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
Claims 13-24 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/12/2025.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-12) in the reply filed on 12/12/2025 is acknowledged.
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 of this title, 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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karlsen (US 9,505,946).
With respect to claims 1 and 2, Karlsen discloses a powder coating composition that is a two component powder coating system that provides matt to semi-gloss levels and excellent physical properties (col. 2, lines 1-7). Example 4 includes two components, component A and component B, which directly correspond to claimed first component (A) and second component (B), respectively. Exemplified component A includes blend of polyester and epoxy film-forming binders and an epoxy crosslinker having EEW of 590-630. Exemplified component B includes a blend polyester and epoxy film-forming binders having different relative amount than the blend of exemplified component A, carboxyl functional acrylic polymer as matting agent, and 2-isoropylimidazole as accelerator (catalyst).
The total amount of exemplified component B is 1.03 kg and the amount of 2-isopropylimidazole is 0.00425 which provides an amount of 0.4 wt % based on component B which is outside of the claimed range “at least 3 wt. %.”
Even so, Karlsen discloses that the amount of Lewis base (i.e., 2-isopropylimidazole) is 0.05-8 wt % of the component (col. 6, line 63 to col. 7, line 4), which overlaps with claimed range “at least 3 wt %.” It is well settled that where the prior art describes the components of a claimed compound or compositions in concentrations within or overlapping the claimed concentrations a prima facie case of obviousness is established. See In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 1343, 74 USPQ2d 1951, 1953 (Fed. Cir 2005); In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329, 65 USPQ 2d 1379, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (CCPA 1990); In re Malagari, 499 F.2d 1297, 1303, 182 USPQ 549, 553 (CCPA 1974).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the N-isopropylimidazole catalyst in component B in an amount that overlaps with claimed range of at least 3 wt %.
With respect to claim 3, Karlsen teaches that the epoxy resin is ideally a solid resin (col. 5, lines 1-4, however, it does not teach away from liquid epoxy resins.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select a second film forming resin composition comprises a liquid epoxy resin.
With respect to claim 4, Karlsen teaches that components A and B are mixed in a 1 to 1 weight ratio (col. 15, lines 19-22).
With respect to claim 5, the total amount of exemplified component A is 0.84 kg, and the total amount of exemplified B is 1.03 kg, i.e., total amount of 1.87 kg for the powder coating system. The amount of film forming resin in exemplified component A is 0.32 kg which provides for an amount of first film forming resin in the powder coating system of 17 wt %. The amount of film forming resin in exemplified component B is 0.33 kg which provides for an amount of first film forming resin in the powder coating system of 18 wt %.
With respect to claim 6, the total amount of exemplified component A is 0.84 kg, and the amount of film forming resin is 0.32 kg which provides for an amount of first film forming resin of 38 wt %. The total amount of exemplified B is 1.03 kg, and the amount of film forming resin is 0.33 kg which provides for an amount of second film forming resin of 32 wt %.
With respect to claim 7, Example 4 includes a degassing agent and polypropylene wax (col. 15, lines 6-8).
With respect to claims 8 and 12, the carboxyl-functionalized acrylic polymer as matting agent is expected to have a higher softening temperature than the film forming resins because so as to not disrupt the film forming properties when formed into a film at the lower temperatures.
With respect to claims 9 and 10, Example 4 is process at 140°C for 8 minutes and exhibits a gloss at 60° of 33% (col. 15, lines 13-15).
With respect to claim 11, in Example 4, exemplified component A does not include a matting agent. The total amount of exemplified component B is 1.03 kg and the amount of carboxyl functional acrylic monomer is 0.091 kg which provides an amount of 8.8 wt % based on component B which is outside of the claimed range 10-50 wt %.
Even so, Karlsen teaches that gloss modifiers (i.e., matting agents) are used in an amount of up to 60 wt % (col. 8, lines 11-21).
Given that Karlsen teaches a range of suitable amounts of matting agent that overlaps with claimed ranage, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select an amount based on B of up to 50 wt % to provide desired semi-gloss or matt properties.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICKEY NERANGIS whose telephone number is (571)272-2701. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 am - 5:00 pm EST, Monday - Friday.
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, Joseph Del Sole can be reached at (571)272-1130. 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.
/Vickey Nerangis/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763
vn