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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/18/2024 is considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
Reference number 130 from Figure 1 is not present in the specification.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3, 4, 8, 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 3, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the phrase “the NIR reflective layer” as claim 1 does not recite or require a NIR reflective layer.
Regarding claim 4, the limitation “wherein at least one NIR transmitting layer comprises at least one pigment” is indefinite as it is unclear whether the phrase “at least one NIR transmitting layer” is referring back to the “at least one NIR transmitting layer” recited by claim 1 or an additional at least one NIR transmitting layer.
It appears that the phrase “wherein at least one NIR transmitting layer” of claim 4 is referring back to and further limiting the “at least one NIR transmitting layer” recited by claim 1. Therefore, the phrase in claim 4 should be amended to recite “wherein the at least one NIR transmitting layer”
Regarding claim 8, the phrase in lines 2-3 reciting “at least partially coating at least one NIR transmitting layer” is indefinite as it is unclear whether the phrase “at least one NIR transmitting layer” is referring back to the “at least one NIR transmitting layer” recited by claim 1 or an additional at least one NIR transmitting layer.
It appears that the phrase “wherein at least one NIR transmitting layer” of claim 8 is referring back to and further limiting the “at least one NIR transmitting layer” recited by claim 1. Therefore, the phrase in claim 8 should be amended to recite ““at least partially coating the at least one NIR transmitting layer”
Regarding claim 9, the limitation reciting “wherein the coating system is a LiDAR visible” is indefinite. It is not clear whether the phrase was unintentionally truncated and was meant to recite “wherein the coating system is a LiDAR visible coating system” or if the “a” should be removed to recite “wherein the coating system is LiDAR visible”, or what further structure was mean to be conveyed by this limitation.
Regarding claim 18, the limitation “A method of preparing the coating system of Claim 1” is indefinite. The claim is directed to a method of preparing the coating system, but does not recite any method steps and therefore it is not clear what structure is required by the claim regarding the claimed method.
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.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Decker et al. (WO 2018/081613 A1; cited on IDS and ISR).
Regarding claims 1, 2 and 9, Decker et al. teaches a near IR reflective coating that allows for increased near IR detection distance of an object coated with said coating by LiDAR systems, wherein the coating is comprised of a first coating layer that is transparent to NIR (at least one NIR transmitting layer) partially coating a second coating layer that is a NIR reflective layer (at least one converter layer) ([0015, 0020-0034, 0043, 0082]). The NIR reflective layer (at least one converter layer) has an L* value ranging from 40 to 95 in the CIELAB system and typically exhibits a grey color ([0043-0064]), which overlaps with the claimed L* range of 0-80 of claim 1 of the instant application. It has been held that wherein in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exits.
Regarding claim 3, Decker et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as recited above, and further teaches that the NIR reflective layer (at least one converter layer) comprises a film forming resin and a near-IR reflective pigment ([0044-0062]).
Regarding claims 4, 5 and 6, Decker et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as recited above, and further teaches that the first coating layer that is transparent to NIR (at least one NIR transmitting layer) is comprised of a film forming resin and a visibly absorbing NIR transparent pigment such as the inorganic and organic pigments listed in paragraphs [0037-0039] of the reference ([0028-0039]).
Regarding claim 7, Decker et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as recited above, and further teaches that the second coating of the NIR reflective layer (at least one converter layer) is a primer surfacer coating ([0024]).
Regarding claim 8, Decker et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as recited above, and further teaches that the near IR reflective coating can further comprise a clear coating or top coat positioned over at least a portion of the first coating layer that is transparent to NIR (at least one NIR transmitting layer) ([0025]).
Regarding claims 10, 11 and 12, Decker et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as recited above, and further teaches that the near IR reflective coating has reflectance and is detectable in the near-IR range such as 900-1600nm ([0082]), which is encompassed by the ranges recited in claims 10, 11 and 12 of the instant application.
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Decker et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as recited above, and further teaches that the near IR reflective coating is at least partially coated on a substrate such as metallic, non-metallic, plastic, wood, wood composite, cement, glass, ceramic and the like ([0022]).
Regarding claim 15, Decker et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as recited above, and further teaches that the near IR reflective coating is at least partially coated on a substrate including plastic ([0022]), which is disclosed by the instant application as a non-NIR reflective substrate (see pg-pub [0019] of instant application).
Regarding claims 16 and 17, Decker et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as recited above, and further teaches that the substrate can be pretreated with an electrodeposited coating (e-coating) ([0023]).
Regarding claim 18, Decker et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as recited above. As stated in the 112b rejection above, claim 18 does not recite or require any specific method steps and therefore is indefinite as to what limitations and features are required. Decker et al. further teaches throughout the disclosure suitable materials used to form the near IR reflective coating, with specific examples of forming various near IR reflective coating disclosed in [0088-0159].
Regarding claim 19, Decker et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as recited above, and further teaches near IR reflective coating is coated onto objects such as vehicles, roofs, road traffic safety products, signage, building, structure and any obstacle that may be located in a path of a moving vehicle ([0015]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA POWERS whose telephone number is (571)270-5624. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 10:00AM-3:00PM.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at 571-272-1291. 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.
LAURA POWERS
Examiner
Art Unit 1785
/LAURA C POWERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785