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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 8, and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2020/0017705 to Jang et al. in view of KR101052223 to Woo et al. For the purposes of examination, citations for Woo are taken from a machine translation equivalent of the document obtained from the USPTO Office in July 2026 that is incorporated herein.
Regarding Claim(s) 1, 8, and 13, Jang teaches a coating layer for use in parts for vehicles [0002] wherein the coated parts may be improved in outer appearance and various colors and textures may be realized [0004] (i.e., automotive painting product comprising a base color layer). Jang’s resin composition (i.e., (i) main portion) for a coating layer comprises a first acrylic resin, a second acrylic resin, matting agent (i.e., first surface conditioner), catalyst (i.e., curing accelerator), and solvent [0010] wherein solvents are ketone-based solvents [Jang, 0023] (i.e., first and second solvent). The first acrylic resin has a Tg of about 70-80°C [0046] and the second acrylic resin has a Tg of about 60-70°C [0052]. Jang’s curing agent comprises diisocyanate [0022] wherein the curing agent is dispersed in a solvent [0063] (i.e., second organic solvent).
Jang does not particularly teach a clear layer located on the base color layer comprising the UV-curable paint composition as set forth in instant claim 1.
However, Woo teaches a clear coat composition for automotive [title] that is UV curable [abstract] that is coated in a subsequent process after coating to provide the color of the car [Woo p.3, ¶ 1] (i.e., clear layer located on base color layer) wherein the composition comprises a mixed acrylic resin having a hydroxyl group and an oligomer group, a diluent (acrylate monomer) a photoinitiator, a leveling agent (second surface conditioner) a UV stabilizer, and a solvent [Woo, p.4, ¶ 4]. Woo teaches the diluent is preferably HDDA (1,6 Hexanediol Diacrylate) [Woo [p.7, ¶ 6]] (reading on claim 8); and the solvent useable are ketones [p.9, ¶5] (reading on claim 13). Woo teaches the mixed acrylic resin comprises acrylic resin (a) including 3-4 parts of hydroxyl group to 100 parts of the oligomer [Woo, p.5, ¶ 1] and acrylic resin (b) including 4-5 parts by weight of hydroxyl groups to 100 parts of the oligomer [Woo, p.5, ¶ 2] thereby reading on at least two acrylate oligomers having different number of functional groups. Jang and Woo are analogous art as they are from the same field of endeavor, namely automotive paint compositions.
Before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to add the clear layer taught by Woo on the base color layer taught by Jang, thereby arriving at the claimed invention.
The motivation to modify Jang with Woo is that the clearcoat top coat provides excellent mechanic and chemical properties of the coating film [Woo, p.3, ¶5], provides proper physical properties through proper flexibility and elasticity [Woo, p.4 ¶ 1] that is capable of forming and reproducing physical properties that evenly satisfy scratches and acid resistance rather than excessive rigidity of conventional curing [Woo, p.4, ¶2].
Regarding Claim(s) 3, Jang in view of Woo teaches the automotive painting product of claim 1, wherein the first acrylic resin has a hydroxyl group content of about 0.5 to 1.0% [Jang, 0013] and a molecular weight of… The second acrylic resin has a hydroxyl group content of about 3-6% [Jang, 0017] and a molecular weight of about 8,000 to 15,000 [Jang, 0018].Regarding Claim(s) 4, Jang in view of Woo teaches the automotive painting product of claim 1, wherein the first acrylic resin has a Tg of 70-80°C [Jang, 0046] and the second acrylic resin has a Tg of 60-70°C [Jang, 0052] thereby reasonably reading on a difference of 4-15°C.
Regarding Claim(s) 5, Jang in view of Woo teaches the automotive painting product of claim 1, wherein the first acrylic resin has a maximum Tg of 80°C [Jang, 0046] and the second acrylic resin has a maximum Tg of 70°C [Jang, 0052].
Though the first acrylic resin Tg and second acrylic resin Tg prior art ranges are not identical to the claimed ranges (80-90°C and 70-80°C respectively), they do does overlap. It has been held that, 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 USPG 90 (CCPA 1976) (MPEP 2144.05)
Regarding Claim 6, Jang in view of Woo teach the automotive painting composition of claim 1 as set forth above and incorporated herein by reference.
Jang does not particularly teach the curing accelerator comprises dibutyltin dilaurate.
However, Woo teaches a reaction accelerator that is preferably dibutyltin dilaurate [Woo, p.9, ¶3]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to select Dibutyltin Dilaurate as the reaction accelerator as taught by Woo as the curing accelerator taught by Jang.
The motivation would have been that it has been held that it is obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use. See Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945); In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960); and MPEP 2144.07. In the instant case, Woo shows that dibutyltin dilaurate is known in the art to be suitable for curing acrylate urethane reactions.
Regarding Claim(s) 14 and 15, Jang in view of Woo teaches the automotive painting product of claim 1, wherein the coating composition is suitable for use in injection of interior or exterior parts for vehicles [Jang, 0002] such a plastic materials [Jang, 0003].
