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 1-20 are pending and presented for examination.
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: “wherein, wherein” should correctly be “wherein”. Appropriate correction is required.
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. Claims 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Becker et al. (U.S. PGPUB No. 2020/0407586) in view of Flosbach et al. (U.S. PGPUB No. 2015/0315414).
The applied reference has a common applicant and a single common inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
I. Regarding claims 1, 2 and 5-7, Becker teaches a method for forming a clear top coat on a substrate (abstract and 0095) comprising: spray-applying a waterborne top coat composition (abstract) on a base coat layer on the substrate to form a top coat layer (0095) and baking the top coat layer at a temperature of 60 ºC for 30 minutes for curing (0095). Becker teaches that the substrate may be an automotive body or part (0075). Becker further teaches that the composition comprises water (abstract), pigment (0071) in an amount of 0.1-10 wt% (0071 and note that overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness) and resin solids (0063), with a total solids content of 40-65 wt% (0063 and note that overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness) and a water content of 20-60 wt% (0067 and note that overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness). Becker teaches that the resin solids comprise 60-80 wt% binder solids (0063) and 20-40 wt% crosslinker solids (0063). Becker further teaches the binder solids comprising a blend of a urethanized polyester and an acrylic polymer (abstract and 0064), where the polyester has a hydroxy number of 70-300 mg KOH/g and a carboxyl number of 0-30 mg KOH/g (0032), and the acrylic polymer has a hydroxy number of 30-250 mg KOH/g and a carboxyl number of 5-35 mg KOH/g (0036). Additionally, Becker teaches that the binder solids can comprise a mixture of the polymer blend with additional binders (0065). Becker fails to teach the composition comprising a urethanized polyester/(meth)acryl copolymer hybrid binder obtained as claimed in claim 6, wherein the binder having a hydroxyl number and acid number as claimed present in the binder solids in an amount as claimed with respect to additional binders.
However, Flosbach teaches a urethanized polyester/(meth)acryl copolymer hybrid binder having a hydroxyl number of about 30-200 and a carboxyl number of 8-50 (claim 1) for application to an automotive body or part (0073). Flosbach additionally teaches the hybrid polymer comprising 25-45 wt% of urethanized polyester and the remaining part comprising (meth)acryl copolymer (claim 3), wherein the hybrid polymer is obtained by a free-radical copolymerization of olefinically unsaturated monomers comprising (meth)acryl compounds in the presence of an aqueous dispersion of a urethanized polyester, where the polyester is an esterification product of a linear polyurethane resin with terminal and lateral carboxyl groups corresponding to a carboxyl number of 50-200 (claims 4-6) and a branched polyester polyol with a hydroxl number of 70-300 (claims 4 and 7). Also, Flosbach teaches a proportion of (meth)acryl compounds in the olefinically unsaturated monomers is in the range of about 50-100 wt% based on a total weight of olefinically unsaturated monomers (claim 8). Finally, Flosbach teaches the inclusion of the hybrid binder in a waterborne coating composition (abstract) comprising: water (claim 1); pigments (claim 1); and resin solids (claim 1); wherein the resin solids comprise from about 60-100 wt% of binder solids (claim 1) and about 0-40 wt% of crosslinker solids (claim 1); and wherein the binder solids comprise from 1-40 wt%, more specifically 5-25 wt% (claim 2), of the urethanized polyester/(meth)acryl copolymer hybrid binder and from about 60-99 wt%, more specifically 75-95 wt% (claim 2) of one or more additional binders (claim 1). 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 Becker’s method by substituting Flosbach’s hybrid urethanized polyester/(meth)acryl hybrid binder prepared in the manner as disclosed by Flosbach for Becker’s blended urethanized polyester and (meth)acrylate binder and to include the binder in an amount of 1-40 wt% of the urethanized polyester/(meth)acryl copolymer hybrid binder and from about 60-99 wt% of one or more additional binders in the waterborne composition as disclosed by Flosbach. One would have been motivated to make this modification as Flosbach teaches that the use of the hybrid binder in an amount as claimed yields improved stability of the composition compared to conventional binders (0010).
II. Regarding claims 3, 4 and 8-20, Becker in view of Flosbach teach all the limitations of claims 1, 9 and 12-20 (as disclosed above), but fail to explicitly teach application by electrostatically-assisted high speed rotary atomization to a thickness of 7-40 microns and jointly curing the base coat and top coat layer. However, Flosbach further teaches that a similar waterborne composition (see above) can be applied by electrostatically-assisted high speed rotary atomization (claim 17) at a thickness of 7-40 microns (claim 18) and that it is conventional to jointly cure a similar base coat and top coat layer (claim 13). 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 Becker in view of Flosbach’s process by applying the top coat by electrostatically-assisted high speed rotary atomization at a thickness of 7-40 microns and to jointly cure a similar base coat and top coat layer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have substituted the coating method, thickness and curing process of Flosbach for the generic spray coating and curing as disclosed in Becker. One would have been motivated to make these substitutions as one could have substituted the specific coating and curing processes with a reasonable expectation of success (particularly given that Becker and Flosbach are directed at similar automotive base coat and top coat applications using similar waterborne coating compositions), and the predictable result of providing a top coat.
Conclusion
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1-20 are rejected.
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/
November 5, 2025Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1717