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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2005/0009983 A1 to Itakura et al. (hereinafter Itakura).
Regarding claim 1, Itakura teaches a top clear coating composition as a two-package type comprising a main composition and a curing agent (See abstract and para 65). The main composition comprises an acrylic polyol (B1), an acrylic resin containing a tertiary amine (B2), and the curing agent comprises a polyisocyanate (para 46). Specifically, the main composition contains 75 parts of an acrylic polyol (Dianal LR-2586) having an OH value of 60 mg KOH/g (para 89), 25 part of an acrylic polyol (Setalux 1850SS-50) having an OH value of 169 mg KOH/g, 2 parts of an epoxysilane (KBM 403), 0.02 parts of a polydimethylsiloxane leveling additive (SH2000-100CS), 1.6 parts of a light stabilizer (Sanol LS-292), and 4.1 parts of a UV absorber (Tinuvin 384) (Clear coating 6, Table 3, para 91), and 14.3 parts of a HDI biuret polyisocyanate (Duranate 24A-90PX) curing agent. (Table 3, Clear coating 6). The main composition is mixed with the curing agent in a NCO/OH weight ratio of 1/1, to form the top clear coating composition, applied to a substrate and cured at 80 deg C to form a 30 micron thick film. (para 101-102).
In regard to the coefficient of dynamic friction of the surface of the coating film, one skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation for the above top clear coating of Itakura to have the claimed coefficient of dynamic friction properties because Itakura teaches a substantially identical clear coating composition to the claimed invention such as the first hydroxy-containing acrylic resin and second hydroxy-containing acrylic resin in the claimed OH values and Applicant further recites in their specification that it is the combination of the low OH value first hydroxy-containing acrylic resin and higher OH value second hydroxy-containing acrylic resin that gives the coating the coefficient of dynamic friction surface properties of the coating. See MPEP 2112.01. (Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)).
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2011/0152440 A1 to Taniguchi et al. (hereinafter Taniguchi).
Regarding claims 1-2, Taniguchi teaches a clear coating composition obtained by sequentially mixing 70 parts of a hydroxy group containing acrylic resin (A1) having an OH value of 156 mg KOH/g with 30 parts of a hydroxy group containing acrylic resin (B2) having an OH value of 86 mg KOH/g (Table 3, Example 6, CC-6), para 70), which meets the claimed base agent. The above is then mixed with a HDI cyanurate polyisocyanate (Desmodur N3300) curing agent (Table 3, Example 6, CC-6), in a NCO/OH mol ratio of 1.0 (Table 3), which meets the claimed curing agent.
In regard to the coefficient of dynamic friction of the surface of the coating film, one skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation for the above clear coating of Taniguchi to have the claimed coefficient of dynamic friction properties because Taniguchi teaches a substantially identical clear coating composition to the claimed invention such as the first hydroxy-containing acrylic resin and second hydroxy-containing acrylic resin in the claimed OH values and Applicant further recites in their specification that it is the combination of the low OH value first hydroxy-containing acrylic resin and higher OH value second hydroxy-containing acrylic resin that gives the coating the coefficient of dynamic friction surface properties of the coating. See MPEP 2112.01. (Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)).
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 105820737 A to Zhang et al. (hereinafter Zhang).
Regarding claims 1-2, Zhang teaches a dual-component coating comprising a component A and a component B (See abstract), the component A contains
PNG
media_image1.png
549
636
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Google translate of page 2), and component B contains
PNG
media_image2.png
275
442
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(Google translate of page 3). Specifically, the hydroxy acrylic resin contains weight ratio of 1.5-2 to 1 of a high-hydroxyl OH value hydroxyacrylic resin and low-hydroxy OH value hydroxyacrylic resin (page 3), specifically 61.5/38.4 ratio (See Examples), wherein the high OH value range is 130-145 mgKOH/g and the low OH value range is 70-90 mgKOH/g (page 3), and the curing agent is used in a NCO:OH molar ratio of 1.4-1.5:1 (page 4). Zhang further teaches the coating has excellent adhesion and sanding performance (page 1-2 and examples).
In regard to the coefficient of dynamic friction of the surface of the coating film, one skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation for the above clear coating of Zhang to have the claimed coefficient of dynamic friction properties because Zhang teaches a substantially identical clear coating composition to the claimed invention such as the first hydroxy-containing acrylic resin and second hydroxy-containing acrylic resin in the claimed OH values and Applicant further recites in their specification that it is the combination of the low OH value first hydroxy-containing acrylic resin and higher OH value second hydroxy-containing acrylic resin that gives the coating the coefficient of dynamic friction surface properties of the coating, and this is further evident by Zhang teaching the coating has excellent sanding performance. (page 1-2 and examples). See MPEP 2112.01. (Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)).
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 106221541 A to He et al. (hereinafter He).
