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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/20/2024 was being considered by the examiner (10 separate files).
Notice that the Information Disclosure Statement(s) summitted contains a very large number of references. The examiner has conducted a review of these references, but due to the sheer volume, only a cursory review of each document was possible in the time allotted for examination. Applicant is kindly requested to specifically identify any references which they believe are particularly material to patentability and explain the pertinency of such references in the next Office action to assist in a more thorough consideration of the most relevant art. Thank you.
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.
Claim(s) 1 - 6 and 11 - 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Decker et al. (US Patent 9,056,988 B2) in view of Kruesemann et al. (US Pub. No. 2015/0004424 A1), Hellring et al. (US Pub. No. 2012/0308724 A1), Yu et al. (US Patent 10,125,272 B2) and Hall et al. (US Patent 8,767,190 B2).
With regards to claim 1, Decker teaches a multilayer coating system for automobile component or vehicles employing an IR-reflective undercoat and IR-transparent pigment topcoat (i.e., in addition to NIR: reflectance increases 750 – 850 nm with greater at 90% at 900nm; Col. 8, Lines 4 -22), substantially free of carbon black (Col. 16, Lines 7 – 30), with Total Solar Reflectance (TSR) measure per ASTM E903/E1918 and further including dark L criteria (Col. 17, Lines 20 – 40).
Decker further teaches a film thickness of 0.001 to 20 mils (Col. 19, Lines 3 -8) and measuring signals or total reflectance using an integrating sphere at angles observing (i.e., 110 to -15 degrees) spectrophotometer (Col. 15, Line 1 to Col. 16, Line 55) (Colo. 17, Lines 26).
Decker fails to expressly disclose a primer configured to optimize LIDAR detection distance of a coated object, wherein the primer coating specifically has:
a CIELAB L* value up to 93.03 or less as measured using an integrating sphere spectrophotometer with D65 illumination, 10° observer, and specular component included; and a specific total solar reflectance of no less than 72% as measured following the method of ASTM E903-12.
Kruesemann teaches a coating formed on a substrate is provided which coating comprises (a) an organic NIR-transparent pigment and/or an inorganic NIR-reflective pigment; (b) a dye having a transmittance of at least 75% in the range of from 700 to 2500 nm; and (c) optionally an effect pigment; wherein said coating exhibits a total solar reflectance (TSR). Notice how the coating is suitable for an exterior-use coating like an industrial coating or a coating for vehicles, especially an automotive finish, having improved jetness (Abstract).
Kruesemann further teaches that the TSR is measured according to ASTM Standard Method E 903-96 using the direct normal solarspectral irradiance from ASTM G159-98 [0010]. The term L* (lightness) used herein means the lightness in the L*a*b* color space (also referred to as CIELAB) specified by the Commission Internationale de l'Eclairage, wherein a* and b* are the chromaticity coordinates. The L* value is measured at an observation angle with a plurality of nominal values including between 30, 40 or 60 up to 100, which clearly includes 93.03 [0003], [0010] – [0023], [0088]. Notice how Kruesemann teaches that TSR is a result-effective variable tied to L* and white/TiO2 primer and other variables depending on the needs of the application at hand [0010] – [0023].
Hellring relates generally to coating compositions that transmit infrared radiation and exhibit color stability for many coating applications such as automotive coatings, aerospace coatings, industrial coatings and architectural coatings [0001] [0076] [0078] [0086] (Abstract). Hellring further teaches using D65 illumination and 10 degrees of observation (i.e., see Example 12 at paragraph [0111].
Yu discloses coatings, films and materials that aid in a) reducing surface temperature of a structure or composite material when environmental temperature is relatively high and b) increasing surface temperature under relatively low environmental temperature. Surface temperature modulation is achieved using a synergistic combination of thermochromic materials and light scattering components (Abstract).
