Patent Application 18547212 - PROCESS FOR PROVIDING LOW GLOSS COATINGS - Rejection

Patent Application 18547212 - PROCESS FOR PROVIDING LOW GLOSS COATINGS

Title: PROCESS FOR PROVIDING LOW GLOSS COATINGS

Application Information

• Invention Title: PROCESS FOR PROVIDING LOW GLOSS COATINGS
• Application Number: 18547212
• Submission Date: 2025-05-16T00:00:00.000Z
• Effective Filing Date: 2023-08-21T00:00:00.000Z
• Filing Date: 2023-08-21T00:00:00.000Z
• National Class: 427
• National Sub-Class: 493000
• Examiner Employee Number: 89643
• Art Unit: 1717
• Tech Center: 1700

Rejection Summary

• 102 Rejections: 0
• 103 Rejections: 3

Cited Patents

The following patents were cited in the rejection:

• US 0210331🔗
• US 0195793🔗
• US 0371384🔗
• US 0055082🔗

Office Action Text

    DETAILED ACTION
	This is in response to communication received on 4/24/25.
	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 11/18/24, and 4/10/25.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .

Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection.  Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.  Applicant's submission filed on 4/24/25 has been entered.
 
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The claim rejection(s) under AIA  35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Schwalm et al. US PGPub 2013/0195793 hereinafter SCHWALM in view of Fischer et al. US PGPub 2014/0371384 hereinafter FISCHER on claims 1-16 are withdrawn because the independent claim 1 has been amended. 
Claim(s) 1-12, 14-16, 19-20 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwalm et al. US PGPub 2013/0195793 hereinafter SCHWALM in view of Ma et al. US PGPub 2019/0210331 hereinafter MA.
As for claim 1, SCHWALM teaches "The present invention relates to radiation-curable antimicrobial coatings, to a process for preparation thereof, and to the use thereof" (abstract), and "Application to the substrate may take place in a known way" (paragraph 229, lines 7-8) i.e. a process for producing a coating.
SCHWALM teaches "Radiation curing is accomplished by exposure to high-energy radiation, i.e., UV radiation or daylight, preferably light with a wavelength of 250 to 600 nm, or by irradiation with high-energy electrons ( electron beams; 150 to 300 keV)" (paragraph 232, lines 1-5), i.e. (2) irradiating the radiation-curable coating composition with UV light having a wavelength that overlaps with 'c.300 nm or with an electron beam (E-beam). 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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); lnre 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.
SCHWALM is silent on a (1) irradiating a radiation-curable coating composition with ultraviolet (UV) light having a wavelength ≤195 nm under inert gas preceding the above irradiation and with the proviso that prior to step (1) the radiation-curable coating composition is not partially cured by irradiating an uncured layer of the radiation-curable coating composition with UV light.
SCHWALM does teach "This object has been achieved by antimicrobial, radiation-curable coatings obtained by reacting ... (A) at least one urethane (meth)acrylate" (paragraph 8-9).
MA teaches “A textured release sheet includes a substrate including a top side and a bottom side. A matte surface is formed on the bottom side thereof, wherein the matte surface of the surfacing material is a coating of an radiation curable material applied to the bottom side of the substrate” (abstract, lines 1-5).
MA further teaches “The coating is an epoxy acrylic or urethane acrylic applied to the substrate. The epoxy acrylic or urethane acrylic is irradiated with UV-radiation to produce a UV-irradiated layer wherein the epoxy acrylic or urethane acrylic is only crosslinked on the surface thereof, which produces a matting surface through the effects of a micro-convolution” (paragraph 11, lines 7-12).
MA further teaches “The substrate 14s coated with the UV curable acrylate mixture 14ea is then is passed under an inert gas in a continuous (in-line) process under a 172 nm excimer laser emitter, with a typical feed of 60 m/min at 0.5 cm distance from the coating surface. The result is a partially cured surface, that is, the UV-irradiated layer 14m with a surface matting of gloss <4 (60° geometry, measured as before)” (paragraph 52, lines 5-12), as a first step in irradiation, i.e. (1) irradiating a radiation-curable coating composition with ultraviolet (UV) light having a wavelength ≤195 nm under inert gas with the proviso that prior to step (1) the radiation-curable coating composition is not partially cured by irradiating an uncured layer of the radiation-curable coating composition with UV light.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include (1) irradiating a radiation-curable coating composition with ultraviolet (UV) light having a wavelength ≤195 nm under inert gas with the proviso that prior to step (1) the radiation-curable coating composition is not partially cured by irradiating an uncured layer of the radiation-curable coating composition with UV light in the process of SCHWALM because MA teaches that such a pre-partial crosslinking step creates a matte textured surface on acrylate coatings.
SCHWALM teaches that "The urethane (meth)acrylates (A) preferably have a number-average molar weight Mn of less than 5000" (paragraph 47, lines 1-2), and "The urethane (meth)acrylates (A) have preferably one to six, more preferably one to four, very preferably one to three, more particularly one to two, and especially just one (meth)acrylate group" (paragraph 20), i.e. wherein the radiation-curable coating composition comprises (A) one or more oligomeric urethane acrylates with a molar mass of a range that overlaps with from 1100 to 5000 g/mol and with an acrylate functionality of a range that overlaps with from 4 to 14. 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, 191 USPQ 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 MPEP2144.05.
