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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant Remarks, filed on 1/23/26, have been entered in the above-identified application.
Any rejections made in the previous action, and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-6, 10-17, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Opel et al (WO 2009/083165 A1)
Regarding claims 1, 10, 11, 17, and 28, Opel teaches a radar-compatible, coated plastic part (i.e., plastic component for a vehicle or a vehicle part), wherein the plastic part has an optionally precoated and/or pretreated surface (e.g., primer layer) that is provided with a coloring coating that comprises flake-form effect pigments having absorbent properties (e.g., flake pigment comprising iron oxide and/or mixtures with a silver tint), wherein the coloring coating comprises a plurality of layers arranged one above the other (e.g., base effect layer and cover effect layer), wherein the flake-form effect pigments having absorbent properties are present in each layer and at least two of the layers have geometrical layer thicknesses that are different from one another (e.g., cover effect layer in smaller thickness than base effect layer) (abstract, page 1,4-5).
Regarding the limitations “is free from metal-effect pigments” “and “wherein the surface of the plastic part does not have any further coloring or metallic coating;” it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to exclude metal effect pigments and any further coloring or metallic coating if said effect or colors were not needed or desired, since omission of an element and its function is obvious if the function of the element is not desired (MPEP § 2144.04 II).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Opel teaches a base effect layer and cover effect layer (i.e., two layers); wherein the cover effect layer in smaller thickness than base effect layer (i.e, wherein the coloring coating has a first layer which is located directly on the optionally precoated and/or pretreated surface of the plastic part and has a geometrical layer thickness that is greater than the geometrical layer thickness of each of the individual further layers arranged on the first layer) (page 4).
Regarding claims 4 and 12, Pigments give the color layer(s) color (page 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to adjust the amount of pigments in each coating layer or coloring layer to optimize the color of the layers and overall color of the coloring coating.
Regarding claim 5, Regarding the limitation “wherein no further flake-form effect pigments apart from the flake-form effect pigments having absorbent properties are present in the coloring coating;” it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to exclude other flake-form effect pigments apart from the flake-form effect pigments having absorbent properties; if the properties of the pigments (e.g., color, light scattering or reflecting) were not desired, since omission of an element and its function is obvious if the function of the element is not desired (MPEP § 2144.04 II).
Regarding claim 6, Opel teaches wherein the flake-form effect pigments having absorbent properties are present in the coloring coating in a mixture with flake-form effect pigments without absorbent properties (e.g., mica or silicon oxide)
Regarding claim 13, Opel teaches the coating layers have a combined thickness of no more than 25 µm (page 4). This range substantially overlaps that of the instant claims. It has been held that overlapping ranges are sufficient to establish prima facie obviousness. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Opel, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP § 2144.05).
Regarding claim 14, Opel teaches the plastic part is a plastic plate (page 5; fig 1).
Regarding claims 15 and 16, Opel teaches the use of an outer most clearcoat (i.e., wherein at least one further layer is located above the color coating) (page 5, 8).
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Opel as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Peden (US 20180044544 A1) and Rueger et al (US 2016/0272837 A1).
Opel teaches the plastic part of claim 1.
Opel fails to suggest the limitations of claims 7-9.
Peden teaches it was known in high performance coatings used in automotive parts that L* represents lightness or brightness on a scale from 0 (black) to 100 (white); and, the flop index is a measurement of the change in reflectance of a metallic color as it rotates through the range of possible viewing angles; wherein a flop index of “0” indicates a solid color (no sparkle or metal effect) while a high flop metallic effect will have a flop index of 15 to 17; wherein glass flakes can be included in coating compositions to provide a coated article with a high flop effect (abstract, para, 24, 41-45).
Rueger teaches electrically conductive pigments used in automobile paint or coatings (abstract, para 63); wherein it is known that the use of an electrically conductive pigment based on a flake-form substrate even when used in a low concentration, even in thin layers, has a high hiding power (i.e., ΔE) and can be prepared by a simple, inexpensive process (para 14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to combine the glass flakes of Peden and the electrically conductive pigments of Rueger with the coatings of Opel, since it is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose (MPEP § 2144.06 I); and, since it is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use (MPEP § 2144.07).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to adjust the amount of all the pigments in the coating composition or colored layer(s) of Opel as modified by Peden and Rueger to optimize the color, lightness or brightness, flop effect, and hiding power or ΔE of the colored coating per the necessary testing measures or parameters of that of the instant claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/23/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends that the Office's reliance on legal precedent as a rationale to modify the disclosure of Opel to omit metal-containing materials is not justified, because it does not apply to the facts at hand. It would require the skilled person to ignore the specific inclusion of metal-containing materials taught by Opel.
This is not persuasive because it mischaracterizes the position of the Examiner as omitting all metal-containing materials as a whole. That’s not what is stated in the rejection.
Regarding the limitations “is free from metal-effect pigments” “and “wherein the surface of the plastic part does not have any further coloring or metallic coating;” it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to exclude metal effect pigments and any further coloring or metallic coating if said effect or colors were not needed or desired, since omission of an element and its function is obvious if the function of the element is not desired (MPEP § 2144.04 II). This holds true because Opel teaches the use of other pigments, e.g., flake-form effect pigments (abstract, page 1,4-5).
Applicant further contends that the materials of Peden and Rueger are not intended for the same purpose as that of Opel. This is not persuasive. Opel teaches the use of paints as a coating composition on automobile parts (abstract, page 4); Peden teaches high performance coatings (i.e., paints) for automotive parts (title, para 24-27); and Rueger teaches paints containing electrically conductive pigments used in automobile paints (abstract, para 63). Therefore, the Examiner contends that the coatings or paints of Peden and Rueger overlap in scope with the coatings of Opel.
The Applicant is reminded the test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN L VAN SELL whose telephone number is (571)270-5152. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur, Generally 7am-6pm.
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, M. Veronica Ewald can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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 VAN SELL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1783
/NATHAN L VAN SELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783