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 .
Request for Interview
In view of the foregoing instant office action, it is respectfully submitted that if Applicant has any questions or concerns with said instant office action, the Examiner respectfully invites Applicant to contact the Examiner at the telephone number appearing below.
Response to Amendment
1. The amendment filed 05/11/2026 was entered. Independent claims 1, 11, and 27 were amended. Dependent claims 3, 13, 16, and 21 were also amended. No claims are cancelled, withdrawn, or added. Accordingly, claims 1-27 remain pending, of which claims 1, 11, and 27 are the independent claims at issue. Support for the claim amendments was found throughout the originally filed specification, including at least paragraphs [0002]- [0006] and [0027]- [0034].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Argument 1 — The references do not teach the upper/lower layer interaction.
Applicant argues that the cited coating references do not disclose NIR passing through a visibly absorbing upper layer and being reflected by a lower primer. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The argument is not persuasive. Decker expressly places its visibly absorbing NIR-transparent pigment composition in a topcoat above an infrared-reflective lower layer; Decker (Col. 7, Lines 27 – 44; Col. 16, Lines 37 – 54). Decker also describes the known optical path in which an upper visibly colored, NIR-transparent layer permits NIR to reach a reflective underlayer; Decker (Col. 1, Lines 46 – 61). Hellring independently teaches the same arrangement. Hellring [0003]–[0005], [0074], claims 8 and 23.
Argument 2 — The second layer does not “influence the return.”
Applicant argues that merely identifying a reflective lower layer does not establish the claimed effect on the LiDAR return. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The former action needed a clearer optical chain, but the combined art supplies it. Hellring teaches that the reflective component increases NIR reflection. Hellring [0075]. Hall defines return intensity as the relative amount of reflected light received and recognizes enhanced detectability from reflective paint; Hall (Col. 5, Lines 13–18, 10:23–30). The lower layer therefore predictably influences the return by changing the NIR energy reflected back through the upper layer toward the detector. This is a 103 predictable-result rationale, not a bare inherency assertion.
Argument 3 — In re Aller does not permit optimization of every claimed number.
Applicant argues that the prior action treated TSR, L*, thickness, formulation percentages, temperatures, and detection results as though each were automatically a result-effective variable. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant’s criticism of an indiscriminate use of Aller has been considered, but it does not overcome the rewritten rejection of claim 1. Aller applies only after the Office identifies known general conditions and a variable recognized as affecting the pertinent property or result. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955); MPEP § 2144.05(II). The claim 1 rejection does not depend on treating every recited number as an unknown result-effective variable.
Decker expressly teaches dark coatings having L* values no greater than 50, 40, 30, 25, 20, or 10, values within the claimed ceiling of 93.03. Decker, (Col. 8, Lines 14–21. Decker also teaches coating-film thicknesses including 0.1–2 mils, which overlap the claimed dry-film thickness below two mils. Decker, (Col. 19, Lines 3–9). Those limitations therefore rest on express or overlapping disclosures, not a generalized optimization assertion.
Argument 4 — In re Antonie applies because the art did not recognize the relevant result.
Applicant argues that broadband solar-reflectance art did not recognize the claimed parameters as controlling 905-nm LiDAR performance. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The argument is partly persuasive. Hall recognizes the pertinent physical relationship between reflected light and received return, while Decker and Hellring recognize that coating architecture and a reflective component change NIR reflection. Hall, (Col. 5, Lines 13–18); (Col. 10, Lines 23–30); Decker, (Col. 1, Lines 46–61); Col. 16, Lines 37–54); (Col. 17, Lines 21–26); Hellring [0074]–[0075]. That connection supports the broad “influencing” limitation. It does not permit the Office to treat visible L*, broadband TSR, or an unspecified detection distance as equivalent to a whole-system 905-nm value without a technical nexus. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620 (CCPA 1977).
Argument 5 — Hall is directed to LIDAR not coating.
Applicant argues that Hall is a LiDAR reference, not a coating reference. The examiner respectfully disagrees in part, see below.
Correct, but not convincing or decisive. Hall is relied upon only for the 905-nm emitted/returned-light environment and the reflectivity-dependent return. Decker, Hellring, and Kruesemann supply the coating teachings. The combination uses each reference for what it actually teaches.
Notice that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test 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).
For claim 27, applicant argues that claim 27 further recites a coating system at a wavelength of 905nm of 20 or greater and/or the associated functional performance. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Notice that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test 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).
In this instance, the Office refers to Decker and Hellring as teaching a visibly color, NIR transmitting upper layer over an NIR reflective lower layer. The Office also points to Hall for teachings detecting returned radiation at 905nm, and finally to Yu for supporting measuring reflectance under ASTM E903-12, see the rejections of claims 1, 11 and 13.
As per the examiners’ understanding, all of the arguments entered were addressed, in addition to the new amended claims, see below.
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 coating composition containing an infrared-transparent pigment, often a visibly absorbing infrared-transparent pigment, including infrared-transparent black pigments based on perylene structures. (Col. 7, Lines 27–44). Use of that pigment-containing composition as a topcoat in a multicomponent coating system having an infrared-reflective coating layer deposited beneath at least a portion of the topcoat (Col. 16, Lines 37–54). An underlying infrared-reflective layer measured by TSR, including embodiments having TSR of at least 15%, 20%, 30%, 50%, and, in certain cases, at least 60%. (Col. 17, Lines 21–26). Decker further teaches compositions substantially or completely free of carbon black and coating-film thicknesses including 0.1–2 mils. (Col. 16, Lines 19–29; Col. 19, Lines 3–9; claims 21 and 26–27).
Also, Decker expressly discloses L* values falling within the claimed ceiling and a film-thickness range overlapping the claimed thickness below two mils. (Col. 8, Lines 14–21; Col. 19, Lines. 3–9).
Lastly, notice that Decker teaches a two-layer system has an upper layer colored with pigments that absorb visible radiation but are transparent to near-infrared radiation, and an underlayer that reflects near-infrared radiation (col. 1, lines 46–61). Thus, Decker’s own embodiment also confirms an infrared-reflective coating beneath the topcoat (Col. 15, Lines 37–45), (Col. 16, Lines 37–54).
Decker does not, however, expressly disclose the claimed combination including primer TSR of at least 72% measured under ASTM E903-12; its disclosed lower-layer value reaches an open-ended “at least 60%” under ASTM E903-96 or E1918. (Col. 17, Lines 21–26).
Decker also does not disclose use of the coating for LiDAR detection distance or expressly disclose that the lower layer influences a 905-nm return to a LiDAR detector.
Kruesemann teaches automotive coatings that avoid carbon black, use NIR-transparent perylene black pigments and inorganic pigments, and deliberately balance visible L* with TSR; it also expressly identifies a multilayer automotive system in which the inorganic pigment may be in an underlying primer. Its worked black formulations use more than one perylene black pigment [0003], [0010]–[0013], [0020], [0027]–[0030], [0082]–[0089], [0105]–[0112]; claims 9–13.
Hellring expressly teaches an upper coating colored with visibly absorbing NIR-transparent pigment over a lower coating containing an NIR-reflective pigment [0003]–[0005], [0074]; claims 8 and 23.
Hellring further teaches that inclusion of the reflective pigment produces greater NIR reflectance than the corresponding composition without that pigment, including increases of at least 10 or 15 percentage points in disclosed embodiments [0075].
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 also teaches that the coatings, films and materials are included in automobiles 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 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 applications, 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 a 905-nm emitter, reflection of transmitted pulses from external objects, return intensity as the relative amount of light received, and detection beyond the sensor’s ordinary range from a particularly reflective painted stop sign (Col. 1, Lines 15–24; Col. 3, Lines 62–66; Col. 5, Lines 13–18; Col. 10, Lines 23–30; Figs. 1–3 and 16).
Hall teaches the state of the art and includes LiDAR systems as 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.
As such, a person of ordinary skill seeking a dark automotive coating with reduced NIR absorption and greater reflected NIR energy would have had reason to use Kruesemann’s carbon-black-free, NIR-transparent color design in Decker’s expressly disclosed topcoat/reflective-underlayer system. Decker describes the known optical direction—NIR passes through the visibly colored upper layer and is reflected by the lower layer—and implements a reflective coating beneath a topcoat. Kruesemann [0003], [0082]–[0089]; Decker, (Col. 1, Lines 46–61; Col. 16, Lines 37–54); Hellring [0074]–[0075].
The 72% TSR limit may be addressed as a narrow same-property optimization. Decker expressly teaches the same measured property in an open-ended progression through “at least 60%,” and Hellring teaches that reflective-pigment inclusion increases NIR solar reflectance. Decker, (Col. 17, Lines 21–26); Hellring [0075]. Under In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955), routine optimization is available where the general conditions are known, and the variable is recognized as affecting the relevant property. This rationale does not establish every other number in the claims, does not equate broadband TSR with 905-nm whole-system reflectance, and does not by itself resolve the difference between ASTM E903-96 and ASTM E903-12. Lastly, Yu teaches test methods for solar absorptance, reflectance, and transmittance of materials using integrating spheres and the claimed methodology, see Yu above.
In view of the utility of preserving a desired visible automotive color while increasing the amount of near-IR energy reflected from the coated object, it would have been obvious to employ Decker’s NIR-transparent colored upper layer and reflective lower layer, as confirmed by Hellring and informed by Kruesemann’s carbon-black-free automotive color design, on an object observed by Hall’s 905-nm LiDAR in combination with Yu’s test methods as needed and since doing so is only switching known techniques for similar problems and seen as only an obvious predictable result and routine in the art.
Notice that the lower layer would predictably influence the return because Hall defines return intensity by the relative amount of reflected light received. Decker, (Col. 16, Lines 37–54; Col. 17, Lines 21–26); Hellring [0074]–[0075]; Kruesemann [0082]–[0089]; Hall, (Col. 3, Lines 62–66; Col. 5, Lines 13–18); Col. 10, Lines 23–30); Yu, (Col. 9, Lines 1 – 30).
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 necessarily express 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 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 solar spectral 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 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 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 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 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 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 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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
Prosecution Insights