913 are enclosed.
As to claims 1, 10, and 13, Nakamizu teaches a coating (paint) composition (para. 0001) including a resin mixture of hydroxyl group containing acryl resin and hydroxyl group containing polyester (para. 0008). Nakamizu teaches the hydroxyl group containing polyacryl resin has a weight average molecular weight of 8000-30000, and hydroxyl value of 100 to 250 mg KOH/g (para. 0015), the latter of which calculates to approximately 220-560 g per hydroxyl group, and thus it is reasonable to presume the resin is an acrylic polyol. Likewise, the hydroxyl functional polyester has a number average molecular weight of 2000-10000, and hydroxyl value of 50 to 200 mg KOH/g (para. 0023), or 280 to 1120 g per hydroxyl group, and therefore it is reasonable to presume the polyester is a polyester polyol.
Nakamizu teaches the composition further contains resin beads, preferably urethane beads (para. 0030).
Nakamizu teaches the use of additional components including organic solvent (also exemplified by use of resins in solvent in the examples, para. 0052), curing catalyst (accelerator) used in examples (para. 0036, para. 0063, teaching Neostan U-100).
While not exemplified, Nakamizu also teaches the use of UV absorber, which acts as a stabilizer (para. 0036).
While not exemplified, Nakamizu teaches the composition contains a surface adjusting (conditioning) agent (para. 0036). Nakamizu does not state that this is a polysiloxane based surface conditioning agent. Lee teaches similar coating compositions containing hydroxyl functional acrylic resin, hydroxyl functional polyester, for automotive part coating purposes, and teaches the utility of surface conditioner of the siloxane type for improving the appearance quality of such a coating, and as such, the use of siloxane surface conditioner is an obvious modification for improving a coating surface known in the art.
Nakamizu differs from the recited claim in that it does not discuss the use of anti-sedimentation agent or wax, but is not limiting as to additives. Uramatsu teaches the utility of polyethylene wax as an antisedimentation agent for preventing settling in nonaqueous coating compositions (paras. 0003, 0010). Given that Nakamizu teaches the use of various inorganic pigments, the use of polyethylene wax as required by claims 1 and 10, which is also a wax as required by claims 1 and 13, is an obvious modification known in the coatings art for preventing sedimentation.
As to claim 2, while not exemplified, Nakamizu teaches the use of additional pigments, including silica (para. 0036, 0039). While it is not stated that this is a matting agent, silica is the same material, and thus presumed to have the same function.
As to claim 9, Nakamizu teaches that the solvent may be ester based or ketone based (para. 0042), but does not teach the specific solvents. Lee teaches similar coating compositions containing hydroxyl functional acrylic resin, hydroxyl functional polyester, for automotive part coating purposes, and teaches that suitable solvents include ketone solvents include methyl isobutyl ketone, methyl ethyl ketone, and ester solvents including ethyl acetate (para. 0058), and combinations of these, and as such, the use of the recited solvents is an obvious modification taught to be suitable for coating compositions by Lee.
As to claim 11, Nakamizu teaches that the curing catalyst may be dibutyltin dilaurate (para. 0041), and as such the use of this for accelerating curing is an obvious modification suggested by Nakamizu.
As to claim 15, while not exemplified, Nakamizu teaches urethane beads in the range of 0.1 to 30 micrometers (para. 0031), which includes size in the recited range. Nakamizu teaches the same provides a good finished appearance, and is therefore an obvious modification suggested by Nakamizu.
As to claim 17, Nakamizu teaches a coating (paint) composition (para. 0001) and a coated article (para. 0008) including a resin mixture of hydroxyl group containing acryl resin and hydroxyl group containing polyester (para. 0008). Nakamizu teaches the hydroxyl group containing polyacryl resin has a weight average molecular weight of 8000-30000, and hydroxyl value of 100 to 250 mg KOH/g (para. 0015), the latter of which calculates to approximately 220-560 g per hydroxyl group, and thus it is reasonable to presume the resin is an acrylic polyol. Likewise, the hydroxyl functional polyester has a number average molecular weight of 2000-10000, and hydroxyl value of 50 to 200 mg KOH/g (para. 0023), or 280 to 1120 g per hydroxyl group, and therefore it is reasonable to presume the polyester is a polyester polyol.
Nakamizu teaches the composition further contains resin beads, preferably urethane beads (para. 0030).
Nakamizu teaches the use of additional components including organic solvent (also exemplified by use of resins in solvent in the examples, para. 0052), curing catalyst (accelerator) used in examples (para. 0036, para. 0063, teaching Neostan U-100).
While not exemplified, Nakamizu also teaches the use of UV absorber, which acts as a stabilizer (para. 0036).
While not exemplified, Nakamizu teaches the composition contains a surface adjusting (conditioning) agent (para. 0036). Nakamizu does not state that this is a polysiloxane based surface 245913conditioning agent. Lee teaches similar coating compositions containing hydroxyl functional acrylic resin, hydroxyl functional polyester, for automotive part coating purposes, and teaches the utility of surface conditioner of the siloxane type for improving the appearance quality of such a coating, and as such, the use of siloxane surface conditioner is an obvious modification for improving a coating surface known in the art.
Nakamizu differs from the recited claim in that it does not discuss the use of anti-sedimentation agent or wax, but is not limiting as to additives. Uramatsu teaches the utility of polyethylene wax as an antisedimentation agent for preventing settling in nonaqueous coating compositions (paras. 0003, 0010). Given that Nakamizu teaches the use of various inorganic pigments, the use of polyethylene wax, which is also a wax, is an obvious modification known in the coatings art for preventing sedimentation.
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2015-105297 A (“Nakamizu”) in view of KR 20180118970 A (“Lee”) and JP H08-245913 (“Uramatsu”) as applied to claim 2, further in view of KR 20080101187 A (“Hyundai”).
A partial machine translation of KR 20080101187 A is enclosed.
As to claim 3, Nakamizu in view of Lee and Uramatsu teach the use of silica, but not a particle size. Hyundai teaches polyurethane based coatings for automobile interior parts, and teaches that silica in the range of 5 to 10 microns provides scratch resistance (translation, p. 5). Hyundai notes the same provide flatting (matting) effect as well, and therefore it is an obvious modification to use silica, including in the recited particle size, to achieve scratch resistance and matting.
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2015-105297 A (“Nakamizu”) in view of KR 20180118970 A (“Lee”) and JP H08-245913 (“Uramatsu”) as applied to claim 2, further in view of US 2005/0241531 (“Meyer”).
As to claim 4, Nakamizu teaches fillers including silica, which is presumed to be a matting agent, but does not discuss the pH and surface area. Meyer teaches the utility in lacquers (coatings) of silicas having a BET surface area of 25 to 400 m2/g and pH between 3 and 10, which encompasses the recited ranges (Meyer, para. 0007, 0009). Meyer teaches that the use of silicas is useful for improving scratch resistance (para. 0079). As such, it would be an obvious modification to use silica of the recited pH and surface area, and in addition, it is presumed to be a matting agent of silica.
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2015-105297 A (“Nakamizu”) in view of KR 20180118970 A (“Lee”) and JP H08-245913 (“Uramatsu”) as applied to claim 2, further in view of US 5,910,369 (“Macris”).
As to claim 5, Nakamizu teaches the use of silica, but does not discuss fumed silica. Macris teaches coating compositions, including urethane type coating compositions, and teaches that silicas, including fumed silicas may be added for providing flat finish as desired (6:57-62). As such, the use of fumed silica as filler for flatting (matting) is an obvious substitution known in the art of coatings.
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2015-105297 A (“Nakamizu”) in view of KR 20180118970 A (“Lee”) and JP H08-245913 (“Uramatsu”) as applied to claim 1, further as evidenced by US 2016/0154436 (“Woo”).
As to claim 12, Nakamizu in view of Lee does not explicitly discuss the recited type of UV stabilizer; however, Lee teaches similar coating compositions containing hydroxyl functional acrylic resin, hydroxyl functional polyester, for automotive part coating purposes. Lee exemplifies Tinuvin 5151, which as evidenced by Woo, para. 0071, is a hydroxyphenylbenzotriozole type. As such, the exemplified compounds as a UV stabilizer is an obvious modification suggested by Lee.
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2015-105297 A (“Nakamizu”) in view of KR 20180118970 A (“Lee”) and JP H08-245913 (“Uramatsu”) as applied to claim 1, further in view of KR 20090028198 A (“Oh”).
A partial machine translation of KR 20090028198 A is enclosed.
As to claim 14, Nakamizu in view of Lee and Uramatsu do not discuss the use of wax of the recited particle size. However, Oh teaches an acrylic polyol and polyester polyol compositions for similar purposes, and teaches the utility of wax having the recited particle size for repaintability (translation, p. 5), and as such, the use of wax in the recited particle size as an ordinary additive for this purpose is an obvious modification suggested by Oh.
Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2015-105297 A (“Nakamizu”) in view of KR 20180118970 A (“Lee”) and JP H08-245913 (“Uramatsu”) as applied to claim 1, further in view of US 2010/0062254 (“Park”).
A partial machine translation of WO 2015/156285 A1 is enclosed.
As to claim 16, Nakamizu teaches polyurethane beads, but is silent as to whether it is a non-crosslinked polymer. Park teaches polyurethane particles (abstract), which are beads (see figs.) for paints (para. 0004). Park teaches that thermoplastic polyurethane beads provide a soft feeling (para. 0034) when incorporated, the thermoplastic polyurethane being formed of difunctional hydroxyl and isocyanate compounds, thus noncrosslinked. As such, the use of non-crosslinked urethane beads for imparting soft texture is an obvious modification known in the art of coatings.
Claim(s) 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2015-105297 A (“Nakamizu”) in view of KR 20180118970 A (“Lee”) JP H08-245913 (“Uramatsu”), and KR 20180043004 A (“Jeong”).
A partial machine translation of KR 20180043004 A is enclosed.
Nakamizu teaches a coating (paint) composition (para. 0001) and a coated article (para. 0008) including a resin mixture of hydroxyl group containing acryl resin and hydroxyl group containing polyester (para. 0008). Nakamizu teaches the hydroxyl group containing polyacryl resin has a weight average molecular weight of 8000-30000, and hydroxyl value of 100 to 250 mg KOH/g (para. 0015), the latter of which calculates to approximately 220-560 g per hydroxyl group, and thus it is reasonable to presume the resin is an acrylic polyol. Likewise, the hydroxyl functional polyester has a number average molecular weight of 2000-10000, and hydroxyl value of 50 to 200 mg KOH/g (para. 0023), or 280 to 1120 g per hydroxyl group, and therefore it is reasonable to presume the polyester is a polyester polyol.
Nakamizu teaches the composition further contains resin beads, preferably urethane beads (para. 0030).
Nakamizu teaches the use of additional components including organic solvent (also exemplified by use of resins in solvent in the examples, para. 0052), curing catalyst (accelerator) used in examples (para. 0036, para. 0063, teaching Neostan U-100).
While not exemplified, Nakamizu also teaches the use of UV absorber, which acts as a stabilizer (para. 0036).
While not exemplified, Nakamizu teaches the composition contains a surface adjusting (conditioning) agent (para. 0036). Nakamizu does not state that this is a polysiloxane based surface conditioning agent. Lee teaches similar coating compositions containing hydroxyl functional acrylic resin, hydroxyl functional polyester, for automotive part coating purposes, and teaches the utility of surface conditioner of the siloxane type for improving the appearance quality of such a coating, and as such, the use of siloxane surface conditioner is an obvious modification for improving a coating surface known in the art.
Nakamizu differs from the recited claim in that it does not discuss the use of anti-sedimentation agent or wax, but is not limiting as to additives. Uramatsu teaches the utility of polyethylene wax as an antisedimentation agent for preventing settling in nonaqueous coating compositions (paras. 0003, 0010). Given that Nakamizu teaches the use of various inorganic pigments, the use of polyethylene wax, which is also a wax, is an obvious modification known in the coatings art for preventing sedimentation.
Nakamizu teaches that the coating can be applied to automotive parts (para. 0002), but does not discuss the base layer, base color layer, and hydraulic transfer layer. Jeong teaches the utility of paints containing acrylic polyol and polyester polyol for providing a coating on hydraulic transfer parts. Jeong teaches providing such a coating, for example on an ABS part (base layer), with a silver color base (base color layer on the base layer) on which a hydraulic transfer layer on top, followed by a protective paint (skin layer) (para. 0071). Given the compositional similarity of the paint of Nakamizu, the use of such a paint as a skin layer for hydraulic transfer printed automotive parts is an obvious end use for the composition of Nakamizu as suggested by Jeong.
As to claim 19, while not exemplified, Nakamizu teaches the use of additional pigments, including silica (para. 0036, 0039). While it is not stated that this is a matting agent, silica is the same material, and thus presumed to have the same function.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art, including Nakamizu cited above, does not provide sufficient rationale for arriving at the relative amounts provided in claim 6. Neither does Nakamizu of other art provide rationale for the specific combination of acrylic polyols of claim 7, nor the polyester polyol with the specific characteristics of claim 8 in combination with the components of claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KREGG T BROOKS whose telephone number is (313)446-4888. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9 am to 5:30 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, Arrie 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.
/KREGG T BROOKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764