Regarding claims 1-2, He teaches a two-component coating comprising a main agent A and a curing agent B (See abstract), wherein the main agent A contains 30-70 parts of a high-hydroxy acrylic emulsion, 25-50 parts of a low-hydroxyl acrylic emulsion, and the curing agent B contains 60-80 parts of an isocyanate (page 2). Specifically, Example 3, the main agent A contains 40% high-hydroxy acrylic emulsion (VSM 6299, OH value of 135 mgKOH/g), and 40% a low-hydroxy acrylic emulstion (AC 192 from Stahl, OH value of 60 mgKOH/g), and the curing agent is a hexamethylene diisocyanate (HDI) polyisocyanate (Bayhdur XP 2655), in an OH:NCO molar ratio of 1:1.4, (Example 5), which meets the claimed two-pack coating composition. The coating has excellent transparency (i.e. clear), (page 4 and 9).
In regard to the coefficient of dynamic friction of the surface of the coating film, one skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation for the above coating of He to have the claimed coefficient of dynamic friction properties because He teaches a substantially identical clear coating composition to the claimed invention such as the first hydroxy-containing acrylic resin and second hydroxy-containing acrylic resin in the claimed OH values and Applicant further recites in their specification that it is the combination of the low OH value first hydroxy-containing acrylic resin and higher OH value second hydroxy-containing acrylic resin that gives the coating the coefficient of dynamic friction surface properties of the coating. See MPEP 2112.01. (Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)).
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2021/106902 A1 in which US 2023/0015961 A1 to Mori et al. is used as the US English equivalent below. (hereinafter Mori).
Regarding claims 1-2, Mori teaches a coating composition comprising a main agent component (I) and a curding agent component (II) (para 133). In Table 6, comparative examples the main agent contain 20 parts of acrylic resin (A1) having an OH value of 86 mgKOH/g (para 158) and 40 parts of acrylic resin (B1) having an OH value of 130 mgKOH/g (para 166), (Table 6, Comparative Examples 1-3, 6-8) and the curing agent containing 35 parts of a HDI cyanurate polyisocyanate (Sumidur N330). (Table 6).
In regard to the coefficient of dynamic friction of the surface of the coating film, one skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation for the above coating of Mori to have the claimed coefficient of dynamic friction properties because Mori teaches a substantially identical clear coating composition to the claimed invention such as the first hydroxy-containing acrylic resin and second hydroxy-containing acrylic resin in the claimed OH values and Applicant further recites in their specification that it is the combination of the low OH value first hydroxy-containing acrylic resin and higher OH value second hydroxy-containing acrylic resin that gives the coating the coefficient of dynamic friction surface properties of the coating. See MPEP 2112.01. (Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 3-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itakura, Tanaguchi, Zhang, He, and/or Mori, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of JP 2018-002900 A to Kasahara et al. (hereinafter Kasahara).
Regarding claims 3-6, as cited above and incorporated herein, Itakura, Tanaguchi, Zhang, He, and/or Mori, applied to claim 1.
Itakura, Tanaguchi, Zhang, He, and/or Mori, do not explicitly teach the acrylic-silicone copolymer and/or silicone compound combination of claims 3 and 5.
However, Kasahara teaches a two pack clear coating composition comprising a main agent (I) and a curing agent (II), wherein the main agent contains an acrylic resin (A1) with an OH value of 70-170 mgKOH/g (See abstract, and para 61) and an acrylic resin (A2) with an acid number of 100-300 mgKOH/g (See abstract), and the curing agent is a polyisocyanate (para 113), which is in the same field of use of two-pack coating composition of the Applicant’s invention. Kasahara also teaches the main agent may further contain a surface adjusting agent such as polyether-modified siloxane (E) (para 82-87), which meets the claimed silicone compound for claim 5, and a surface adjust agent other than (E), (para 88 and 99), wherein the other surface adjusting agent is either a silicone-based surface adjusting agent such as (meth)acryl containing polydimethylsiloxanes wherein examples include Polyflow KL-700 (para 90-92) or an acrylic surface conditioner such as a silicone-modified acrylic resins wherein examples include Disparlon NSH-8430HF (para 97-98), which both meet the claimed acrylic-silicone copolymers of claim 3-4. The surface adjusting agent is used in an amount of 10.1-10 parts by mass (para 100), and the surface adjusting other than the above (E) is used in an amount of 0.1-7 parts by mass (para 100-102), and the ratio of polyether-modified siloxane (E) and the other surface adjusting agent is used in a ratio of 1-30/99-70 (para 103), which meets the claimed amounts and ratio of claims 3-6. Kasahara further teaches that the above surface adjusting agent (E) and surface adjusting agent other than (E) is used to improve wettability and leveling properties, improves finishing properties, (para 83-84), popping resistance (para 99) and the ratio is preferred in view of compatibility and popping resistance. (para 103).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to use the amounts and ratios of the above surface adjusting agent (E) and surface adjusting agent other than (E) of Kasahara because Kasahara teaches the same field of use of a two-pack coating composition of the Applicant’s invention and Kasahara further teaches that the above surface adjusting agent (E) and surface adjusting agent other than (E) is used to improve wettability and leveling properties, improves finishing properties, (para 83-84), popping resistance (para 99) and the ratio is preferred in view of compatibility and popping resistance. (para 103).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HA S NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7395. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, Flex schedule 7:30am-4:00pm.
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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at (571)272-1302. 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.
/HA S NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Prosecution Insights