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 .
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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: “composition comprising applied” should read “composition applied”.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: “180 150” should read “150”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 is 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 of record does not teach the claimed surface roughness.
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 2, 4-7, and 9-20 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.
Claim 2 recites “a powder coating composition”, “a binder resin component”, “a crosslinker and a catalyst”, “a texturizing additive”, “a flexibilizer”, and “at least one high hardness filler”. It is unclear as to whether these refer to the powder coating composition, binder resin component, crosslinker and catalyst, texturizing additive, flexibilizer, and high hardness filler recited in claim 1 or whether these are in addition to the elements recited in claim 1. For purposes of examination, claim 2 will be read as the powder coating being the same powder coating as that recited in claim 1 and requiring a first, different coating between the structural insert member and the powder coating layer.
Claims 2 and 9-20 recite “The article” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. For purposes of examination, “the article” will be read as “the coated article”.
Claim 4 recites “a powder coating composition”, “a binder resin component”, “a crosslinker and a catalyst”, “a texturizing additive”, “a flexibilizer”, and “at least one high hardness filler”. It is unclear as to whether these refer to the powder coating composition, binder resin component, crosslinker and catalyst, texturizing additive, flexibilizer, and high hardness filler recited in claim 3 or whether these are in addition to the elements recited in claim 3. For purposes of examination, claim 4 will be read as the powder coating being the same powder coating as that recited in claim 3.
Claims 5-7 are rejected as being dependent on indefinite claim 4.
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 and 9-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-grant Publication 2016/0257845 to Park et al. (herein Park) in view of U.S. Pre-grant Publication 2001/0038910 to MacQueen et al. (herein MacQueen).
Regarding claim 1, Park teaches a powder coating composition corresponding to the powder coating composition recited in the instant claims and a substrate corresponding to the structural insert member recited in the instant claims coated with said composition (abstract) wherein the substrate can be metal, carbon, wood, glass, polymer substrates (paragraph 0069) such as rebar, pipes, or automotive springs (paragraph 0071). Park teaches that the composition contains an epoxy resin corresponding to the binder resin component recited in the instant claims (paragraph 0015). Park teaches that the composition can contain a filler such as aluminum silicate, calcium silicate, and barium sulphate (paragraph 0035) which the instant specification disclose as meeting the limitations of being a high hardness filler. Park also teaches that the composition comprises a catalyst (paragraph 0052) and crosslinking agent (paragraph 0053) corresponding to the catalyst and crosslinker recited in the instant claims. Park teaches that the composition comprises a flexibilizing agent (paragraph 0021) corresponding to the flexibilizer recited in the instant claims. Park teaches that the powder coated give substrates chip resistance (paragraph 0001) and abrasion resistance (Table 4, Example A as compared to Examples B-D) and protect substrates that are sensitive to scratching (paragraph 0002).
Park is silent as to the composition comprising a texturizing additive and the coating exhibiting the bending behaving recited in instant claim 1.
Regarding the texturizing additive, MacQueen teaches a coating for a substrate wherein the coating has a macroscopic texture (abstract) and wherein the substrate can be plastic, metal, cellulose, fiberglass, wood, and ceramic (paragraph 0083). MacQueen teaches that the composition comprises a thermally-curable resin (paragraph 0076), inorganic particles such as silica and clay (paragraph 0065), and a coupling agent (paragraph 0068). MacQueen teaches that the macroscopic texture is provided by texture-producing particles corresponding to the texturizing additive recited in the instant claims (paragraph 0070). MacQueen teaches that the texture-producing particles can be inorganic particles or organic particles such as nylon, polypropylene, polyethylene, and polytetrafluoroethylene (herein PTFE) among others with an average particle size of 30-350 µm (paragraph 0071). MacQueen teaches that the texture-producing particles are present in the composition at 1-30 wt% (paragraph 0071).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the composition of Park to include the texture-producing particles of MacQueen in the amounts taught by MacQueen because it would enhance the abrasion resistance (paragraph 0071) and scratch resistance (paragraph 0015).
Regarding the coating exhibiting the bending behaving recited in instant claim 1, the powder coating of Park as modified according to MacQueen is made using substantially similar materials to the claimed powder coating and is used in a similar service, e.g. reinforcing rebar, such that one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the powder coating of Park as modified according to MacQueen to have the claimed bending behavior.
Regarding claim 9¸ Park and MacQueen teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Park is silent as to a textured surface being formed via a non-continuous cured film.
MacQueen teaches that a roller can be used to create macroscopic textures by pulling or splitting the coating away from the substrate (paragraph 0101).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the coating of Park as modified according to MacQueen to create texture via a roller as taught by MacQueen because it would further create macroscopic textures which MacQueen teaches increases abrasion and scratch resistance (paragraphs 0015 and 0071).
Regarding claims 10-12¸ Park and MacQueen teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
As discussed above, Park teaches that the composition contains an epoxy resin corresponding to the binder resin component recited in the instant claims (paragraph 0015).
Park also teaches that the powder coating composition is heated such that it has time to fuse and cure (paragraph 0071), i.e. the coating is a fusion-bonded coating.
Regarding claims 13-14¸ Park and MacQueen teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
As discussed above, Park teaches that the substrate can be metal, carbon, wood, glass, polymer substrates (paragraph 0069) such as rebar, pipes, or automotive springs (paragraph 0071).
Regarding claim 15¸ Park and MacQueen teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
As discussed above, MacQueen teaches that the texture-producing particles can be inorganic particles or organic particles such as nylon, polypropylene, polyethylene, and PTFE among others with an average particle size of 30-350 µm (paragraph 0071).
Regarding claim 16¸ Park and MacQueen teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Park teaches that the flexibilizers can be rubber compounds (paragraph 0022).
Regarding claim 17¸ Park and MacQueen teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
As discussed above, Park teaches that the composition can contain a filler such as aluminum silicate, calcium silicate, and barium sulphate (paragraph 0035).
Regarding claim 18¸ Park and MacQueen teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
As discussed above, MacQueen teaches that the texture-producing particles are present in the composition at 1-30 wt% (paragraph 0071). It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 20¸ Park and MacQueen teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Regarding the pullout strength of a test bar, the coated substrate of Park as modified according to MacQueen have substantially the same structure and is made using substantially the same materials as the claimed invention. Furthermore, Table 1 of the instant specification shows that a textured, coated test bar has a pullout strength at least 60% higher than an uncoated test bar. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect them to have the same properties. See MPEP 2112.01. Furthermore, Table 1 of the instant specification shows that a textured, coated test bar has a pullout strength at least 60% higher than an uncoated test bar.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park and MacQueen as applied above and in further view of U.S. Pre-grant Publication 2003/0157266 to Spellane (herein Spellane).
Regarding claim 2, Park and MacQueen teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Park is silent as to there being a coating layer between the substrate and the powder coating layer.
Spellane teaches a two-layer coating system for corrosion protection of metals (abstract) wherein the first layer is an electroactive polymer primer coat, and the second layer is a powder topcoat (paragraph 0033).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the powder-coated substrate of Park to include the primer coat of Spellane because it would protect the metal substrate from corrosion (paragraph 0002).
Claim(s) 3-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of MacQueen.
Regarding claim 3, Park teaches a powder coating composition corresponding to the powder coating composition recited in the instant claims and a substrate corresponding to the structural insert member recited in the instant claims coated with said composition (abstract) wherein the substrate can be metal, carbon, wood, glass, polymer substrates (paragraph 0069) such as rebar, pipes, or automotive springs (paragraph 0071). Park teaches that the composition contains an epoxy resin corresponding to the binder resin component recited in the instant claims (paragraph 0015). Park teaches that the composition can contain a filler such as aluminum silicate, calcium silicate, and barium sulphate (paragraph 0035) which the instant specification disclose as meeting the limitations of being a high hardness filler. Park also teaches that the composition comprises a catalyst (paragraph 0052) and crosslinking agent (paragraph 0053) corresponding to the catalyst and crosslinker recited in the instant claims. Park teaches that the composition comprises a flexibilizing agent (paragraph 0021) corresponding to the flexibilizer recited in the instant claims. Park teaches that the powder coated give substrates chip resistance (paragraph 0001) and abrasion resistance (Table 4, Example A as compared to Examples B-D) and protect substrates that are sensitive to scratching (paragraph 0002). Park teaches that the powder composition is formed into particles in the 5 to 100 micron size range (paragraph 0070). The claimed particle size distribution D90 is an indication of the coarse end of the particle size distribution wherein 90% of the particles have a size below the claimed range. The powder composition of Park having a particle size of 5 to 100 micron would meet these requirements.
Park is silent as to the composition comprising a texturizing additive, the powder forming an agglomerate, and the coating having a textured surface.
Regarding the texturizing additive, MacQueen teaches a coating for a substrate wherein the coating has a macroscopic texture (abstract) and wherein the substrate can be plastic, metal, cellulose, fiberglass, wood, and ceramic (paragraph 0083). MacQueen teaches that the composition comprises a thermally-curable resin (paragraph 0076), inorganic particles such as silica and clay (paragraph 0065), and a coupling agent (paragraph 0068). MacQueen teaches that the macroscopic texture is provided by texture-producing particles corresponding to the texturizing additive recited in the instant claims (paragraph 0070). MacQueen teaches that the texture-producing particles can be inorganic particles or organic particles such as nylon, polypropylene, polyethylene, and polytetrafluoroethylene (herein PTFE) among others with an average particle size of 30-350 µm (paragraph 0071). MacQueen teaches that the texture-producing particles are present in the composition at 1-30 wt% (paragraph 0071).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the composition of Park to include the texture-producing particles of MacQueen in the amounts taught by MacQueen because it would enhance the abrasion resistance (paragraph 0071) and scratch resistance (paragraph 0015).
