DETAILED ACTION
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
Claims 18-19, 22-28, and 30 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/04/2025.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 8-9, 13-14 and 15-17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Menovcik (submitted on the 08/12/2025 IDS ).
Re claims 1-2, Menovcik discloses multicoat coating system comprising a first basecoat layer made from a UV blocking composition comprising binder, i.e. film forming resin, carbon black, and titanium dioxide [18-19, 22]. Given that titanium dioxide and carbon black are identical to the first material and second material presently claimed, they would inherently comprise a reflective property toward UV light and absorptive property towards UV light respectively. Menovcik discloses the ratio of pigment to binder is 0.3-0.5 and that there is present 10-18 wt.% pigment [23] from which it is calculated there is 20-60 wt.% binder (10/0.5 – 18/0.3).
In light of the overlap between the claimed composition and that disclosed by Menovcik, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a composition that is both disclosed by Menovcik and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Re claims 4 and 14, Menovcik discloses the composition comprises 10-18% pigment [23] which is made from 5-75 wt.% titanium dioxide [26] and 0-10 wt.% carbon black [24]. Therefore, it is calculated there is present 0.5 – 13.5 wt.% (0.05*10– 0.75*18) titanium dioxide and 0 –1.8 wt.% (0-0.1*18) carbon black for a ratio of titanium dioxide to carbon black of at least 0.27:1 – 7.5:1 (0.5/1.8 – 13.5/1.8).
Re claim 8, Menovcik discloses the composition comprises polyepoxy resin with amine functional groups [22].
Re claim 9, Menovcik discloses the composition also comprises aluminum pigment [27]. Given that the aluminum pigment is identical to that disclosed in the present invention, it would inherently comprise a reflective property towards UV light.
Re claim 13, Menovcik doesn’t teach a kit, however, it would have been obvious to have separated the components for individualized use – note as the materials are already taught, applicants attention is drawn to MPEP 2111.02 which states that intended use statements must be evaluated to determine whether the intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists, does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. It is the examiner' s position that the intended use recited in the present claims does not result in a structural difference between the presently claimed invention and the prior art and further that the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use.
Re claims 15-16, given that Menovcik disclose composition as claimed, when formed into a cured coating, it would necessarily inherently have the same transmission of ultraviolet light as claimed.
Re claim 17, although Menovcik refers to the multilayer coating system as primerless, given that Menovcik discloses composition as claimed regardless of what it is referred to by Menovcik, it would necessarily function as a primer.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Menovcik (submitted on the 08/12/2025 IDS ) and further in view of Brand et al. (US 2007/0190308).
Menovcik is relied upon above.
Menovcik does not disclose the particle size of the titanium dioxide.
Brand discloses coating for metal surfaces that comprises titanium dioxide with particle size of 0.001-0.5 microns or 1-500 nm in order to produce a coating that is transparent and does not adversely affect gloss [1, 60]. In light of the motivation for using titanium dioxide with particle size of 0 1-500 nm disclosed by Brand as described above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use titanium dioxide with such particle size in Menovcik in order to produce a composition that is transparent and does not adversely affect gloss.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Menovcik (submitted on the 08/12/2025 IDS ) and further in view of further in view of Ma et al. (US 20180187038).
Menovcik is relied upon above.
Menovcik does not disclose zinc oxide.
Ma discloses coating composition for automobiles [3] that includes pigments such as titanium dioxide and carbon black as well as zinc oxide to produce composition with desired color [60].
In light of the motivation for using zinc oxide disclosed by Ma as described above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use zinc oxide in Menovcik in order to produce a composition with desired color.
In view of the forgoing, the above claims have failed to be patently distinguishable over prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure including the International Search Report and Written Opinion.
US 20200362178 A1 discloses a similar reflective coating.
US 20130102216 teaches use of infrared absorptive carbon black pigments [42].
US 20220298362 A1 discloses also pigments in IR and UV spectral wavelengths [0040].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAMRA L. DICUS whose telephone number is (571)272-2022. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am 4:00 pm.
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, Callie Shosho can be reached on 571-272-1123. 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.
TAMRA L. DICUS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1787
/TAMRA L. DICUS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787