Yu teaches that the coatings, films and materials are included in automobiles in order to provide methods for vehicles with thermal management, including the step of coating a vehicle with a thermochromic coating or film to reduce the thermal load and other unwanted unnecessary outcomes (Col. 4, Lines 1 – 68).
Lastly, Yu teaches using the ASTM E903-12. Standard test method for solar absorptance, reflectance, and transmittance of materials using integrating spheres. Technical Report, American Society for Testing and Materials, 2012 (Col. 9, Lines 1 – 30). Notice that generally speaking, E903-96 was established by core principles, while E903-12 refined the methodology, standardized the data interpretation, and enhanced the accuracy for modern applications, making it more robust for certain energy efficiency application, such as reflective NIR sensory. The primary difference between ASTM E903-12 and the older ASTM E903-96 lies in the updated solar irradiance spectra used for weighting the measured reflectance and the addition of specific guidance for textured materials (i.e., full name – Standard ASTM E903-12 - Standard Test Method for Solar Absorptance, Reflectance, and Transmittance of Materials Using Integrating Spheres).
Hall teaches Exemplary LiDAR systems are shown in FIGS. 1, 2 and 10. In one example, light pulses that reflect from objects (i.e., reflective surface) so that the return reflections may be detected by detectors. The system provides a 360-degree horizontal field of view (FOV) and, depending on the number and orientation of lasers within the housing or strategy, a desired vertical or another field of view. The system is typically mounted on the top center of a vehicle, giving it a clear view in all directions (Abstract) (Col. 2, Lines 55 to Col. 5, Line 24).
Notice that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235.
In addition to how The Supreme Court also noted in KSR that an obviousness “analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim” because one “can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” Id. at 418.
In view of the utilities, to enhanced NIR reflective coated devices, with the particular enhanced reflective coatings such as that taught above to exhibit color stability along with the proper testing formats within a Lidar set up (i.e., or context) to increase detection distance and effectiveness such as that taught by the references above, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine all the teachings since doing so is only switching known techniques to similar problems and seen as only a routine predictable result.
With regards to claim 2, Decker teaches the primer has an appearance when applied of off-white or gray in color (Col. 1, Lines 45 -56) (Col. 56, Lines 25 – 46). Notice how Decker specifically discusses pigments including, for example, white, as is the case with mixing with titanium dioxide (Col. 1, Lines 45 -56) (Col. 56, Lines 25 – 46).
Decker doesn’t necessary say off-white or gray.
Kruesemann relates to a coating formed on a substrate comprising a NIR transparent organic pigment and/or a NIR reflective inorganic pigment suitable for an exterior-use coating like an industrial coating or a coating for vehicles, especially an automotive finish (Abstract) [0001].
Kruesemann teaches effect pigments are generally lamellar pigments usually used in effect coatings such as metal pigments, e.g. those of titanium, aluminum or copper; interference pigments such as metal oxide-coated metal pigments, e.g. aluminum coated with titanium dioxide or mixed oxides or aluminum flakes coated with iron oxide (e.g. Paliocrom.RTM. effect pigments), coated mica, e.g. mica coated with titanium dioxide or mixed oxides, micro titanium dioxide, lamellar iron oxide (micaceous iron oxide), molybdenum sulfide pigments, bismuth oxychloride flakes, coated glass flakes. Preferred are metal pigments, interference pigments, or coated mica pigments, especially preferred are coated mica pigments [0045] [0055] [0062] – [0065] [0080].
In view of the utility, to include routine variants of white primers as in , tinting with small amounts of colored pigment like mica or other colors to control the color as needed, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to Decker to include the primer having an appearance as off-white or gray, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
With regards to claim 3, Decker modified teaches the plurality of near-IR transparent pigments comprise at least one perylene black pigment (Col. 8, Line 13 – Col. 9, Line 3).
With regards to claim 4, Decker teaches titanium dioxide mixed in with the plurality of near-IR transparent pigments (Col. 5, Lines 38 – 46) (Col. 7, Lines 1 – 55).
