DETAILED ACTION
The following Office action concerns Patent Application Number 18/247,935. Claims 1-4, 6, 15, 23, 26-28, 33, 37, 40, 45, 51, 53 are pending in the application.
Claims 15, 23, 26-28, 33, 37, 40, 45, 51, 53 are withdrawn from consideration as being drawn to non-elected inventions.
The applicant’s amendment filed July 20, 2026 has been entered.
The previous grounds of rejection are withdrawn in light of the applicant’s amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. § 112 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
(b) CONCLUSION.-The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) because the term “60 wt % loss of volatiles” is indefinite. The method of claim 1 does not require the coating composition to contain volatiles. Therefore, it is unclear what is required by the term “60 wt % loss of volatiles.”
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 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 1-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Moore et al (US 2021/0170444) in view of Diaddario et al (US 2009/0032145).
Moore et al teaches a method of forming a coating on a substrate comprising applying a coating composition to a substrate using a valve jet to spray droplets in a jet (par. 4, 33, 86). The coating composition comprises water (aqueous carrier) and film-forming polymer (resin) (par. 158-159). The polymer includes a cross-linking functional group including hydroxyl (par. 160). The composition further comprises a cross-linking agent having an isocyanate group (co-reactive material) (par. 179). The method includes curing the coating composition after applying the (uncured) coating (par. 177). The coating layer has a solvent resistance of at least 20 MEK double rubs as measured according to ASTM D4752 (par. 80).
Moore et al does not teach the solvent resistance as measured according to ASTM D5402. However, the method of Moore et al includes all of the steps and materials of the claimed method. Therefore, it is reasonable that a person of ordinary skill in the art would expect the claimed 100 MEK double rubs (solvent resistance) to naturally arise.
Regarding claim 2, Moore et al is silent regarding loss of volatiles upon baking the composition. However, Moore et al teaches the claimed coating composition including the aqueous solvent. Therefore, it is reasonable that a person of ordinary skill in the art would expect the claimed loss of volatiles to naturally arise.
Regarding claim 3, the coating composition comprises water, which is a one-component composition.
Regarding claim 4, Moore et al is silent regarding the viscosity ratio of the first component and the second component. However, Moore et al teaches the claimed coating composition including the claimed film-forming resin and claimed co-reactive material. Therefore, it is reasonable that a person of ordinary skill in the art would expect the claimed viscosity ratio to naturally arise.
Regarding claim 6, Moore et al is silent regarding the ratio of viscosity at 0.1 s-1 shear rate to 1000 s-1 shear rate. However, Moore et al teaches the claimed coating composition including all of the components. Therefore, it is reasonable that a person of ordinary skill in the art would expect the claimed ratio of viscosity to naturally arise.
Moore et al does not teach any of the claimed rheology modifiers.
However, Diaddario et al teaches a coating composition comprising rheology modifier including polyvinyl pyrrolidone (par. 55).
Moore et al teaches that the composition includes a rheology modifier, but does not teach a specific example of a rheology modifier. Diaddario et al teaches that polyvinyl pyrrolidone is a suitable rheology modifier (par. 55). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by design need to combine the rheology modifier of Diaddario et al with the method of Moore et al in order to obtain a suitable rheology modifier.
Response to Arguments
The applicant argues that there is no motivation to combine the rheology modifier of Diaddario et al with the method of Moore et al. However, Moore et al teaches that the composition includes a rheology modifier, but does not teach any specific example of a rheology modifier. Diaddario et al teaches that polyvinyl pyrrolidone is a suitable rheology modifier (par. 55). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by design need for a known rheology to combine the rheology modifier of Diaddario et al with the method of Moore et al.
Conclusion
The 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Examiner’s Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to William Young whose telephone number is (571) 270-5078. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 8:30 AM to 5 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Angela Brown-Pettigrew, can be reached at 571-272-2817. 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./WILLIAM D YOUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761 August 6, 2026
Prosecution Insights