Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/863,250

AUTOMOBILE BODY AND METHOD FOR FABRICATING SAME

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Nov 05, 2024
Examiner
VETERE, ROBERT A
Art Unit
1712
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Nippon Paint Automotive Coatings Co. Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
61%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 6m
To Grant
74%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 61% of resolved cases
61%
Career Allow Rate
530 granted / 872 resolved
-4.2% vs TC avg
Moderate +13% lift
Without
With
+13.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 6m
Avg Prosecution
49 currently pending
Career history
921
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
60.7%
+20.7% vs TC avg
§102
15.6%
-24.4% vs TC avg
§112
16.9%
-23.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 872 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Election/Restrictions Claims 7-9 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 2/13/16. Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 2/13/16 is acknowledged. 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. Claims 1-2 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimizu et al. (JP201217090, machine translation). Claim 1: Shimizu teaches a multilayer coating for an automotive body (Abst.) comprising a first colored coating including titanium dioxide as a white pigment (¶¶ 0009-0010); a second coating containing a scaly brilliant pigment (i.e. claimed glitter) formed on the first coating (¶ 0023) and a clear coating formed on the second coating (¶ 0045). Shimizu fails to teach the claimed L*45 and L*5 values, but teaches that the amount and type of pigments can be selected based on the desired coloring (see, e.g., ¶¶ 0009). Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have selected the claimed L*45 and L*5 values depending on the desired appearance. With respect to the occupancy of the glitter and the graininess, Shimizu teaches that the amount of glitter can be adjusted based on the desired properties (¶ 0024). Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have selected the claimed occupancy and graininess depending on the desired amount of glitter in the coating. Claim 2: Shimizu fails to teach the claimed CL*45 value, but teaches that the amount and type of pigments can be selected based on the desired coloring (see, e.g., ¶¶ 0009). Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have selected the claimed CL*45 value depending on the desired appearance. Claim 4: Shimizu teaches that the glitter is a scaly glitter pigment having a thickness of 0.05-0.5µm (¶ 0017). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP § 2144.05(I). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have selected a glitter thickness of 0.05-0.3 µm with the predictable expectation of success. Claims 5 and 6: Shimizu teaches that the glitter pigment includes aluminum particles (¶ 0024) and that the second coating further includes titanium dioxide (¶ 0025). Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimizu in light of Itoh et al. (US 2019/0001370). Claim 3: Shimizu fails to teach the thickness of the second coating after drying (see, e.g., ¶ 0031 which teaches a wet thickness of 5-30 µm, but fails to discuss the thickness after baking). Itoh, like Shimizu, teaches a multilayer automotive coating comprising a base color layer, a glitter layer and a clear coating (Abst.). Itoh further teaches that a suitable dry thickness for the glitter layer is 0.05-2.0 µm (down from a wet thickness of 3-25µm) (¶¶ 0088-0089). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP § 2144.05(I). Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is prima facie obvious. MPEP § 2143. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have selected a dry thickness of 0.05-1µm in Shimizu with the predictable expectation of success. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Robert A Vetere whose telephone number is (571)270-1864. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00 EST. 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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at (571) 270-1034. 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 A VETERE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 05, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 23, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600678
METHOD FOR CHARGING OPEN PORES IN CERAMIC MATRIX COMPOSITE, AND CERAMIC MATRIX COMPOSITE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12604657
HIGH-THROUGHPUT EXPLORATION OF TRIPLE-CATION PEROVSKITES VIA TERNARY COMPOSITIONALLY-GRADED FILMS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12590181
HYDROPHOBICALLY-MODIFIED ASSOCIATIVE THICKENER POLYMERS PROCESS FOR THE PREPARATION AND USES THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12590035
METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING AN ABRADABLE LAYER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12583793
CERAMIC SLATE WITH COLORED JADE EFFECT AND PREPARATION METHOD THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
61%
Grant Probability
74%
With Interview (+13.4%)
3y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 872 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month