DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to communication received on 11/8/24.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The text of those sections of AIA 35 U.S.C. code not present in this action can be found in previous office actions dated 2/24/26.
Election/Restrictions
Claim 2 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention in Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 2/24/26.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuramochi et al. US PGPub 2020/0306794 hereinafter KURAMOCHI as evidenced by Kamimori et al. US PGPub 20070172692 hereinafter KAMIMORI.
As for claim 1, KURAMOCHI teaches “Provided is a method for forming a multilayer coating film including the following steps (1) to (4)” (abstract, line 1-2), i.e. A method for producing a multilayer coating film, the method comprising the following steps (1) to (4).
KURAMOCHI further teaches “Step (1) is to apply a base paint (X) to a substrate to form a base coating film” (paragraph 15), and “Further, when the material of the substrate is metal, a cationic electrodeposition coating film is preferably formed on a surface-treated metal material using a cationic electrodeposition paint” (paragraph 16, lines 10-13), i.e. a step (1) of applying a base coating (X) directly on an electrodeposition coating film to fom1 a base coating film.
KURAMOCHI further teaches “The cured film thickness of the base coating film obtained using the base paint (X) is 1 μm or more, preferably 5 to 30 μm” (paragraph 38, lines 1-3), i.e. a range that overlaps with a base coating film having a dry film thickness of 20 μm to 35 μm. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d, 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05.
KURAMOCHI teaches “When the base paint (X) is colored, the type and amount of the pigment is preferably adjusted so that the lightness L* value in the L*a*b* color space of the coating film to be obtained, based on light that is illuminated at an angle of 45 degrees with respect to the coating film and that is received at an angle of 45 degrees deviated from the specular reflection light, is adjusted to 60 to 99” (paragraph 32, lines 1-7), i.e. a range that overlaps with a lightness L *45 of 85 to 95. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d, 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05.
KURAMOCHI further teaches “Step (2) is to apply an effect pigment dispersion (Y) to the base coating film formed in step (1) to form an effect coating film with a thickness of 0.01 to 5.0 μm, as a dry film thickness” (paragraph 41, lines 1-4), i.e. a step (2) of applying a glitter pigment dispersion (Y) on or above the base coating film formed in the step (1) to form a glitter coating film having a dry film thickness with a range that overlaps with of 0.01 μm to 1.0 μm. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d, 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05.
KURAMOCHI further teaches “Step (3) Step (3) is to apply a clear paint (Z) to the effect coating film formed in step (2) to form a clear coating film” (paragraph 121, lines 7-8), “When the clear paint (Z) for use is a two-component clear paint containing a hydroxy-containing resin and a polyisocyanate compound, the hydroxy-containing resin and the polyisocyanate compound are preferably separated from the standpoint of storage stability. Both are mixed immediately before use” (paragraph 127), and “Examples of hydroxy-containing resins include hydroxy-containing acrylic resins” (paragraph 131, lines 3-4), i.e. a step (3) of applying a two-component clear coating (Z) comprising a hydroxy group-contaming acrylic resin and a polyisocyanate compound on or above the glitter coating film formed in the step (2) to form a clear coating film.
KURAMOCHI further teaches “Step ( 4) is to heat the uncured base coating film, the uncured effect coating film, and the uncured clear coating film formed in steps (1) to (3) to simultaneously cure these three coating films” (paragraph 159, lines 1-4), i.e. a step ( 4) of heating the uncured base coating film, the uncured glitter coating film, and the uncured clear coating film formed in the steps 0) to (3), respectively, to simultaneously cure these three coating films.
KURAMOCHI Teaches “The effect pigment dispersion (Y) contains an aluminum flake pigment (A), light-scattering particles (B), a hydroxy-containing acrylic resin (C), and water” (paragraph 42), “The light-scattering particles (B) include titanium oxide” (paragraph 57, lines 5-6), and “The effect pigment dispersion (Y) preferably further contains a surface adjusting agent (D)” (paragraph 70, lines 1-2, wherein paragraph 71-72 describe the viscosity modifying behavior of the surface adjusting agent (D)), i.e. wherein the glitter pigment dispersion (Y) comprises an aluminum flake pigment (A), titanium oxide (B), a hydroxy group-containing acrylic resin (C), a viscosity modifier (D), and water.