Claim(s) 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2020/0017705 to Jang et al. in view of KR101052223 to Woo et al. as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above, in further view of CN114316783 to Yurong et al. For the purposes of examination, citations for Yurong are taken from a machine translation equivalent of the document obtained from the European Patent Office in July 2026.
Regarding Claim(s) 9-12, Jang in view of Woo teaches the automotive painting product of claim 1, as set forth above and incorporated herein by reference.
Jang in view of Woo does not particularly teach the acrylate oligomers have 2-6 functional groups (of claim 9), that the first acrylate oligomer has 5-6 functional groups and the second acrylate oligomer has 2-4 functional groups, with a weight ratio of the first to second acrylate oligomer of 5:1 to 1:5 (of claim 10), the acrylate oligomers are urethane acrylate oligomers having at least two acryl groups (of claim 11), and the acrylate oligomer have a weight average molecular weight of about 500 to 3,500 g/mol (of claim 12).
However, Yurong teaches a UV photocurable coating [abstract] comprising a topcoat that comprises 20-40 parts hexafunctional polyurethane acrylate, 10-20 parts of UV-type trifunctional polyurethane acrylate [reading on claims 9-11] wherein the hexafunctional polyurethane acrylate is Ebecryl 1290 which is the same acrylic oligomer used in instant specification, therefore reading on an average molecular weight of 500-3500 g/mol of claim 12. Jang in view of Woo and Yurong are analogous art as they are from the same field of endeavor, namely acrylic coating compositions.
Before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select the specific functional groups for the polyurethane acrylate oligomers as taught by Yurong in Jang in view of Woo’s clear layer.
The motivation would have been that the combination of hexafunctional polyurethane acrylate resin with provides good wear resistance, chemical resistance, water resistance and leveling, and is appropriately matched with trifunctional polyurethane acrylate and difunctional solvent-based acrylate that provides good flexibility [0041].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 and 7 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:
Regarding Claim(s) 2, the prior art does not teach or suggest an automotive painting product, comprising the instantly claimed base color layer and clear layer, wherein the main portion of the thermosetting paint composition of the base color layer comprises all of the instantly claimed ingredients in the instant claimed amounts, including a first acrylic resin in an amount of 10 to 30 weight percent and a solvent in an amount of 40 to 60 weight percent.
US2020/0017705 to Jang et al. corresponds to the closest prior art. Jang teaches a coating layer for use in parts for vehicles [0002] with various colors [0004] comprising 40-50 wt% of a first acrylic resin, 5-15 wt% of a second acrylic resin, 0.5-2wt% of matting agent, 0.1-0.3 wt% of catalyst, and 20-35 wt% of solvent [0010] wherein the first acrylic resin has a Tg of about 70-80°C [0046] that is higher than the second acrylic resin’s Tg of about 60-70°C [0052]. Jang’s also teaches a curing portion with a curing agent that comprises diisocyanate [0022] and is dispersed in a solvent [0063].
However, this differs from instant claim 2 as Jang does not teach or fairly suggest the main portion of the automotive painting product comprising 10-30 wt% of the first acrylic resin or 20-35 wt% of solvent.
Moreover, it would not be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Jang because Jang specifically teaches away from providing the first acrylic resin at less than an amount of 40wt% as this will cause the adhesion to a mold to decrease [Jang, 0048].
Regarding Claim 7, the prior art does not teach or suggest an automotive painting product, comprising the instantly claimed base color layer and clear layer, wherein the UV-curable paint composition of the clear layer comprises all of the instantly claimed ingredients in the instant claimed amounts, including 30-70 wt% of the third organic solvent.
KR101052223 to Woo et al. and US2020/0017705 to Jang et al. corresponds to the closest prior art.
Woo teaches a clear coat composition for automotive [title] that is UV curable [abstract] comprising 50-70 wt% of a mixed acrylic resin having a hydroxyl group and an oligomer group, 22-30 wt% of a diluent, 3-10 wt% of a photoinitiator, 1.0-1.5 wt% of a leveling agent 0.1-0.5 wt% of a UV stabilizer, and 1.5-2.0 wt% of solvent [Woo, p.4, ¶ 4].
However, this differs from instant claim 7 as Woo does not teach or fairly suggest the UV-curable paint composition of the clear layer comprises 30-70 wt% of the third organic solvent.
Moreover, it would not be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Woo because Woo specifically teaches if the amount of solvent is in an amount higher than 2.0 wt% then the flowability during vertical coating, solid content of the clear coat, and workability may fall considerably [Woo, p.9, ¶4]
Jang teaches a coating layer for use in parts for vehicles [0002] with various colors [0004] corresponding to the claimed base coat layer.
However, Jang does not teach an automotive painting product comprising a clear layer located on the base color layer and therefore is silent regarding the clear layer of claim 1 and instantly claimed ingredients in the instant claimed amounts of claim 7.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
should be directed to Devin Darling whose telephone number is (703) 756-5411. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00.
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, Arrie Lanee Reuther can be reached on (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.
/DEVIN MITCHELL DARLING/Examiner, Art Unit 1764
/MELISSA A RIOJA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights