DETAILED ACTION
All outstanding objections and rejections made in the previous Office Action, and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn.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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7 November 2025 has been entered.
Claims 2-4, 6-8, 10-12, 14-23 as amended are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 4, 8, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2016/203177 A1 (“Iacob”).
The citations below refer to English language equivalent document US 2018/0179396.
As to claim 19, Iacob teaches a binder composition for powder paint thermosetting composition (abstract). Iacob teaches a composition containing BADGE (diglycidyl ether of bisphenol A) epoxy resin, and a polycarboxylic acid functional polyester having an acid number ranging from 65-90 mg KOH/g (para. 0085). This substantially overlaps the recited range of 60-80 mg KOH/g, and as such, the use of polyester resin within the recited acid value is an obvious modification suggested by Iacob. The composition contains 19.68 wt % pigment, which is within the recited range.
Iacob does not discuss the weight range. However, Iacob teaches 32-37 parts of epoxy resin and 42-47 parts of the acid functional polyester, which rounded to the same digits provides a range of the ratio of these two components between 1.1:1 (same as 1:0.9) and 1.5, which overlaps the range at the end. In addition, Iacob teaches a molar ratio of epoxy eqiuivalents to curing agent equivalents up to 1.2 (para. 0077), which applied to the resins of Table 3, would provide ratios in the recited range. As such, to the extent not exemplified, the recited ratio is an obvious modification suggested by Iacob.
Iacob does not state the intended use for dielectric coating, or the dielectric strength at the recited thickness; however, Iacob suggests the same composition as recited, and such a composition is presumed to meet the recited characteristics.
As to claims 20 and 4, Iacob teaches a binder composition for powder paint thermosetting composition (abstract). Iacob teaches a composition containing BADGE (diglycidyl ether of bisphenol A) epoxy resin as required by claims 20 and 4, and a polycarboxylic acid functional polyester having an acid number ranging from 65-90 mg KOH/g (para. 0085). This substantially overlaps the recited range of 60-80 mg KOH/g, and as such, the use of polyester resin within the recited acid value is an obvious modification suggested by Iacob. Iacob teaches the recited amount of polyester. The composition contains 19.68 wt % pigment, which is within the recited range.
Iacob does not discuss the weight range. However, Iacob teaches 32-37 parts of epoxy resin and 42-47 parts of the acid functional polyester, which rounded to the same digits provides a range of the ratio of these two components between 1.1:1 (same as 1:0.9) and 1.5, which overlaps the range at the end. In addition, Iacob teaches a molar ratio of epoxy eqiuivalents to curing agent equivalents up to 1.2 (para. 0077), which applied to the resins of Table 3, would provide ratios in the recited range. As such, to the extent not exemplified, the recited ratio is an obvious modification suggested by Iacob.
Iacob does not state the intended use for dielectric coating, or the dielectric strength at the recited thickness; however, Iacob suggests the same composition as recited, and such a composition is presumed to meet the recited characteristics.
As to claim 8, Iacob teaches applying the composition (para. 0086). While a substrate is not named, it is understood that pants are applied to substrates. Iacob does not state the intended use for dielectric coating, or the dielectric strength at the recited thickness; however, Iacob suggests the same composition as recited, and such a composition is presumed to meet the recited characteristics.
As to claim 21, Iacob teaches a binder composition for powder paint thermosetting composition (abstract). Iacob teaches a composition containing BADGE (diglycidyl ether of bisphenol A) epoxy resin as required by claims 20 and 4, and a polycarboxylic acid functional polyester having an acid number ranging from 65-90 mg KOH/g (para. 0085). This substantially overlaps the recited range of 60-80 mg KOH/g, and as such, the use of polyester resin within the recited acid value is an obvious modification suggested by Iacob. Iacob teaches the recited amount of polyester. The composition contains 19.68 wt % pigment, which is within the recited range. Iacob teaches applying the composition (para. 0086). Iacob teaches curing (para. 0086, teaching gel time). While a substrate is not named, it is understood that pants are applied to substrates.
