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 .
Status of Application
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8-13, 15-22 and 26 are pending. Claims 21 and 22 are withdrawn. Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8-13, 15-20 and 26 are presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/4/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that there is no teaching in Walters that the photothermally active material used therein would be sufficiently activated by IR radiation wavelengths as recited in the present claims, and that the photothermally active materials of Walters are only taught to be activated in a range of 150-2000 nm. However, the Examiner disagrees and notes that IR wavelengths generally up to 2000 nm (2 microns) can be used in Walters’ process (0111). Furthermore, Walters does not teach against the use of higher IR wavelengths and does teach that actinic radiation as used in their process is light with wavelengths ranging from the UV light range, through visible and into the IR range (0026). Additionally, Schroder teaches a similar process for curing coatings using a peak wavelength of light up to 4.5 microns overlapping Applicant’s claimed range. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that it would have been obvious to arrive at Applicant’s claimed wavelength based on the combination of Walters and Schroder.
Regarding claim 26, Applicant argues that Walters requires a photothermally active material to effect cure and there is no teaching or suggestion that this compound could be eliminated. However, the Examiner notes that the claims do not exclude a photothermally active material, as the claim uses the transitional phrase “consists essentially of” rather than the close-ended language “consists of”. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are moot.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
1. Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-6, 8, 10-13, 15-17, 20 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walters et al. (U.S. PGPUB No. 2016/0333220) in view of Schroder et al. (U.S. PGPUB No. 2010/0007285).
I. Regarding claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8, 10-12, 15, 16, 20 and 26, Walters teaches a method comprising: applying a coating composition to a surface of a substrate (0109), such as wood or metal (0098), to a thickness of 2.5-75 microns (0110), wherein the composition comprises (note that the language “consists essentially of” in claim 26 is interpreted as “comprising” as there is no indication in the specification or claims of what the basic and novel characteristics actually are) a film-forming resin (0052), such as an acrylic polyol resin (0052 and 0054), a catalyst (abstract), a crosslinking agent for crosslinking the film-forming resin (0051), such as a polyisocyanate (0029), and additives, such as hindered amine light stabilizers (0088); and applying pulsed IR radiation to form a cured coating (0111). Walters teaches that the composition can be a 1K coating composition (0087) that is solvent-borne or water-borne (0028). Additionally, Walters teaches that the pulsed IR radiation has an impulse energy of 1-108 W/cm2 (0124), a typical pulse duration of 1femtosecond-1 microsecond (0111), generally has a wavelength ranging from 150 nm-2000 nm (0111) and can be applied to a total time of less than 30 min (0111 and 0128). Walters fails to teach the impulse energy of 250-350 W/cm2, a peak wavelength of 3-6 microns and a pulse duration of at least 5 microseconds to 100 microseconds, or more specifically 7-17 microseconds.
First, Walters does teach a range for the impulse energy of 1-108 W/cm2 (0124). Furthermore, overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. Therefore, Walters makes obvious the impulse energy as claimed.
Second, Schroder teaches a similar process for curing coatings (abstract) using pulsed irradiation (abstract) with a peak wavelength up to 4.5 microns (0018). Additionally, Schroder teaches pulsed IR conducted with a pulse duration of 10 microseconds-10 milliseconds (0018, which overlaps Applicant’s claimed range of 7-17 microseconds). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Walters’ process by using pulsed IR radiation with a peak wavelength up to 4.5 microns and a pulse duration of 7-17 microseconds as disclosed by Schroder. One would have been motivated to make this modification as it would allow for tailoring the energy level and for adjusting the desired wavelength to a broader range allowing for treatment of different resins, crosslinking agents and catalysts. Furthermore, these are result-effective variables that will dictate the degree of curing and will necessarily need to be adjusted based on the resin, crosslinker and catalyst utilized in the composition. Therefore, it also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the instantly claimed ranges through process optimization, 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. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
II. Regarding claim 13, Walters in view of Schroder make obvious all the limitations of claim 1, but fail to explicitly teach the pulse frequency. However, Schroder teaches pulsed IR conducted with a pulse duration of 10 microseconds-10 milliseconds (0018) and a pulse frequency of up to 1000 Hz (0018), both ranges that overlap with Applicant’s claimed ranges. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Walters in view of Schroder’s process by conducting the pulsed irradiation with a duration and frequency as claimed. One would have been motivated to make this modification as Schroder teaches that these are conventional frequencies and durations to be used in pulsed IR treatment. Furthermore, these are result-effective variables that will dictate the degree of curing and will necessarily need to be adjusted based on the resin, crosslinker and catalyst utilized in the composition. Therefore, it also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the instantly claimed ranges through process optimization, 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. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
III. Regarding claim 17, Walters in view of Schroder make obvious all the limitations of claim 1, but fail to explicitly teach the substrate temperature. However, Schroder teaches that the pulsed irradiation can be conducted on a coated substrate maintained at a temperature of 27 ºC (0034). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Walters in view of Schroder’s process by maintaining the substrate at a temperature of less than 130 ºC. One would have been motivated to make this modification as Schroder teaches that 27 ºC is a useable substrate temperature and the use of a low temperature would also prevent damage to the substrate during the curing process.
2. Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walters in view of Schroder as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Montagna et al. (U.S. PGPUB No. 2007/0084542).
Regarding claim 9, Walters in view of Schroder make obvious all the limitations of claim 1, but fail to teach the coating is a clear coat composition. However, Walters in view of Schroder teach the use of the coating for coating metal and vehicle parts (see Walters at 0098-0101). Additionally, Montagna teaches that it is conventional to use acrylic polyols and polyisocyanate compositions as clear coats (0028) for vehicles (0028) that can be cured with radiation (0028). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Walters in view of Schroder’s process by having the coating being a clear coat composition as disclosed by Montagna. One would have been motivated to make this modification to allow for providing a protective coating over the vehicle part as disclosed by Montagna at paragraph 0028.
3. Claim(s) 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walters in view of Schroder as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Buyanova et al. (“Pulsed infrared radiation for drying raw materials of plant and animal origin”).
Regarding claims 18 and 19, Walters in view of Schroder make obvious all the limitations of claim 1, but fail to explicitly teach the pulsed IR source being a surface comprising a ceramic composition that can emit radiation and faces the surface of the substrate at a distance of 5-30 cm. However, Buyanova teaches utilizing a ceramic composition for generating pulsed IR radiation (2nd paragraph, page 153) where the ceramic composition is placed to face a substrate to be treated at a distance of 25 cm (Figure 1 and abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute Buyanova’s pulsed IR source for Walters in view of Schroder’s source. One would have been motivated to make this modification as one could have substituted one pulsed IR source/device for another with a reasonable expectation of success (as the pulsed IR from both sources will perform the same curing function, regardless of how the radiation is generated), and the predictable result of providing a cured coating.
Conclusion
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8-13, 15-22 and 26 are pending.
Claims 21 and 22 are withdrawn.
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8-13, 15-20 and 26 are rejected.
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 ROBERT S WALTERS JR whose telephone number is (571)270-5351. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at 571-272-1295. 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.
/ROBERT S WALTERS JR/
March 22, 2026Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1717