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 1-21 and 23 are pending and presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s submission of a terminal disclaimer has overcome the double patenting rejections. Applicant’s amendments to claims 9 and 10 have overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections.
Applicant's arguments filed 8/26/2026, with respect to the prior art rejections, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Mehnert does not teach irradiating with UV light having a wavelength of 231-280 affording a coating with a partially cured surface layer with reduced gloss. Applicant argues that the first irradiation in the wavelength range only partially cures the surface layer and that the reduced gloss is only carried out in a later step where the wrinkle structures are formed. Applicant also argues that Mehnert does not teach finish curing with actinic radiation as claimed.
However, the Examiner disagrees and maintains that Mehnert’s first polymerization step will necessarily induce micro-folding as it only partially cures the surface layer of the coating. Micro-folding during curing results from the low penetration depth and curing of only the surface layer, wherein the volume contraction leads to micro-wrinkling of the thin polymerized skin that floats on the uncured liquid layer. As noted by Applicant, Mehnert’s first step only partially cures the surface layer, which will necessarily lead to some micro-wrinkling and the production of a reduced gloss coating in the first irradiation step. Additionally, the finish curing step (3) of the prior art does not exclude multiple actinic radiation steps. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that the treatment of Mehnert’s partially polymerized coating with excimer radiation followed by UV would meet the limitations of the step of finish curing with actinic radiation.
Applicant argues that the prior art fails to teach or suggest the limitations of new claim 23 as Mehnert requires a step of microstructuring with an excimer emitter under nitrogen. However, the Examiner maintains that Becker makes obvious finish curing under an ambient atmosphere. Further, the Examiner notes that Mehnert teaches the irradiations done under nitrogen and nitrogen is not an inert gas (examples of inert gases are helium and argon). Therefore, the rejections of record are maintained as presented below.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 8/26/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of Patent Applications 19/132429, 19/132441 and 19/132446 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
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. Claim(s) 1-21 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mehnert et al. (DE102017008353, reference is made to the English translation provided by Applicant) in view of Becker et al. (WO 2019/034675).
Regarding claims 1-4, 6-10, 12, 19-21 and 23, Mehnert teaches a method for forming a cured coating (abstract) comprising: applying a radiation curable coating on a substrate (0094) and irradiating the radiation curable coating with UV light having a wavelength 185 nm and 254 nm (claim 1) wherein 80% of the radiation power is provided by the light at 254 nm (0043) which partially cures the surface (0028); and finish curing with actinic radiation to thereby fix the partially cured layer with reduced gloss and form a cured coating having a low gloss surface (claim 1). Mehnert teaches that the irradiation with 185 nm and 254 nm light is done in air (0096), the dose used in the step is 100 mJ/cm2 (0075) and conducted with ten low pressure mercury vapor lamps (0059) or with a single Ga-doped mercury medium pressure lamp (0072). Mehnert teaches the finish curing may be electron beam curing (claim 1). Mehnert further teaches the coating composition comprises Irgacure 184 (0093 and note that Irgacure 184 has absorption peaks at 246 nm and 330 nm). Mehnert also teaches the gloss of surface is less than 52 gloss units at 60º and less than 60 gloss units at 85º (see Tables) and that the full curing can be done with a medium pressure mercury vapor lamp (0089 and note that this is a type of broad band UV lamp). Mehnert fails to explicitly teach the final curing done in air and the process does not include use of an inert gas.
However, Becker teaches a similar process for curing to form a matte coating (abstract) where a first irradiation is conducted to cause partial curing (abstract) and then a final curing is done potentially with electron beam irradiation (abstract) to result in full end curing (abstract). Becker further teaches that the full end curing step can be done in air without an inert gas atmosphere (see Production of coatings section). 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 Mehnert’s process by conducting the finish curing in air as disclosed by Becker. One would have been motivated to make this modification as it would simplify the process and alleviate the need for a special chamber and special atmospheric conditions.
II. Regarding claim 5, Mehnert in view of Becker make obvious claim 1 (see above), but fail to explicitly teach the irradiance from each lamp used in the irradiation with 185 nm and 254 nm light. However, adjusting the irradiance will adjust the dose delivered and will adjust the curing depth (see Mehnert at 0036) and ultimately the microfolding. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the instantly claimed range for irradiance from each lamp through process optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
III. Regarding claim 11, Mehnert in view of Becker make obvious claim 1 (see above), but fail to explicitly teach the radiation dose used for full curing. However, the dose is a result-effective variable as it will be necessary to optimize the dose for fully curing based on the specific composition that is being cured and the thickness of the coating. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the instantly claimed range for dose through process optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
IV. Regarding claims 13-17, Mehnert in view of Becker make obvious the process of claim 13 wherein there is no optional pre-curing step (see above). The limitations with respect to the optional step (1b) only provide further limitations when the prior art teaches the optional step. In this case, as the step is optional and Mehnert in view of Becker do not teach the optional step, Mehnert in view of Becker also make obvious claims 13-17.
III. Regarding claim 18, Mehnert in view of Becker make obvious claim 1 (see above), and Mehnert further teaches that the irradiation with 185 nm and 254 nm light creates a microfold pattern (0049). Further, as Mehnert in view of Becker are teaching an identical process using identical ranges of wavelength, then inherently the microfolded patterns with have an average spacing between adjacent peaks and/or valleys shorter than 100 microns. Therefore, Mehnert in view of Becker make obvious claim 18.
Conclusion
Claims 1-21 and 23 are pending.
Claims 1-21 and 23 are rejected.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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/
September 8, 2026Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights