DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-12 in the reply filed on 8/5/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the method of claims 13-17 is directed to a method of use and not a method of making. This is not found persuasive because the preamble “A method of preparing ultraviolet-absorbing resin” is implied to be a method of making the composition and not a method of using the composition. The term “preparing” means that the following steps in the method would be directed to forming the composition and not using the composition. The steps recited in claim 13 are directed to a method of use and not a method of making. Therefore, the preamble and the steps in the method claims contradict each other and the scope is confusing. Nevertheless, it is noted that the product can be used by a materially different method such as extrusion or injection molding. In regard to Applicant’s assertions of lack of burden, Examiner notes that in light of the different classification, the burden is established.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 13-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 8/5/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-4 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nagato et al. (US 20100180938).
Nagato discloses a coating composition for forming a protective layer on a cover layer. Concerning claims 1 and 2, Nagato discloses the coating composition comprises a curable fluorine-containing resin that has the claimed repeat units at a content of 200 parts solution (50% by mass solids, resulting in 100 parts resin, 100 parts solvent), an isocyanate curing agent at a content of 4 parts, 21 parts UV absorber, and 150 parts solvent, which is the total of the 50 parts additional solvent and 100 parts from the solution (Example 6; para. 0167 and 0018-0098). When converted to weight percent, the total number of parts is 275 parts, resulting in 45 wt% fluorine-containing resin, 7.6 wt% of an isocyanate curing agent, 1.5 wt% of a UV absorber, and the balance being solvent. Regarding claim 3, the isocyanate curing agent is one of the claimed compounds (para. 0055-0058). With respect to claim 4, the UV absorber is one of the claimed materials (para. 0070-0080). Concerning claims 7-9, the resulting film has a thickness of 1 to 500 microns (para. 0103) and since the composition is the same as that claimed, the resulting optical properties under the specified testing conditions would be intrinsic to the disclosure of Nagato.
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.
Claims 5 and 6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagato et al. (US 20100180938) in view of Miyazaki et al. (US 4943614) and BASF Tinuvin® 900 Technical Sheet (Hereafter “The Tinuvin sheet”).
Nagato discloses the above, including the solvent that can be one that can be third class solvent or a mixture of solvents that can somewhat attack the substrate wherein a primer is disposed between the top layer comprising the coating composition set forth above and the solvents can include methyl ethyl ketone (para. 0094-0095 and 0059-0062). However, Nagato is silent to xylene and the addition of a light stabilizer.
Miyazaki discloses fluorocarbon-based coating composition, wherein a solvent is added to the composition for efficiency for the coating process and such solvents include xylene and ketones (col. 4, lines 13-25). The specific combination of solvents is determined by considering the state of the substrate, operation environment, evaporation rate, and the like (col. 4, lines 13-25). As such, for at least the efficiency of the coating process, evaporation rate, state of the substrate, and the operating environment, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use a xylene or xylene/methyl ethyl ketone solvent.
The Tinuvin sheet discloses a combination of a benzotriazole and a HALS light stabilizer at the content as claimed allows for protection against cracking, blistering, delamination, and color change (pp. 1-2). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a light stabilizer at the content as claimed in combination with a benzotriazole UV absorber, in order to provide the coating protection against cracking, blistering, delamination, and color change.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art is silent to a UV-absorbing structure having each layer formed from the composition as claimed with each layer having the composition having different isocyanate curing agents.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Memmer et al. (US 4557977), Reiners et al. (US 20130184400), and Lyu et al. (CN 113372771).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PRASHANT J KHATRI whose telephone number is (571)270-3470. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-6:30PM.
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, Veronica Ewald can be reached at (571) 272-8519. 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.
PRASHANT J. KHATRI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1783
/PRASHANT J KHATRI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783
