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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I, claims 1-4 and 19 in the reply filed on 2/19/26 is acknowledged. Since the election is made without traverse, the restriction is deemed as proper and therefore made FINAL. Claims 5-18 and 20 are withdrawn from consideration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4 and 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims 1-4 and 19 all contain the limitations “preferably”, “more preferably”, “most preferably”, etc. These phrases are confusing because it is unclear whether the limitations following these phrases are required by the claim or merely “suggestions” or “optional” limitations. For examination purposes, these limitations are considered optional.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bosma et al US 2020/0048398 in view of Fritz et al US 2013/0284833.
Per claims 1-2, 19, Bosma teaches a process comprising the steps of providing a resin composition (abstract), wherein the resin composition comprises a non-aqueous thixotropic resin composition further comprising polyurea particles (abstract) [0036], wherein the composition is cured to form a coating [0030]. Bosma does not teach the claimed viscosity and creep compliance. However, Bosma teaches that both the viscosity and creep compliance directly affects the sag resistance which affects the applied layer thickness and overall sagging effect after deposition [0052]-[0053]. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have controlled and optimized the viscosity and creep compliance of the resin composition to yield the desired results via routine experimentation in the absence of new or unexpected results (see MPEP 2144.05).
Bosma does teach that the resin paint should be utilized as a coating (abstract) but is silent regarding the claimed overspray-free applicator and ejection through a plurality of holes. Fritz teaches a process and apparatus for coating a paint onto an automobile (abstract) [0001], which would comprise non-horizontal parts, wherein overspray is minimized by utilizing low overspray technology [0009], wherein the apparatus complies an applicator head comprising nozzle plates [0041]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have utilized a similar nozzle plate on an applicator head to deposit the paint of Bosma to minimize overspray because Fritz teaches minimizing overspray to be beneficial in preventing contamination and overall messiness [0002].
Bosma teaches a polyurea weight percentage of between 0.1 to 8 wt % [0040], which does not include the weight of pigments or fillers [0021], which overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected a value within the disclosed workable range of the prior art to arrive at the desired result with a reasonable expectation for success.
Per claim 3, Fritz teaches that the distance between the coating agent nozzle and the component should be coordinated and controlled so that the droplets do not coalesce on their way to the component which would affect the final coating [0040]. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have controlled and optimized the distance of the nozzle to the substrate to yield the desired results via routine experimentation in the absence of new or unexpected results (see MPEP 2144.05). It is noted, as discussed above, the limitations following “preferably” are considered optional.
Per claim 4, Bosma teaches that the Hegman fineness should be controlled and improved [0020] and is thus considered a result effective variable as it would affect the thixotropic efficiency [0019]. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have controlled and optimized the Hegman finness of the resin composition to yield the desired results via routine experimentation in the absence of new or unexpected results (see MPEP 2144.05).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN T. LEONG whose telephone number is (571)270-5352. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00-6:00pm.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
/NATHAN T LEONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718