KURAMOCHI teaches “From the standpoint of obtaining a coating film excellent in white metallic luster, the content of the lightscattering particles (B) in the effect pigment dispersion (Y) according to the present invention is preferably 10.0 to 95.0 parts by mass” (paragraph 61, lines 1-5), i.e. range that overlaps with a content of the titanium oxide (B) is 10 mass% to 20 mass% of a total solid content of the glitter pigment dispersion (Y). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d, 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05.
KURAMOCHI teaches “Per 100 parts by mass of the total amount of the aluminum flake pigment (A), the light-scattering particles (B), the hydroxy-containing acrylic resin (C) and water, the aluminum flake pigment (A) (on a solids content basis) is preferably present in an amount of 0.1 to 5.0 parts by mass… the light-scattering particles (B) ( on a solids content basis) are preferably present in an amount of 0.1 to 40.0 parts by mass… the hydroxy-containing acrylic resin (C) (on a solids content basis) is preferably present in an amount of 0.01 to 5.0 parts by mass… water is preferably present in an amount of 50 to 99.5 parts by mass” (paragraph 113), i.e. wherein one of ordinary skill in the art can convert the parts by mass into a mass ratio, which appears to overlap with the claimed range of a blending ratio of the aluminum flake pigment (A) to the titanium oxide (B) is 0.8 to 1.2 in terms of a mass ratio of the aluminum flake pigment (A)/the titanium oxide (B). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d, 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05.
KURAMOCHI teaches “When the base paint (X) is colored, the type and amount of the pigment is preferably adjusted so that the lightness L* value in the L*a*b* color space of the coating film to be obtained, based on light that is illuminated at an angle of 45 degrees with respect to the coating film and that is received at an angle of 45 degrees deviated from the specular reflection light, is adjusted to 60 to 99” (paragraph 32, lines 1-7), i.e. in the multilayer coating film ,a lightness L*45 overlaps with a range of 75 to 85. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d, 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05.
KURAMOCHI further teaches “The multilayer coating film obtained by the present invention preferably has a specular gloss (60 degrees) of 80 to 180, more preferably 85 to 150, and still more preferably 90 to 140” (paragraph 169), i.e. a range that overlaps with a 60- degree specular gloss is within a range of 95 to 105. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d, 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05.
KURAMOCHI is silent on a flip flop value.
KAMIMORI teaches “The present invention provides methods of forming multilayered patterned coating films” (abstract, lines 1-2).
KAMIMORI teaches “the flip-flop value (FF value) indicating a difference in lightness depending on the angle of vision. These characteristics can be determined using commercial calorimeters, spectrophotometers, glossmeters, etc., and calculated based on measured values” (paragraph 86, Lines 9-13) and “The flip-flop value indicates a difference in lightness varying-depending on the angle of vision, and is particularly significant in luster coating films . The flip-flop value can be, for example, measured using multiangle spectrophotometers, etc. Examples of usable multiangle spectrophotometers include commercial models such as the “MA-68". Multiangle spectrophotometers are able to measure spectral reflectance when incident light at an angle of 45° to the surface of a coating film is received at angles of 15°, 25°, 45°, 75° and 110° to the specular light” (paragraph 94).
KAMIMORI further provides the following equation for calculating a flip-flop value:
FF Value=[2x(L15-L45)]/(L15+L45)
Examiner notes that when plugging the ranges taught by KURAMOCHI for L*15 and L*45, it appears that it has a flip flop value that overlaps with the claimed range of flip-flop value is within a range of 0.5 to 0. 7.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISTEN A DAGENAIS whose telephone number is (571)270-1114. The examiner can normally be reached 8-12 and 1-5.
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.
/KRISTEN A DAGENAIS/Examiner, Art Unit 1717