Iacob does not discuss the weight range. However, Iacob teaches 32-37 parts of epoxy resin and 42-47 parts of the acid functional polyester, which rounded to the same digits provides a range of the ratio of these two components between 1.1:1 (same as 1:0.9) and 1.5, which overlaps the range at the end. In addition, Iacob teaches a molar ratio of epoxy eqiuivalents to curing agent equivalents up to 1.2 (para. 0077), which applied to the resins of Table 3, would provide ratios in the recited range. As such, to the extent not exemplified, the recited ratio is an obvious modification suggested by Iacob.
Iacob does not state the intended use for dielectric coating, or the dielectric strength at the recited thickness; however, Iacob suggests the same composition as recited, and such a composition is presumed to meet the recited characteristics.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2016/203177 A1 (“Iacob”) as applied to claim 8, further in view of US 4,568,606 (“Hart”).
Iacob does not teach a metal substrate coated with the powder coating composition. However, Hart teaches powder coating compositions of epoxy resin and carboxyl group containing polyester (abstract), and teaches that such resins are useful for coating magnet wire, a metal wire (3:65-4:11). Given that Hart teaches the utility of similar powder coatings for metal wires, the use of the Pettit composition would be an obvious application suggested by Hart.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2016/203177 A1 (“Iacob”) as applied to claim 20, further in view of US 2013/0059942 (“Ono”).
As to claim 18, Iacob does not teach coating a battery or battery component. However, Ono teaches epoxy or epoxy/polyester powder coatings (abstract), and teaches the use of powder coatings for coating batteries (para. 0126). As such, given that batteries are a substrate for epoxy polyester powder coatings, it would be an obvious application for the powder coating of Pettit.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2016/203177 A1 (“Iacob”) as applied to claim 20, further in view of US 4,568,606 (“Hart”).
Iacob does not teach a metal wire coated with the powder coating composition. However, Hart teaches powder coating compositions of epoxy resin and carboxyl group containing polyester (abstract), and teaches that such resins are useful for coating magnet wire, a metal wire (3:65-4:11). Given that Hart teaches the utility of similar powder coatings for metal wires, the use of the Pettit composition would be an obvious application.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2016/203177 A1 (“Iacob”) as applied to claim 21, further in view of US 6,531,189 (“Blatter”)
Iacob does not teach the use of infrared radiation for curing. However, Blatter teaches powder coatings containing epoxy compounds and hardeners (3:65-4:11), and teaches the utility of using infrared radiation for coating temperature sensitive substrates, large substrates, and high speed substrates (4:36-46). As such, the use of infrared radiation for the curing of epoxy based powder coatings is an obvious modification with numerous advantages as taught by Blatter.
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2016/203177 A1 (“Iacob”) as applied to claim 21, further in view of US 2018/0361429 (“Comley”).
Iacob does not teach the steps of applying a first coat, curing, applying the second coating composition, then curing. However, it is known from Comley, paras. 0002-0006, that a typical application of multilayer powder coating is to apply first layer, cure, apply second layer, then cure. Given that the recited method of forming a multilayer is a typical powder coating application method, it would be obvious to apply such application method to the method of Iacob.
Claims 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2016/203177 A1 (“Iacob”) as applied to claim 21, further in view of US 4,921,913 (“Pettit”).
Iacob does not teach multiple passes. However, Pettit teaches curable powder coating, Pettit teaches applying the powder coating in multiple passes (6:29-34), prior to curing (6:38-41), and thus suggests applying a first powder coating to the substrate, a second powder coating to the first coating, then curing as required by claims 15 and 17. As such, the use of a powder coating to prepare multilayer coatings in the recited manner is an obvious end use suggested by Pettit.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2016/203177 A1 (“Iacob”) as applied to claim 21, further in view of US 4,568,606 (“Hart”).
Iacob does not teach a metal wire coated with the powder coating composition. However, Hart teaches powder coating compositions of epoxy resin and carboxyl group containing polyester (abstract), and teaches that such resins are useful for coating magnet wire, a metal wire (3:65-4:11). Given that Hart teaches the utility of similar powder coatings for metal wires, the use of the Pettit composition would be an obvious application.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2016/203177 A1 (“Iacob”) as applied to claim 21, further in view of US 2013/0059942 (“Ono”).
As to claim 18, Iacob does not teach coating a battery or battery component. However, Ono teaches epoxy or epoxy/polyester powder coatings (abstract), and teaches the use of powder coatings for coating batteries (para. 0126). As such, given that batteries are a substrate for epoxy polyester powder coatings, it would be an obvious application for the powder coating of Pettit.
Claim(s) 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2016/203177 A1 (“Iacob”) as evidenced by US 5,407,747 (“Sammel”).
The citations below refer to English language equivalent document US 2018/0179396.
As to claim 22, Iacob teaches a binder composition for powder paint thermosetting composition (abstract). Iacob teaches a composition containing BADGE (diglycidyl ether of bisphenol A) epoxy resin, and a polycarboxylic acid functional polyester having an acid number ranging from 65-90 mg KOH/g (para. 0085). This substantially overlaps the recited range of 60-80 mg KOH/g, and as such, the use of polyester resin within the recited acid value is an obvious modification suggested by Iacob. The composition contains 19.68 wt % of pigment, which is within the recited range.
The same example includes PV88, which is a leveling agent (para. 0072-0073), which is a flow additive. The same example includes benzoin, which as evidenced by Sammel, 4:49-54, is a flow control agent. As such, Iacob suggest the use of two flow additives.
Iacob does not state the intended use for dielectric coating, or the dielectric strength at the recited thickness; however, Iacob suggests the same composition as recited, and such a composition is presumed to meet the recited characteristics.
As to claim 23, Iacob teaches a binder composition for powder paint thermosetting composition (abstract). Iacob teaches a composition containing BADGE (diglycidyl ether of bisphenol A) epoxy resin as required by claim 23, and a polycarboxylic acid functional polyester having an acid number ranging from 65-90 mg KOH/g (para. 0085). This substantially overlaps the recited range of 60-80 mg KOH/g, and as such, the use of polyester resin within the recited acid value is an obvious modification suggested by Iacob. Iacob teaches the recited amount of polyester. The composition contains 19.68 wt % pigment, which is within the recited range.
The same example includes PV88, which is a leveling agent (para. 0072-0073), which is a flow additive. The same example includes benzoin, which as evidenced by Sammel, 4:49-54, is a flow control agent. As such, Iacob suggest the use of two flow additives.
Iacob does not state the intended use for dielectric coating, or the dielectric strength at the recited thickness; however, Iacob suggests the same composition as recited, and such a composition is presumed to meet the recited characteristics.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 3, 6, 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: the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest the composition of epoxy, polyester, in the recited amounts with the isocyanate crosslinker as required by claim 2, or the carboxyl functional (meth)acrylate polymer required by claim 6.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Specifically, applicant’s arguments regarding the new limitation of claims 19-21 are not persuasive to distinguish over Iacob. The inventive composition of Iacob is sufficiently close to applicant’s range within the specified precision. Moreover, Iacob teaches a broader range for the molar ratio of epoxy to polyester, which includes the recited range.
The fact that Iacob teaches a different formulation in the recited range not being good for low temperature is not persuasive. Iacob has no general teaching against the recited weight ratio.
As to the new claims, as discussed above, benzoin is also a flow additive, and thus Iacob suggests compositions having two flow additives.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KREGG T BROOKS whose telephone number is (313)446-4888. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9 am to 5:30 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, Arrie Reuther can be reached at (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.
/KREGG T BROOKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764