DETAILED ACTION Summary This is a non-final office action for application 18/280,755 filed on 7 September 2023. The preliminary amendment filed on the same date is acknowledged . 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 § 102 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 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. Claims 1 - 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by HANAOKA (WO-2009075392-A1). The HANAOKA (WO-2009075392-A1) reference is in the IDS dated 7 September 2023. Regarding Claim 1 , HANAOKA teaches a coating composition (II) comprising (A’) a hydroxyl group-containing reaction product obtained by addition reaction of (a’-1) a carboxyl-group containing reaction product with a polycarbonate diol with a (a’-2) a polyepoxy compound (p. 3, lines 1-9). This satisfies the recited requirements of the epoxy polyol (P). HANAOKA exemplifies this reaction product (Table 6, used in Table 8). HANAOKA further teaches that its coating composition (II) comprises (C) a hydroxy l - group - containing resin (p. 3 , lines 10-11) . HANAOKA teaches that a preferable hydroxy-group-containing resin is a hydroxy-group-containing acrylic resin (p. 30, lines 30-34). HANAOKA exemplifies an acrylic based hydroxy-containing resin (Table 7, used in Table 8). HANAOKA further teaches that its coating composition (II) contains (B) a polyisocyanate compound (p. 3, line 9). HANAOKA exemplifies the N3300 isocyanurate form of HDMI polyisocyanate (Table 8; p. 61, line 15; p. 18, lines 27-28). HANAOKA teaches that it is preferable to isolate the polyisocyanate component (B) from the reaction product component (A’) and the hydroxyl-group component (C) to form a two solution-type coating composition for the purpose of storage stability (p. 44, lines 9-13, 17-20). Regarding Claim 2 , HANAOKA teaches the invention of Claim 1. HANAOKA teaches that the polyepoxy compound used in its reaction product may include those with hydrogenated bisphenol A in the structure (p. 26, line 2) such as Denacol EX-252 (p. 26, line 21). Here, the specification of the current invention is used as evidence that hydrogenated bisphenol A has an alicyclic structure (cur spec: [0019]). HANAOKA exemplifies Denacol EX-252 (Reaction Product 6 in Table 6, used in Example 2-6 in Table 8). Regarding Claim 3 , HANAOKA teaches the invention of Claim 1. HANAOKA teaches that its carboxyl-group containing compound is a reaction product of a diol and an anhydride (p. 3, lines 6-9). HANAOKA teaches that this compound can be obtained by way of a half-esterification reaction (p. 3, line 31). This suggests that one of the hydroxyl groups in the diol reacts with the anhydride , forming an ester, while also add ing carboxyl functionality, while the other hydroxyl group does not react , resulting in a component with one alcohol on one end and one carboxyl group on the other end. HANOKA teaches in Production Example 1-1 and 1-2 (Table 1), carboxyl group compounds formed from the T5630J polycarbonate diol comprising 1,6-hexanediol and 1,5-pentanediol as diol components (p. 53, lines 2-6) and either succinate anhydride or hexahydrophthalic anhydride (Table 1). In these first two examples, a 0.5 molar ratio is used which results in a product with equal acid values and hydroxyl values (Table 1). This suggests that the diol component has reacted with the anhydride on one of the two ends forming an ester and leaving one carboxylic group as functional on that one end, while the other hydroxyl end is left unreacted. This satisfies the requirement of a carboxyl group component having one carboxyl group within one molecule. Regarding Claim 4 , HANAOKA generally teaches that its reaction-product component (A’) is included in a range of 3-30 mass%, and its hydroxy-containing resin (C)(exemplified as an acrylic resin above) is included in amounts of 30-75 mass% (p. 29, lines 25-35). This calculates to a range of 3/(75+3) to 30/(30+30), or 3.8-50 parts of the reaction product component per 100 parts reaction product plus hydroxyl containing acrylic resin. This overlaps the 40-92 parts recited by the claim. In Example 2-12 (Table 8), HANAOKA teaches 70 parts of the reaction product component and 100 parts of the hydroxyl-containing acrylic resin which calculates to 70/(100+70), or 41.2wt% which in within the recited range. Regarding Claim 5 , HANAOKA teaches the invention of Claim 1. HANAOKA generally teaches that its hydroxyl-containing resin (C) can be a hydroxyl-containing acrylic resin (p. 30, line 35) which includes 20-50 mass% of a hydroxyl-containing monomer (p. 33, lines 1-4), a monomer (2a) with a cycloaliphatic hydrocarbon group with a higher Tg (p. 34, lines 20-32) in amounts of 3-50 mass% (p. 35, lines 11-13), and a branched hydrocarbon monomer (2b) with a lower Tg (p. 35, lines 15-19) in amounts of 3-50 mass% (p. 35 , line 35). HANAOKA exemplifies copolymers containing styrene, 2-ethylhexyl acrylate, isobornyl acrylate, 2-hydroxylethyl acrylate and 2-hydroxybu tyl acrylate (Table 7). Here, the specification of the current invention is used as evidence to disclose the glass transition temperature and (x)/(y) categorization of the acrylic monomers taught by HANAOKA. The instant specification discloses that isobornyl acrylate (Tg = 94°C) is an (x) monomer (cur spec: [0066]) , 2-ethylhexyl acrylate (Tg = -85°C) is a (y) monomer (cur spec: [0070]) , and that 2-hydroxyethyl acrylate (Tg = -15°C) and 4-hydroxybutyl acrylate (Tg=-32°C) are (y) monomers. In Production Example 2-27 (Table 7), HANAOKA teaches 150 parts 2-ethylhexyl acrylate (y) , 420 parts 4-hydroxybutyl acrylate (y) and 230 parts isobornyl acrylate (x) for a ratio of y to x of (150+420)/230 ≈ 2.48 which is within the 1.1-3.6 range recited by the claim. Regarding Claim 6 , HANAOKA teaches the invention of Claim 1. HANAOKA generally teaches that its hydroxyl-containing (C) component has a weight average molecular weight of 2500-40,000 (p. 4, lines 1-3; p. 39, lines 19-26; Claim 2) which overlaps the 10,000-100,000 range recited by the claim. HANAOKA teaches in Production Example 2-24, a weight average molecular weight of 38000 (Table 7). HANAOKA teaches that its hydroxy-group-containing acrylic resin preferably has a glass transition temperature of -40°C to +95°C, most preferably -30°C to 0°C which largely overlaps the -50°C to -2°C range recited by the claim. HANAOKA exemplifies hydroxyl-containing acrylic resin with Tg in a range of -20.4°C to -10.9°C (Table 7) which is within the recited range. Note that Production Example 2-24 (Table 7) has a weight-average molecular weight of 38000 and a Tg of -19.8°C which satisfies both limitations. Regarding Claim 8 , HANAOKA teaches the invention of Claim 1. HANAOKA teaches that its polyisocyanate may be an isocyanurate ring adduct of a polyisocyanate (p. 42, line 13). HANAOKA exemplifies N3300 which is an HDMI isocyanurate (p. 61, lines 15-16; Table 8). 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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HANAOKA (WO-2009075392-A1). Regarding Claim 7 , HANAOKA teaches the invention of Claim 1 above. HANAOKA teaches that its polyisocyanate component has at least two isocyanate groups per molecule (p. 16, line 31) including many specific triisocyanates and tetraisocyanates (p. 17-18). HANAOKA does not exemplify a polyisocyanate with three or more isocyanates per molecule, but it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the examples of HANAOKA and use a polyisocyanate with three or more isocyanate groups based on the teachings of the specification. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HANAOKA (WO-2009075392-A1) in view of KIGUCHI ( WO-2019044843-A1 ). The KIGUCHI (WO-2019044843-A1) reference, published 7 March 2019, is a Japanese language document. Family member US-20200254743-A1 is used for translation and paragraph numbers. Regarding Claim 9 , HANAOKA teaches the invention of Claim 1 above. HANAOKA teaches that its composition may be used in multilayer films where the composition is applied as an uppermost layer on one side of a substrate (p. 46, lines 19-23) . HANAOKA teaches that preferable substrates include automobile bodies and parts, thereof (p. 46, lines 24-27). HANAOKA does not teach multilayer films with an adhesive layer on a second surface of the substrate. KIGUCHI, in an invention of a polyurethane composition which is a reaction of a polyol component and a polyisocyanate (Abstract), teaches a multilayer film containing a substrate layer ([0011]) where the polyurethane component is applied to a first surface of the substrate ([0012]) and an adhesive layer is laminated on a second surface of the substrate ([0013]) . KIGUCHI teaches that its multilayer films allow for better adhesive integration with the coated surface of substrates such as automobile surfaces by intermediary of the adhesive layer ([0113]). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the invention of HANAOKA with the teachings of KIGUCHI and configure its multilayer film with an adhesive layer on a second surface of the substrate layer as recited for the purpose of better adhesive integration with the coated surface by intermediary of the adhesive layer. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT DAVID R FOSS whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-4821 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday - Friday 8:00 - 5:00 . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT ARRIE L REUTHER can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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. /D.R.F./ Examiner, Art Unit 1764 /KREGG T BROOKS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764