SCHWALM further teaches "This object has been achieved by antimicrobial, radiation-curable coatings obtained by reacting ... (C) optionally at least one reactive diluent other than (B)" (paragraph 8-13), "Further suitable reactive diluents are for example ... epoxy (meth)acrylates" (paragraph 168), "The epoxy (meth)acrylates and epoxy vinyl ethers preferably have a number-average molar weight Mn of 200 to 20,000" (paragraph 184, liens 1-3) and "Preferred epoxy (meth)acrylates have an average OH functionality of 1.5 to 4.5" (paragraph 186) wherein the OH is understood to be a part of the acrylate group, i.e. (B) one or more acrylate diluents (B) with a molar mass less than a range that overlaps with 650 g/mol and with an acrylate functionality of a range that overlaps with from 2 to 4.
SCHWALM further teaches "The antimicrobial, radiation-curable coatings of the invention generally have the following composition in % by weight: (A) 30 to 80, preferably 40 to 70 ... (C) 0 to 30, preferably Oto 20, more preferably Oto 10, and very preferably O" (paragraph 221-224), i.e. a range that overlaps with the amount of (A) is from 20 to 75 wt.% and the amount of (B) is from 25 to 80 wt.%, based on the total amount of (A) and (B), and a range that overlaps with the total amount of (A) and (B) is at least 50 wt.% by weight of the radiation-curable coating composition. 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, 191 USPQ 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.
As for claim 2, SCHWALM teaches that "The urethane (meth)acrylates (A) preferably have a number-average molar weight Mn of less than 5000" (paragraph 47, lines 1-2), i.e. a range that overlaps with wherein said one or more oligomeric urethane acrylates (A) have a molar mass of at least 1200 g/mol. 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, 191 USPQ 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 MPEP2144.05.
As for claim 3, SCHWALM teaches that "The urethane (meth)acrylates (A) preferably have a number-average molar weight Mn of less than 5000" (paragraph 47, lines 1-2), i.e. a range that overlaps with wherein said one or more oligomeric urethane acrylates (A) have a molar mass of at most 4000g/mol. 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, 191 USPQ 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 MPEP2144.05.
As for claim 4, SCHWALM teaches "The urethane (meth)acrylates (A) have preferably one to six, more preferably one to four, very preferably one to three, more particularly one to two, and especially just one (meth)acrylate group" (paragraph 20), i.e. a range that overlaps with wherein said one or more oligomeric urethane acrylates (A) have an acrylate functionality from 5 to 12. 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, 191 USPQ 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 MPEP2144.05.
As for claim 5, SCHWALM teaches "The epoxy (meth)acrylates and epoxy vinyl ethers preferably have a number-average molar weight Mn of 200 to 20,000" (paragraph 184, lines 1-3), i.e. a range that overlaps with wherein said one or more acrylate diluents (B) have a molar mass of at most 500 g/mol. 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, 191 USPQ 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. 
As for claim 6, SCHWALM teaches "The epoxy (meth)acrylates and epoxy vinyl ethers preferably have a number-average molar weight Mn of 200 to 20,000" (paragraph 184, lines 1-3), i.e. a range that overlaps with wherein said one or more acrylate diluents (B) have a molar mass of at least 125 g/mol. 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, 191 USPQ 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. 
As for claim 7, SCHWALM teaches "Preferred epoxy (meth)acrylates have an average OH functionality of 1.5 to 4.5" (paragraph 186), wherein the OH is understood to be apart of the acrylate group, i.e. a range that overlaps with wherein said one or more acrylate diluents (B) have an acrylate functionality of 2 or 3. 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, 191 USPQ 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.
As for claim 8, SCHWALM further teaches "The antimicrobial, radiation-curable coatings of the invention generally have the following com position in % by weight: (A) 30 to 80, preferably 40 to 70 ... (C) 0 to 30, preferably 0 to 20, more preferably 0 to 10, and very preferably 0" (paragraph 221-224), i.e. a range that overlaps with wherein the total amount of (A) and (B) is at least 55 wt.%, by weight of the radiation-curable coating composition. 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, 191 USPQ 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.
As for claim 9, SCHWALM further teaches "The antimicrobial, radiation-curable coatings of the invention generally have the following com position in % by weight: (A) 30 to 80, preferably 40 to 70 ... (C) 0 to 30, preferably 0 to 20, more preferably 0 to 10, and very preferably 0" (paragraph 221-224). It is expected that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention could have converted the composition mass percentage to a relative mass percentage, which appears to overlap with the instant claimed range of wherein the amount of (A) is from 25 to 73 wt.% and the amount of (B) is from 27 to 75 wt.% whereby the amounts of (A) and (B) are given relative to the total amount of (A) and (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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); lnre 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.
As for claim 10, SCHWALM teaches "The compounds (A) preferably have a (meth)acrylate group density of at least 0.5 mol per 1000 g, more preferably of 1 to 5, and very preferably of 2 to 4 mol per 1000 g" (paragraph 45), i.e. a range that overlaps with wherein said one or more oligomeric urethane acrylates (A) have an acrylate functionality per molar mass higher than 2.4 mot/kg and less than 5.5 mot/kg. 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, 191 USPQ 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.
As for claim 11, SCHWALM teaches "Preferred epoxy (meth)acrylates have an average OH functionality of 1.5 to 4.5" (paragraph 186) wherein the OH group is understood to be a part of the acrylate, i.e. a range that overlaps with wherein the average acrylate functionality of the acrylate diluents present in the radiation-curable coating composition and with a molar mass as defined for (B) is in the range of from 1.9 to 5.3. 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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); lnre Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d, 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05.
As for claim 12, SCHWALM teaches "Radiation curing is accomplished by exposure to high-energy radiation, i.e., UV radiation or daylight, preferably light with a wavelength of 250 to 600 nm, or by irradiation with high-energy electrons ( electron beams; 150 to 300 keV)" (paragraph 232, lines 1-5) and is further silent on kinds of curing, i.e. wherein the radiation-curable coating composition is 100% radiation-curable.
As for claim 14, SCHWALM teaches "Where the coatings of the invention are cured not with electron beams but instead by means of UV radiation, the preparations of the invention preferably comprise at least one photoinitiator (D) which is able to initiate the polymerization of ethylenically unsaturated double bonds" (paragraph 206, lines 1- 5), i.e. wherein UV irradiation is applied in step (2) and the radiation-curable coating composition comprises a photo-initiator.
As for claim 15, SCHWALM teaches "The coatings of the invention are particularly suitable for coating substrates such as ... metals or coated metals. Preference is given to the coating of steel, especially medical steel... The antimicrobial, radiation-curable coatings of the invention are suitable with particular advantage for the coating of medical devices and articles, examples being laboratory tables, operating tables, work surfaces, and device surfaces" (paragraph 227-228), i.e. wherein the substrate is a flat, non-porous substrate.
As for claim 16, SCHWALM teaches "The coatings of the invention are particularly suitable for coating substrates such as ... metals or coated metals. Preference is given to the coating of steel, especially medical steel... The antimicrobial, radiation-curable coatings of the invention are suitable with particular advantage for the coating of medical devices and articles, examples being laboratory tables, operating tables" (paragraph 227-228), i.e. wherein the coating is used ... on furniture.
As for claim 19, SCHWALM is silent on step (1).
MA further teaches “The substrate 14s coated with the UV curable acrylate mixture 14ea is then is passed under an inert gas in a continuous (in-line) process under a 172 nm excimer laser emitter, with a typical feed of 60 m/min at 0.5 cm distance from the coating surface. The result is a partially cured surface, that is, the UV-irradiated layer 14m with a surface matting of gloss <4 (60° geometry, measured as before)” (paragraph 52, lines 5-12), as a first step in irradiation, i.e. wherein the wavelength in step (1) is ≤172 nm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include wherein the wavelength in step (1) is ≤172 nm in the process of SCHWALM because MA teaches that such a pre-partial crosslinking step creates a matte textured surface on acrylate coatings.
As for claim 20, Examiner notes that in the combination of SCHWALM and MA, wherein the partial cure of MA is performed before the final curing of SCHWALM, the process is performed in two steps, i.e. with the further proviso that the curing of the radiation curable coating composition is effected in only 2 irradiation steps.
As for claim 23, SCHWALM is silent on step (1).
MA further teaches “The substrate 14s coated with the UV curable acrylate mixture 14ea is then is passed under an inert gas in a continuous (in-line) process under a 172 nm excimer laser emitter, with a typical feed of 60 m/min at 0.5 cm distance from the coating surface. The result is a partially cured surface, that is, the UV-irradiated layer 14m with a surface matting of gloss <4 (60° geometry, measured as before)” (paragraph 52, lines 5-12), as a first step in irradiation, i.e. wherein the wavelength in step (1) is ≥150 nm and  ≤172 nm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include wherein the wavelength in step (1) is ≥150 nm and  ≤172 nm in the process of SCHWALM because MA teaches that such a pre-partial crosslinking step creates a matte textured surface on acrylate coatings.
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwalm et al. US PGPub 2013/0195793 hereinafter SCHWALM in view of Ma et al. US PGPub 2019/0210331 hereinafter MA as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fischer et al. US PGPub 2014/0371384 hereinafter FISCHER. 
