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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS. —Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 10 sets forth the limitation “the polymethine” in line 3. However, claim 1 does not require polymethine in the coating composition. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 8, 11, 16-17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Mamak et al (8,168,711)).
Mamak et al sets forth heat shielding additives comprising powders dispersions of powder-based on tungsten hydrogen bronze having minor amounts of tungsten metal having good IR absorbing and heat shielding properties, wherein said powder dispersion are suitable for coil coatings—see abstract and col. 19, lines 55-60.
Said powder composition comprises from 25-70 parts by weight of a hydrogen tungsten bronze, 20-70 parts by weight, especially 30-60 parts by weight, of a binary tungsten oxide, and
1-30 parts by weight of tungsten metal—see col. 1, lines 35-40. Mamak sets forth said particulate powders absorb IR radiation from 800 to 2500 nm—see col. 2, lines 20-23.
Said powder dispersion disclosed as being incorporated in to coating compositions comprising thermoplastic polymers materials—see col. 2, lines 53-55. Said particle and/or powder compositions are combined with one or more further additives, such as antioxidant, UV absorbers and light stabilizers, nucleating agents, fillers and reinforcing agents, and other additive in amounts from 0.01 to 10 % by weight—see col. 7, line 44 to col. 15, line40. Mamak sets forth coatings comprising (A) binder resins (polymer material) comprising a functional acrylate and crosslinking agent; (B) the powder particles, and (C) a light stabilizer—see col. 17, line 45 and col. 18, lines 42-44. Said coating compositions comprising (A), (B), and (C), as well as, further additive—see col. 18, Lines 58-65.
Regarding claims 1, 3, 8, 16-17: Per the examples Mamak sets forth obtaining a coating by a mill based found in example 3.4 found in col. 24 comprising the tungsten IR-absorbing powder mixture (absorbance maximum from 800 to 2500), a dispersant, solvent, and a urea-aldehyde resin. Said mill-base is added to a let-down formulation comprising a 2p polyurethane (claim 8 and 17) clear coat (see col. 24, lines 30—35) and an acrylate monomer mixture with a polyisocyanate— (claim 16) see col. 24, lines 1-46. Said composition is coated and cured using a NIR-lamp (near-infrared lamp), which emits wavelengths from 800 to 1200 nm (claims 3, 11). The composition example is deemed to read on the method of claim 1 and the coating composition of claim 11, wherein the overall teachings set forth said compositions can be coated to wires, as discussed above.
Regarding claim 2: it is deemed a skilled artisan using the teachings set forth by Mamak could obtain a thickness for the desired product in absence of evidence to the contrary and/or unexpected results.
Regarding claim 20, when coated upon a wire and cured, as suggested in the overall teachings it is deemed the enameled wire of said claim is found in the reference.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-7, 9, 12-15, 18 and 21 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. Mamak does not expressly teach and/or render obvious the use of polymethine compounds, such as found in claims 6 and 13. Mamak does not et forth rylene, porphyrins and/or oxoxnoles. The reference is silent with respect to the breakdown voltages.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANZA L MCCLENDON whose telephone number is (571)272-1074. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5.
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, Heidi Riviere-Kelley can be reached at 571-270-1831. 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.
/SANZA L. McCLENDON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765
SMc
Prosecution Insights