With regards to claim 5, Decker teaches carbon black is present in the primer at an amount of no more than 0.05% by weight (Col. 16, Line 24).
With regards to claim 6, Decker teaches the primer is completely free of carbon black (Col. 16, Lines 15 – 30).
With regards to claim 11, Decker teaches a multilayer coating system (Col. 6, Line 63 to Col. 7, Line 6) for automobile component or vehicles employing an IR-reflective undercoat and IR-transparent pigment topcoat (i.e., in addition to NIR: reflectance increases 750 – 850 nm with greater at 90% at 900nm; Col. 8, Lines 4 -22), substantially free of carbon black (Col. 16, Lines 7 – 30), with Total Solar Reflectance (TSR) measure per ASTM E903/E1918 and further including dark L criteria (Col. 17, Lines 20 – 40).
Decker further teaches a film thickness of 0.001 to 20 mils (Col. 19, Lines 3 -8) and measuring signals or total reflectance using an integrating sphere at angles observing (i.e., 110 to -15 degrees) spectrophotometer (Col. 15, Line 1 to Col. 16, Line 55) (Colo. 17, Lines 26).
Decker fails to expressly disclose a primer configured to optimize LIDAR detection distance of a coated object, wherein the primer coating specifically has:
a CIELAB L* value no more than 35 or less as measured using an integrating sphere spectrophotometer with D65 illumination, 10° observer, and specular component included; and a specific total solar reflectance of no less than 72% as measured following the method of ASTM E903-12.
Kruesemann teaches a coating formed on a substrate is provided which coating comprises (a) an organic NIR-transparent pigment and/or an inorganic NIR-reflective pigment; (b) a dye having a transmittance of at least 75% in the range of from 700 to 2500 nm; and (c) optionally an effect pigment; wherein said coating exhibits a total solar reflectance (TSR). Notice how the coating is suitable for an exterior-use coating like an industrial coating or a coating for vehicles, especially an automotive finish, having improved jetness (Abstract).
Kruesemann further teaches that the TSR is measured according to ASTM Standard Method E 903-96 using the direct normal solarspectral irradiance from ASTM G159-98 [0010]. The term L* (lightness) used herein means the lightness in the L*a*b* color space (also referred to as CIELAB) specified by the Commission Internationale de l'Eclairage, wherein a* and b* are the chromaticity coordinates. The L* value is measured at an observation angle with a plurality of nominal values including between 30, 40 or 60 up to 100, which clearly includes 93.03 [0003], [0010] – [0023], [0088]. Notice how Kruesemann teaches that TSR is a result-effective variable tied to L* and white/TiO2 primer and other variables depending on the needs of the application at hand [0010] – [0023].
Hellring relates generally to coating compositions that transmit infrared radiation and exhibit color stability for many coating applications such as automotive coatings, aerospace coatings, industrial coatings and architectural coatings [0001] [0076] [0078] [0086] (Abstract). Hellring further teaches using D65 illumination and 10 degrees of observation (i.e., see Example 12 at paragraph [0111].
Yu discloses coatings, films and materials that aid in a) reducing surface temperature of a structure or composite material when environmental temperature is relatively high and b) increasing surface temperature under relatively low environmental temperature. Surface temperature modulation is achieved using a synergistic combination of thermochromic materials and light scattering components (Abstract).
Yu teaches that the coatings, films and materials are included in automobiles in order to provide methods for vehicles with thermal management, including the step of coating a vehicle with a thermochromic coating or film to reduce the thermal load and other unwanted unnecessary outcomes (Col. 4, Lines 1 – 68).