As for claim 13, SCHWALM is silent on step (1).
MA teaches using excimer lasers (paragraph 52).
FISCHER teaches "The present invention relates to a method for producing matt and scratch-resistant coatings that takes place under exposure to actinic radiation on coating systems containing activated double bonds under radical polymerization" (abstract) and "Examples of suitable radiation-curable binders derive from the oligomer and/or polymer classes of ... epoxy (meth) acrylates, urethane (meth)acrylates" (paragraph 26, lines 1-5).
FISCHER teaches “Suitable radiation sources for step (3) are excimer UV lamps, which emit UV light in the range from 2: 120 nm to s230 nm, preferably 2:150 nm to s225 nm, particularly preferably 172 nm. The micro-folding according to step (3) must take place in an oxygen-reduced atmosphere or under complete exclusion of oxygen, i.e. in an inert gas atmosphere. The curing in step (3) is particularly preferably performed in an inert gas atmosphere” (paragraph 44, lines 1-8), i.e. wherein the irradiating for a micro-folding steps is effected by excimer UV lamps.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have wherein the irradiating in step (1) is effected by excimer UV lamps in the combined process of SCHWALM and MA because FISCHER teaches that such a excimer lamp can produce the wavelength of light useful for producing the micro-folding desired by MA.
Claim(s) 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwalm et al. US PGPub 2013/0195793 hereinafter SCHWALM in view of Ma et al. US PGPub 2019/0210331 hereinafter MA as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schlatterbeck et al. US PGPub 2020/0055082 hereinafter SCHLATTERBECK.
As for claim 21, SCHWALM is silent on step (1).
MA is silent on the radiation dose in 1 to 20 mJ/cm2.
SCHLATTERBECK teaches “In accordance with another embodiment of the method, the irradiation occurs in a location dependent twostep manner in that, in one section of the fluid coating material that was applied onto at least one region of the two-dimensional representation a smaller UV dose which produces micro-folding is administered in a first step. In a second step, the layer in the section of the fluid coating material is completely cured, wherein longer wave UV irradiation is used than that of a UV medium pressure emitter, so that in the irradiated section of the coating a predefined texture of the surface of the coating is obtained which deviates or can deviate from the texture or the textures of the surface in other sections of the coating or in other sections of the coating applied to the two-dimensional representation. "Longer wave UV irradiation" refers to the fact that hitherto in particular Excimer irradiation is used for micro-folding which----compared to the herein referred to irradiation of a UV medium pressure emitter-is shorter wave” (paragraph 44)/
SCHLATTERBECK further teaches “Through a targeted influence over the formulation and the curing conditions (wavelength, dose, intensity) the layer thickness range in which microfolding is achieved can be adjusted in a wide range. Microfolding can even be completely prevented by way of accordingly high doses of a suitable wavelength (UV-C)” (paragraph 108, lines 9-14), i.e. wherein the radiation dose is a result effective variable.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to design the radiation dose such that the desired microfolding and matte quality is achieved.  Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215.
As for claim 22, SCHWALM is silent on step (1).
MA is silent on the radiation dose in 1 to 20 mJ/cm2.
SCHLATTERBECK teaches “In accordance with another embodiment of the method, the irradiation occurs in a location dependent twostep manner in that, in one section of the fluid coating material that was applied onto at least one region of the two-dimensional representation a smaller UV dose which produces micro-folding is administered in a first step. In a second step, the layer in the section of the fluid coating material is completely cured, wherein longer wave UV irradiation is used than that of a UV medium pressure emitter, so that in the irradiated section of the coating a predefined texture of the surface of the coating is obtained which deviates or can deviate from the texture or the textures of the surface in other sections of the coating or in other sections of the coating applied to the two-dimensional representation. "Longer wave UV irradiation" refers to the fact that hitherto in particular Excimer irradiation is used for micro-folding which----compared to the herein referred to irradiation of a UV medium pressure emitter-is shorter wave” (paragraph 44)/
SCHLATTERBECK further teaches “Through a targeted influence over the formulation and the curing conditions (wavelength, dose, intensity) the layer thickness range in which microfolding is achieved can be adjusted in a wide range. Microfolding can even be completely prevented by way of accordingly high doses of a suitable wavelength (UV-C)” (paragraph 108, lines 9-14), i.e. wherein the radiation dose is a result effective variable.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to design the radiation dose such that the desired microfolding and matte quality is achieved.  Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215.

Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 4/24/25 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.


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 7-11 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