DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Claims 1-7 in the reply filed on 19 November 2025 is acknowledged. Claims 8-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04 January 2024 has been considered by the examiner.
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.
1. Claims 1-7 are 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.
With regard to Claim 1, it is unclear as to what constitutes “sparkle grade.” The instant Claim and Specification describes usage of a spectrophotometer to obtain the noted measurement; however the meaning of the term remains ambiguous. A search of powder coating art does not suggest this is a term understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, Claim 1 is ambiguous. For purposes of examination, powder coating compositions comprising effect pigment content within the claimed range are understood to read on the claim. Claims 2-7 are similarly rejected to the extent that they depend from Claim 1 and do not resolve the noted ambiguity.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
2. Claims 1-3 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being and/or (a)(2) by US 3,843,571 to E. B. Fitzgerald (“Fitzgerald”).
With regard to Claims 1, Fitzgerald teaches a powder coating featuring a sparkle appearance composition comprising less than 0.2 wt. % of effect pigment based on a total weight of the coating, and articles coated thereby (see Abstract; Col. 1, Lns. 6-32; Col. 14, Lns. 13-31; Claim 1).
With regard to Claim 2, the compositions of Fitzgerald are understood to comprise the claimed flop index property in view of the reference’s disclosure of a composition reading upon Claim 1 and sparkle appearance description thereof (see Abstract; Col. 1, Lns. 24-31).
With regard to Claim 3, Fitzgerald teaches compositions comprising thermoplastic acrylic polymer comprising cellulose acetate butyrate at amounts within the claimed range, and mixture therewith of additional compositions comprising backbones of acrylic copolymer, polyethylene, polypropylene, polyvinyl chloride, and silicone-containing polymers (see Col. 2, Lns. 50-51; Col. 9, Ln. 60 through Col. 10, Ln. 20; Col. 16, Example 1; Col. 17 formulations).
With regard to Claims 5-6, Fitzgerald teaches coatings comprising reaction products of polyester resin and polymeric epoxy in addition to isocyanate (see Col. 9 Ln. 16 through Col. 14, Ln. 10).
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.
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.
3. Claim 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fitzgerald.
With regard to Claims 4 and 7, Fitzgerald teaches mixtures of powder coating materials featuring the claimed constituents (see Col. 2, Lns. 20-26 and Lns. 50-51; Col. 9 Ln. 16 through Col. 14, Ln. 10; Col. 16, Example 1; Col. 17 formulations) without particularly limited proportions thereof; however the reference does not expressly teach the claimed amount of such components. Given Fitzgerald’s aims of providing finishes for automotive bodies (see Abstract; Col. 1, Ln. 26), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have employed the claimed amounts throughout the course of routine experimentation and optimization in obtaining a desired finish appearance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael P Rodriguez whose telephone number is (571)270-3736. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 6:00 Eastern M-F.
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.
/Michael P. Rodriguez/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1715