Lastly, Yu teaches using the ASTM E903-12. Standard test method for solar absorptance, reflectance, and transmittance of materials using integrating spheres. Technical Report, American Society for Testing and Materials, 2012 (Col. 9, Lines 1 – 30). Notice that generally speaking, E903-96 was established by core principles, while E903-12 refined the methodology, standardized the data interpretation, and enhanced the accuracy for modern applications, making it more robust for certain energy efficiency application, such as reflective NIR sensory. The primary difference between ASTM E903-12 and the older ASTM E903-96 lies in the updated solar irradiance spectra used for weighting the measured reflectance and the addition of specific guidance for textured materials (i.e., full name – Standard ASTM E903-12 - Standard Test Method for Solar Absorptance, Reflectance, and Transmittance of Materials Using Integrating Spheres).
Hall teaches Exemplary LiDAR systems are shown in FIGS. 1, 2 and 10. In one example, light pulses that reflect from objects (i.e., reflective surface) so that the return reflections may be detected by detectors. The system provides a 360-degree horizontal field of view (FOV) and, depending on the number and orientation of lasers within the housing or strategy, a desired vertical or another field of view. The system is typically mounted on the top center of a vehicle, giving it a clear view in all directions (Abstract) (Col. 2, Lines 55 to Col. 5, Line 24).
Notice that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235.
In addition to how The Supreme Court also noted in KSR that an obviousness “analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim” because one “can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” Id. at 418.
In view of the utilities, to enhanced NIR reflective coated devices, with the particular enhanced reflective coatings such as that taught above to exhibit color stability along with the proper testing formats within a Lidar set up (i.e., or context) to increase detection distance and effectiveness such as that taught by the references above, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine all the teachings since doing so is only switching known techniques to similar problems and seen as only a routine predictable result.
With regards to claim 12, Decker modified discloses the coating system has a total near-IR % reflectance at many wavelengths of 20 or greater when cured, and when measured using a near-IR integrating sphere spectrophotometer with specular component included (Summary of the invention).
Decker fails to expressly disclose a wavelength exactly at 905 nm.
Hall teaches Exemplary LiDAR systems are shown in FIGS. 1, 2 and 10, wherein the laser is preferably an OSRAM 905 nm emitter and photodiode is preferable an avalanche variety along with a few other modifications to the set up in order to reduce power consumption, run cooler and enhance the sensitivity (Col. 3, Lines 62 to 66).
In view of the utility, to reduce power consumption, run cooler and enhance the sensitivity, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Decker to include the teachings such as that taught by Hall.
With regards to claim 13, Decker teaches a topcoat layer, such as a non-opaque clear coat, applied over the first layer (Col. 16, Lines 30 – 55).
With regards to claim 14, Decker teaches at least one of: a visibly-absorbing near-IR transparent pigment or dye in the second layer, the second layer being substantially free of carbon black (Col. 7, Lines 27 – 39) (Col. 16, Line 20).
With regards to claim 15, Decker teaches at least one of: a visibly-absorbing near-IR transparent pigment or dye in the topcoat layer (Col. 7, Lines 27 – 39).
With regards to claims 16, 18 and 21, Decker modified teaches the claimed invention according to claim 11 but fails to expressly disclose the coating system has a LIDAR detection range of 71.1, 63.4, 65.2, 83.6,81.1 or 74 (m) or greater when measured at 0° or 30° by the LIDAR detection unit; and the LIDAR detection unit operating at a wavelength in the range of 900-910 nm.
Hall describes operating and orienting the sensory in a range of approximately 100 meters using a 905 nm laser (Col. 3, Line 65) (Col. 5, Lines 36 – 42).
In view of the utility, to reduce power consumption, run cooler and enhance the sensitivity, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Decker to include the teachings such as that taught by Hall.
With regards to claim 17, Decker teaches the coating system has a visible color of red or dark red, with a CIELAB L* value of no more than 35 as measured using an integrating sphere spectrophotometer with D65 illumination, 10° observer, and specular component included (Col. 5, Lines 24 – 46) (i.e., also see the rejection to claim 16 above).
With regards to claim 19, Decker modified teaches the coating system has a visible color of blue or dark blue, with a CIELAB L* value of no more than 35 as measured using an integrating sphere spectrophotometer with D65 illumination, 10° observer, and specular component included (Col. 5, Lines 24 – 46) (i.e., also see the rejection to claim 16 above).
With regards to claim 20, Decker modified discloses the claimed limitations according to claim 11 but fails to expressly disclose that the second layer has an absolute CIELAB L* value of less than 35 as measured using an integrating sphere spectrophotometer with D65 illumination, 10° observer, and specular component included.
Kruesemann teaches black coating as claimed [0083] – [0087] (Example 4; [0112]), (i.e., also see the rejections of claim 11).
In view of the utility, to enhance the sensitivity and improve color depth, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Decker to include the teachings such as that taught by Kruesemann.
With regards to claims 22 – 25, Decker modified discloses the claimed invention according to claims 11, 20 and 21 and further high reflectance at 900 nm for IR/NIR transparent pigment but fails to disclose reflectance at specifically 905 nm of 60, 70, 77 and/or 80 or greater along with the L* value of 20 or less and the integrating sphere.
Kruesemann discloses a reflective coating which is especially suitable for dark colored and black coatings, for example dark blue or black coatings along with said coatings exhibiting a lightness of L* equal to or less than 20 or 15 or 12 [0082] – [0084].
Hellring discloses determining an initial CIELAB color using D65 illumination and 10 degrees observer along with measuring for % Total Solar Reflectance (% TSR) using a NIR spectrometer [0110].
Hall discloses using a laser at 905 emitter and a photo avalanche variety to detect and in a high definition lidar system using coated reflections devices (Col. 3, Lines 62 – 66).
In view of the utility, to enhance the sensitivity and improve color depth, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Decker to include all teachings such as that taught by Kruesemann, Hellring and Hall.
With regards to claim 26, see claims 1 and 11 with regards to the upper bound and broad disclosed L* values satisfying the claimed 95.59 exactly claimed value and the citations with the rejections of claims 1 and 11 addressing CIELAB L*.
With regards to claim 27, see the rejections of claims 11 and 13.
Claim(s) 7 - 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Decker et al. (US Patent 9,056,988 B2), Kruesemann et al. (US Pub. No. 2015/0004424 A1), Hellring et al. (US Pub. No. 2012/0308724 A1), Yu et al. (US Patent 10,125,272 B2) and Hall et al. (US Patent 8,767,190 B2) in view of Sonnabend (US Patent 4,384,096).
With regards to claims 7 – 9, Decker modified discloses the claimed invention according to claim 1, and further that the coating compositions described above are suitable for use in, for example, in multi-component composite coatings as discussed below, for example, as a primer coating or as a pigmented base coating composition in a color-plus-clear system, or as a monocoat topcoat (Colo. 16, Line 30 to Col. 17, Line 40).
Decker modified fails to expressly disclose the primer coating claimed weight percentage, base weight and untinted weight and black base as claimed. Notice that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Sonnabend teaches conventional tinting practices where test paint is prepared by mixing specific color tint with formulated base compositions. Sonnabend evidences that tinting is performed by adding small quantities of tint to a formulated base in order to mean primed-unprimed composition that provides the desired color acceptance as needed (Col. 16, Lines 2- 14) (Abstract).
In view of the utility, to enhance the sensitivity and improve color depth, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Decker to include the teachings such as that taught by Kruesemann.
With regards to claim 10, Decker modified teaches the primer as claimed according to claim 7, but fails to expressly disclose that the primer has a maximum temperature measured under a heat lamp of less than 173.0 F (78.3 C) carried out according to ASTM B4803-10.
Notice that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation - In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Decker to include the heat lamp max temperature heat heating temperature and standard testing method, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable practices involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to follow the NIR absorption to drive the heating temperature using standardized methods for the purpose of rational optimization as needed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DJURA MALEVIC whose telephone number is (571) 272-5975. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (9-5).
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, Uzma Alam can be reached on 571.272.3995. 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.
/DJURA MALEVIC/Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/UZMA ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884