Regarding the powder forming an agglomerate, the instant specification does not disclose any procedures outside of simply mixing the components (instant specification, page 13, paragraph 059) that are required to obtain the claimed agglomerate structure. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that the composition of Park as modified according to MacQueen to form the same agglomerate structure when the components are mixed (Park, paragraph 0070).
Regarding the coated substrate having a textured surface, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the coating composition of Park as modified to include the texture-producing particles of MacQueen to give the coated substrate a textured surface.
Regarding claim 4, Park and MacQueen teach all the limitations of claim 3 as discussed above.
Park teaches that the epoxy resin is present at 10 to 75 wt% of the total composition (paragraph 0020), and the curing/crosslinking agent is present at 1 to 30 wt% of the total composition (paragraph 0063). Park teaches that the filler is present at 10 to 40 parts per hundred parts of resin (paragraph 0035). Park also teaches that the rubber flexibilizer should be present at 5 to 25 wt% (paragraph 0027). MacQueen teaches that the texture-producing particles are present in the composition at 1-30 wt% (paragraph 0071). It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding the pullout strength of a test bar, the coated substrate of Park as modified according to MacQueen have substantially the same structure and is made using substantially the same materials as the claimed invention. Furthermore, Table 1 of the instant specification shows that a textured, coated test bar has a pullout strength at least 60% higher than an uncoated test bar. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect them to have the same properties. See MPEP 2112.01. Furthermore, Table 1 of the instant specification shows that a textured, coated test bar has a pullout strength at least 60% higher than an uncoated test bar.
Regarding claim 5, Park and MacQueen teach all the limitations of claim 4 as discussed above.
Park teaches that an elastomer-modified epoxy resin, i.e. a toughened resin, is present at 5 to 35 parts per hundred parts of epoxy resin (paragraph 0030). It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 6, Park and MacQueen teach all the limitations of claim 4 as discussed above.
Park teaches that the composition includes 0.1 to 5 wt% of an adhesion promoter (paragraph 0034). It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 7, Park and MacQueen teach all the limitations of claim 4 as discussed above.
Park teaches that the composition includes flow control agents, i.e. rheology modifiers, at 0.05 to 5 wt% (paragraph 0066). It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of MacQueen.
Regarding claim 8, Park teaches a method of applying a powder coating composition (paragraph 0012) corresponding to the powder coating composition recited in the instant claims and a substrate corresponding to the structural insert member recited in the instant claims coated with said composition (abstract) wherein the substrate can be metal, carbon, wood, glass, polymer substrates (paragraph 0069) such as rebar, pipes, or automotive springs (paragraph 0071). Park teaches that the composition contains an epoxy resin corresponding to the binder resin component recited in the instant claims (paragraph 0015). Park teaches that the composition can contain a filler such as aluminum silicate, calcium silicate, and barium sulphate (paragraph 0035) which the instant specification disclose as meeting the limitations of being a high hardness filler. Park also teaches that the composition comprises a catalyst (paragraph 0052) and crosslinking agent (paragraph 0053) corresponding to the catalyst and crosslinker recited in the instant claims. Park teaches that the composition comprises a flexibilizing agent (paragraph 0021) corresponding to the flexibilizer recited in the instant claims. Park teaches that the powder coated give substrates chip resistance (paragraph 0001) and abrasion resistance (Table 4, Example A as compared to Examples B-D) and protect substrates that are sensitive to scratching (paragraph 0002). Park teaches that the coating composition is applied using a method wherein a metal substrate is provided (paragraph 0071) and subsequently heated to about 104°C to about 194°C followed by application of the powder coating composition before heating the coated substrate is heated again to cure the coating (paragraph 0074). It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Park is silent as to the composition comprising a texturizing additive and the coating having a textured surface.
Regarding the texturizing additive, MacQueen teaches a coating for a substrate wherein the coating has a macroscopic texture (abstract) and wherein the substrate can be plastic, metal, cellulose, fiberglass, wood, and ceramic (paragraph 0083). MacQueen teaches that the composition comprises a thermally-curable resin (paragraph 0076), inorganic particles such as silica and clay (paragraph 0065), and a coupling agent (paragraph 0068). MacQueen teaches that the macroscopic texture is provided by texture-producing particles corresponding to the texturizing additive recited in the instant claims (paragraph 0070). MacQueen teaches that the texture-producing particles can be inorganic particles or organic particles such as nylon, polypropylene, polyethylene, and polytetrafluoroethylene (herein PTFE) among others with an average particle size of 30-350 µm (paragraph 0071). MacQueen teaches that the texture-producing particles are present in the composition at 1-30 wt% (paragraph 0071).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the composition of Park to include the texture-producing particles of MacQueen in the amounts taught by MacQueen because it would enhance the abrasion resistance (paragraph 0071) and scratch resistance (paragraph 0015).
Regarding the coated substrate having a textured surface, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the coating composition of Park as modified to include the texture-producing particles of MacQueen to give the coated substrate a textured surface.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY M DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-6957. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-4:30, off 2nd Friday.
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, Maria V 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.
/ZACHARY M DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783
