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 1-20 are pending. Claims 17-20 are withdrawn. Claims 1-16 are presented for examination.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-16 in the reply filed on 7/1/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 7/1/2026.
Duplicate Claim Warning
Applicant is advised that should claim 6 be found allowable, claim 16 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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, 2, 4 and 6-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilmer et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 4812506) in view of Takizuka et al. (JPH0538482, of which reference is made to the provided English machine translation).
I. Regarding claims 1, 4 and 6-16, Gilmer teaches a coating composition (column 6, lines 40-41) comprising: an alkylated melamine resin (column 6, lines 45-47); an acrylic polyol comprising two different acrylic polyol polymers, both of which consist of styrene/methyl methacrylate/butyl acrylate/hydroxy ethyl acrylate/acrylic acid (column 6, lines 50-54 and 55-58); and a blocked p-toluene sulfonic acid catalyst (column 7, lines 15-49). Gilmer teaches that one of the acrylic polymers has a ratio of 30/18.5/40/10/1.5 which is identical to the polymer used in Applicant’s example, see Table 1, and is therefore inherently expected to have a hydroxyl value in the range as claimed. Gilmer further teaches that the acrylic polyol resin is present in an amount of 16-76.5% of the total composition (claim 1, and note that overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness), the melamine present in an amount of 4-51% of the total composition (claim 1, and note that overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness), and the composition being water-free (see Examples). Gilmer teaches a process of producing a cured coating comprising: coating a substrate, such as a plastic substrate, with the coating composition as outlined above (column 4, lines 13-22); and curing the coating composition to form a cured coating by baking at a temperature of 120 ºC for 30 minutes (column 7, line 49-column 8, line 2) to form a film with a thickness between 1.2 mil-1.6 mil (30.48 microns-40.64 microns, see Table, column 8). Gilmer fails to explicitly teach the exact claimed amounts for the acrylic resin and melamine or the catalyst blocker comprising an amine having a boiling point as claimed.
First, Gilmer teaches the acrylic polyol resin and melamine crosslinker present in ranges which overlap the claimed ranges (see above). Furthermore, overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness.
Second, Takizuka teaches a similar water-free coating composition (abstract) comprising: 10-40 wt% (abstract, and note that overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness) of alkylated melamine resin (abstract); 60-90 wt% (abstract, and note that overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness) of acrylic resin (abstract) having a hydroxyl value of 50-180 (abstract, and note that overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness); and 0.1-5 wt% (abstract, and note that overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness) of a sulfonic acid catalyst (abstract), which is dodecylbenzene sulfonic acid blocked with triethanolamine (top of page 9). 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 Gilmer’s process by modifying the composition by blocking the sulfonic acid with triethanolamine as disclosed by Takizuka. One would have been motivated to make this modification as one could have substituted one known blocking agent for another with a reasonable expectation of success (particularly given that both Gilmer and Takizuka are using the catalyst for reaction between an acrylic polyol and an alkylated melamine), and the predictable result of providing a curable composition.
II. Regarding claim 2, Gilmer in view of Takizuka make obvious claim 1, but fail to teach the curing providing a leatherlike texture as claimed. However, Gilmer in view of Takizuka make obvious an identical composition to that claimed and coating and curing as claimed. Furthermore, Gilmer in view of Takizuka teach the composition including a sulfonic acid catalyst blocked with an amine with a high boiling point as noted above. Additionally, Applicant notes in the disclosure at paragraph 0021 that the leatherlike texture is believed to arise from the particular interaction between the acid catalyst and high boiling amine catalyst blocker. As Gilmer in view of Takizuka teach an essentially identical composition to that claimed have the same sulfonic acid catalyst blocked with the same high boiling point amine, the Examiner contends that this will then inherently yield the claimed leatherlike texture upon curing as supported by Applicant’s statement at paragraph 0021.
2. Claim(s) 1-4 and 6-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 6433131) in view of Gilmer and Takizuka.
I. Regarding claims 1, 3, 4, and 6-16, Zhou teaches a coating composition (abstract) comprising: an acrylic polyol (abstract) having a hydroxyl value of 80-140 (column 6, lines 47-51); a crosslinker comprising an alkylated melamine resin (abstract and column 7, lines 3-5); and a catalyst which can be a dodecyl benzene sulfonic acid which is amine blocked (column 7, lines 57-65). Zhou teaches the compositions being solvent-based and not including water (see throughout and Examples). Zhou teaches a process of producing a cured coating comprising: coating a substrate, such as a plastic substrate, with the coating composition as outlined above (column 8, lines 6-16); and curing the coating composition to form a cured coating by baking at a temperature of 150 ºC for 30 minutes (column 9, lines 11-17) to form a film with a thickness between 1.1 mil-1.2 mil (27.94 microns-30.48 microns, see Table 7) which has a gloss value greater than 80 gloss units (Table 10). Zhou fails to teach the acrylic resin being a mixture of two acrylic resins consisting of the monomers as claimed, the amounts of acrylic polyol and crosslinker, and the blocker being an amine with a boiling point as claimed.
First, Gilmer teaches a similar coating composition (column 6, lines 40-41) comprising: an alkylated melamine resin (column 6, lines 45-47); an acrylic polyol comprising two different acrylic polyol polymers, both of which consist of styrene/methyl methacrylate/butyl acrylate/hydroxy ethyl acrylate/acrylic acid (column 6, lines 50-54 and 55-58); and a blocked p-toluene sulfonic acid catalyst (column 7, lines 15-49). Gilmer teaches that one of the acrylic polymers has a ratio of 30/18.5/40/10/1.5 which is identical to the polymer used in Applicant’s example, see Table 1, and is therefore inherently expected to have a hydroxyl value in the range as claimed. Gilmer further teaches that the acrylic polyol resin is present in an amount of 16-76.5% of the total composition (claim 1, and note that overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness), the melamine present in an amount of 4-51% of the total composition (claim 1, and note that overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness), and the composition being water-free (see Examples). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute Gilmer’s specific acrylic polymer mixture and melamine in the amounts as claimed (which overlap Applicant’s claimed ranges for the acrylic polyol and melamine) for the acrylic polyol and melamine resin disclosed by Zhou. One would have been motivated to make this modification as one could have made this substitution with a reasonable expectation of success (particularly given the similarity between the compositions and Gilmer teaching that their disclosed acrylic polymers are particularly useful in the composition, see Gilmer at column 3, lines 27-33), and the predictable result of providing a curable composition.
Second, Zhou in view of Gilmer still fail to teach the selection of the specific blocking amine. However, Takizuka teaches a similar water-free coating composition (abstract) comprising: 10-40 wt% (abstract, and note that overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness) of alkylated melamine resin (abstract); 60-90 wt% (abstract, and note that overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness) of acrylic resin (abstract) having a hydroxyl value of 50-180 (abstract, and note that overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness); and 0.1-5 wt% (abstract, and note that overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness) of a sulfonic acid catalyst (abstract), which is dodecylbenzene sulfonic acid blocked with triethanolamine (top of page 9). 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 Zhou in view of Gilmer’s process by modifying the composition by blocking the sulfonic acid with triethanolamine as disclosed by Takizuka. One would have been motivated to make this modification as one could have substituted one known blocking agent for another with a reasonable expectation of success (particularly given that both Zhou and Takizuka are using the catalyst for reaction between an acrylic polyol and an alkylated melamine), and the predictable result of providing a curable composition.
II. Regarding claim 2, Zhou in view of Gilmer and Takizuka make obvious claim 1, but fail to teach the curing providing a leatherlike texture as claimed. However, Zhou in view of Gilmer and Takizuka make obvious an identical composition to that claimed and coating and curing as claimed. Furthermore, Zhou in view of Gilmer and Takizuka teach the composition including a sulfonic acid catalyst blocked with an amine with a high boiling point as noted above. Additionally, Applicant notes in the disclosure at paragraph 0021 that the leatherlike texture is believed to arise from the particular interaction between the acid catalyst and high boiling amine catalyst blocker. As Zhou in view of Gilmer and Takizuka teach an essentially identical composition to that claimed have the same sulfonic acid catalyst blocked with the same high boiling point amine, the Examiner contends that this will then inherently yield the claimed leatherlike texture upon curing as supported by Applicant’s statement at paragraph 0021.
3. Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilmer in view of Takizuka as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ding et al. (WO 2006/039647).
Regarding claim 5, Gilmer in view of Takizuka make obvious claim 1, but fail to teach the substrate being a thermoplastic having a melting point as claimed. However, Gilmer in view of Takizuka teach that the substrate can be plastic (see above). Additionally, Ding teaches application of a similar coating including an acrylic resin (abstract), a crosslinking agent, such as melamine (0032), and blocked sulfonic acid catalysts (0033) to a thermoplastic substrate, such as ABS (0051), which is a plastic that has a melting point in the range as claimed. 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 Gilmer in view of Takizuka’s process by substituting an ABS thermoplastic substrate for Gilmer in view of Takizuka’s generic plastic substrate. One would have been motivated to make this modification as one could have made this substitution with a reasonable expectation of success (particularly given the similarities between the applied compositions and that Gilmer teaches that a heat sensitive plastic substrate is acceptable), and the predictable result of providing an ABS substrate with a cured coating.
4. Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou in view of Gilmer and Takizuka as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ding.
Regarding claim 5, Zhou in view of Gilmer and Takizuka make obvious claim 1, but fail to teach the substrate being a thermoplastic having a melting point as claimed. However, Zhou in view of Gilmer and Takizuka teach that the substrate can be plastic (see above). Additionally, Ding teaches application of a similar coating including an acrylic resin (abstract), a crosslinking agent, such as melamine (0032), and blocked sulfonic acid catalysts (0033) to a thermoplastic substrate, such as ABS (0051), which is a plastic that has a melting point in the range as claimed. 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 Zhou in view of Gilmer and Takizuka’s process by substituting an ABS thermoplastic substrate for Zhou in view of Gilmer and Takizuka’s generic plastic substrate. One would have been motivated to make this modification as one could have made this substitution with a reasonable expectation of success (particularly given the similarities between the applied compositions and that Zhou teaches that a heat sensitive plastic substrate is acceptable), and the predictable result of providing an ABS substrate with a cured coating.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Drescher et al. (U.S. PGPUB No. 2006/0223953)
Conclusion
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 17-20 are withdrawn.
Claims 1-16 are rejected.
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/
July 10, 2026Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights