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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1, 6, 8-15 of K. Maruhashi, et al. US 17/536,401 (11/29/2021) are pending. Claim 1 and 11 are amended by Applicant in the reply filed on 12/15/2025. Claims 16-17 drawn to non-elected invention are canceled by Applicant in the reply filed on 03/19/2025. Claim 14 is withdrawn as it directed to non-elected invention. Claims 1, 6, 8-13 and 15 under examination on the merits and are rejected.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant elected Group (I) drawn to claims 1-15, without traverse, in the Reply to Restriction Requirement filed on 10/07/2024. Applicant amended claim 14 from a composition claim into a method claim in the reply filed on 03/19/2025. Claims 16-17 drawn to non-elected invention Group (II) are canceled by Applicant in the reply filed on 03/19/2025. Claims 14 drawn to non-elected Group (III) are withdrawn from consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b). The restriction between Groups (I) and (III) is maintained as Final.
Claim Interpretation
Examination requires claim terms first be construed in terms in the broadest reasonable manner during prosecution as is reasonably allowed in an effort to establish a clear record of what applicant intends to claim. See, MPEP § 2111. Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. See MPEP § 2111.01. It is also appropriate to look to how the claim term is used in the prior art, which includes prior art patents, published applications, trade publications, and dictionaries. MPEP § 2111.01 (III).
Interpretation of the term “hydrolyzable group”
Independent claim 1 recites the term “hydrolyzable group” with respect to RSi. The specification provides the following open-ended discussion with respect to the claimed “hydrolyzable group”:
The term "hydrolyzable group" as used herein, means a group which is able to undergo a hydrolysis reaction, i.e., represents a group that can be removed from the main backbone of a compound by a hydrolysis reaction. Examples of the hydrolyzable group include - ORh, -OCORh, -O-N=CRh2, -NRh2, -NHRh, and halogen (wherein Rh represents a substituted or unsubstituted C1-4 alkyl group).
Specification at page 6, [0010].
The claim term “hydrolyzable group” is broadly and reasonably interpreted based on the plain language, consistently with the specification, to mean any group that can react in the presence of water so as to replace the group with -OH.
Interpretation of “chlorine ion concentration”
Claim 1 recites “chlorine ion concentration” in the following context:
claim 1 . . . comprising . . . a chlorine ion, wherein a chlorine ion concentration in the surface-treating agent is 0.1 ppm by mass or more and 1.0 ppm by mass or less
The specification teaches that that chlorine ions contained in the surface-treating agent affect the functions of the surface-treating agent, for example, the stability of a silane moiety having a hydrolyzable group is deteriorated, and the number of reaction points with the base material decreases, so that the friction durability of the obtained surface-treating layer can be deteriorated, and chloride ion can cause metal corrosion. Specification at page 66, line 19 – page 67, line 3. The specification teaches that that by adjusting the chlorine ion concentration in the surface-treating agent to a predetermined concentration of 0.1 ppm by mass or more and 1.0 ppm by mass, the above-described problems can be avoided. Specification at page 67, lines 9-12.
The specification teaches that “chlorine ion concentration” can be adjusted to within the claimed levels as follows:
[0238] The chlorine ion concentration contained in the surface-treating agent of the present disclosure can be adjusted to the chlorine ion concentration in the surface-treating agent of the present disclosure by
purifying a composition with a high chlorine ion concentration or
adding a compound which produces chlorine or chlorine ions (e.g. HCl or a compound having a -SiCl3 group).
[0239] Examples of the purification method include
a method in which a metal or a metal compound is added to a composition with a high chlorine ion concentration and the mixture is heated;
a method in which the composition is cleaned with an excessive amount of alcohol;
a method in which the composition is treated with a metal alkoxide; and
a method in which the composition is added to an anionic exchange resin.
Specification at page 69, [0238]-0239]. In Synthetic Example 1, the specification teaches an example of a “cleaning operation” with methanol as follows.
Subsequently, volatiles were distilled off under reduced pressure, non-volatile components were then diluted with perfluorohexane, and a cleaning operation with methanol (more specifically, an operation in which a fluorobased compound is held in a perfluorohexane phase (fluorous phase) and a non-fluoro-based compound is separated and removed into a methanol phase (organic phase)) was carried out three times using a separatory funnel. Subsequently, volatiles were distilled off under reduced pressure to obtain 18 g of a product (B)
Specification at page 98, lines 15-24 (emphasis added). In Example 2, the specification teaches adjusted the chloride ion concentration with zinc powder. Specification at page 104, lines 4-23.
Applicant does not specifically define “chlorine ion”. Based on the plain meaning of “ion”, the term “chlorine ion” is interpreted as Cl-.
Withdrawal Claim Rejections- 35 U.S.C. 112(b)
Rejection of claim 11 pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 112, as indefinite because the claim term of “fluorine-containing oil” is not clear is withdrawn in view of the instant claim 11 has been amended by limitation of the fluorine-containing oil with the claimed formulas. The claim amendment is supported by the specification at page 72, [0247] and page 74. [0249].
Maintained Claim Rejections – Improper Markush Grouping
Claims 1, 6, 8-13 and 15 are rejected on the ground of an improper Markush grouping of alternatives.
Relevant MPEP Discussion
“A Markush grouping is proper if the members of a group share a single structural similarity and a common use”. MPEP § 2117(I). A Markush claim may be rejected under judicially approved "improper Markush grouping" principles when the claim contains an improper grouping of alternatively useable members. A Markush claim contains an "improper Markush grouping" if either: (1) the members of the Markush group do not share a "single structural similarity" or (2) the members do not share a common use. MPEP § 2117(II) (citing 76 Federal Register 7162-7175 (2011); In re Harnisch, 631 F.2d 716, 721-22, 206 USPQ 300, 305 (CCPA 1980)).
Members of a Markush group share a "single structural similarity" when they belong to the same recognized physical or chemical class or to the same art-recognized class. MPEP § 2117(II)(A). A recognized physical class, a recognized chemical class, or an art-recognized class is a class wherein there is an expectation from the knowledge in the art that members of the class will behave in the same way in the context of the claimed invention. MPEP § 2117(II)(A).
Where a Markush grouping describes alternative chemical compounds, whether by words or chemical formulas, and the compounds do not appear to be members of a recognized physical or chemical class or members of an art-recognized class, the members are considered to share a "single structural similarity" and “common use” when the alternatively usable compounds share a “substantial structural feature” that is essential to a common use. MPEP § 2117(II)(B).
The Improper Markush Rejection
In the instant case, the claimed Markush group alternatives are disclosed to share the common use as a surface-treating agent. Specification at page 2, [005]; see MPEP § 2117(II) (“the alternatives . . . share a common function or use when they are disclosed in the specification or known in the art to be functionally equivalent in the context of the claimed invention”). However, the instantly claimed Markush members do not share a "single structural similarity".
The Claimed Alternatives Are not Members of a Physical, Chemical, or Art-Recognized Class
The alternatives with the genus of the formula (1) and/or (2) are not members of any recognized physical or chemical class or art-recognized class. There is no art of record (or other evidence of knowledge in the art in the Application’s file) providing an expectation from the knowledge in the art that all the members of the claim 1 Markush grouping will behave in the same way in the context of the claimed invention. MPEP § 2117(II)(A).
The Claimed Alternatives do not Share a “substantial structural feature that is essential to a common use”
Where the alternatives do not belong to a recognized class as above, the members of the Markush grouping may still be considered to be proper where the alternatives share a “substantial structural feature that is essential to a common use”. MPEP § 2117(II)(B). All the variables within the claim 1 formula (1) and/or (2) are defined by piecing together variables RF1 (or RF2), XA and RSi . As such, widely varying structures fall within the genera of the subject claims. The only common structure within the claim 1 genus of formula (1) and/or (2) are the three following substructures:
PNG
media_image1.png
165
849
media_image1.png
Greyscale
First, these three substructures themselves are not a substantial part of the molecule. Second, there is no indication in the specification or art of record that these three substructures by themselves are essential to the common use of functioning as a surface-treating agent. Dependent claims 6, 8-13 and 15 do not sufficiently narrow the claim 1 Markush genus to a “single structural similarity”.
The Markush Groupings Are Improper
In view of the foregoing, claimed compound alternatives falling within the scope of instant claims 1, 6, 8-13 and 15 do not: (1) share a "single structural similarity" because they do not belong to the same recognized physical or chemical class or to the same art-recognized class; or (2) share a “substantial structural feature” that is essential to a common use because the claimed generic formulae do not comprise a “substantial structural feature”. As such, these claims are directed to an improper Markush grouping.
This is a rejection on the merits and may be appealed to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in accordance with 35 U.S.C. §134 and 37 CFR 41.31(a)(1). MPEP 2117(III).
Applicant Arguments
Applicant argues on the ground that claim 1 has been amended to address Examiner’s concerns. Remarks filed on 12/15/2025 at page 10-12, Response to Improper Markush Group.
This argument has been fully considered but not persuasive because Examiner do not find how the claim amendment to address the issues mentioned in the rejection. The amended XA is piecing together variables of groups, which does not render the Markush members of the instant claims to:
(1) share a "single structural similarity" because they do not belong to the same recognized physical or chemical class or to the same art-recognized class; or
(2) share a “substantial structural feature” that is essential to a common use because the claimed generic formulae do not comprise a “substantial structural feature”.
Applicant does not provide any explanation how the amended to address the issues mentioned in the rejection made in the previous Office action. It should be noted that the hypothetical structures created by Examiner in the previous Office action just used as an example to show the claimed Markush members does not share a "single structural similarity", claimed amended to exclude those hypothetical structures created by Examiner within the scope of the claimed Markush members does not mean the claimed Markush members share a "single structural similarity" or a “substantial structural feature”.
Maintained 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.
35 USC § 103 rejection over Takashi and Johnson
Rejection of claims 1, 6, 8, 10-13 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over M. Takashi, et al, JP2014198822A (2014)(“Takashi”) in view of J. R. Johnson, et al, US5609692 (1997)(“Johnson”) is maintained for the same reason as given in the previous Office action and is repeated below.
M. Takashi, et al, JP2014198822A (2014)(“Takashi”)
Takashi is published in Japanese, a copy of machine translation is attached as the second part of Takashi resulting the total page of the reference is 41, the format for citation of the reference is xx/41.
Takashi teaches a method for producing a microstructure and the method includes the steps of:
(A) forming a resin base having the microprojections,
(B) subjecting the base to oxidation treatment or discharge treatment to introduce polar groups to the surfaces of the microprojections, and
(C) coating the surfaces of the microprojections with a silicon-containing compound to form a functional layer.
Takashi at 23/41, [0012], emphasis added. Regarding the coating method, Takashi teaches that:
[0047] <Coating Method>
The method for applying the silicon-containing compound is not particularly limited, and examples thereof include methods used in ordinary coating operations such as spray coating, bar coater coating, spin coating, dip coating, roll coating, gravure coating, curtain flow coating, bar coating, blade coating, die coating, reverse roll coating, and slit coating. At this time, the silicon-containing compound may be diluted with various solvents to an arbitrary concentration in order to facilitate coating or to adjust the film thickness of the functional layer. As the solvent, specifically, perfluoroether, hydrofluoroether, perfluoropolyether, hydrofluoropolyether, and the like can be used.
Takashi at 30/41, [0047], emphasis added.
Takashi teaches Examples of the silicon-containing compound such as the compound of CF3-(CF2-CF2-CF2-O)n-Si(OCH3)3, wherein n=2-40. Takashi at 28/41, [0037].
The Takashi compound of CF3-(CF2-CF2-CF2-O)n-Si(OCH3)3 which also can be drawn as CF3-CF2-CF2-CF2 -(OCF2-CF2-CF2)n-1-O-Si(OCH3)3 that maps the formula (1) in the instant claim 1 as:
Rfl is CF3-CF2-CF2-CF2- which is a C1-6 perfluoroalkyl group;
RF is (O-CF2-CF2-CF2)1-39 which comprises the (O-CF2-CF2-CF2)5-39 Wherein a=b=c=e=f=0, d is 5-39,
q is 1;
XA is a bond; and
Rsi is -Si(OCH3)3 which maps the formula (S2) SiR113 in that R11 is -OCH3 which is a hydrolysable group and maps the ORh as Rh is -CH3
Wherein, both α and β are 1.
The Takashi compound of CF3-(CF2-CF2-CF2-O)2-40-Si(OCH3)3 meets each and every structural limitation of the formula (1) of claims 1, 6, 8.
Per Example, Takashi also teaches coating composition comprising the Takashi compound of CF3-(CF2-CF2-CF2-O)2-40-Si(OCH3)3. Takashi at 33/41, [0057]-[0058].
Difference between Takashi and the instant Claims
Takashi differs from the independent claim 1 only in that Takashi does not teach the claimed chlorine ion concentration in his surface-treating agent comprising the Takashi compound of CF3-(CF2-CF2-CF2-O)2-40-Si(OCH3)3.
J. R. Johnson, et al, US5609692 (1997)(“Johnson”)
Johnson teaches that
The exposure of metallic, concrete and plastic surfaces to chloride ion results in contamination with chloride ion, chloride derivatives and flash rust (metal oxide), and in corrosion of associated surfaces. Chloride contamination eventually leads to destructive results such as coating adhesion failure, cement cracking due to rebar corrosion, and the like.
Water soluble chloride salt contamination of surfaces, particularly steel and iron surfaces, has always been a major cause of coating failure. Coating failure or debonding is initiated by substrate corrosion due to residual chloride presence which results in ferrous chloride being formed under the coating surface. If oxygen is present, the ferrous chloride is oxidized to ferric chloride which absorbs moisture from the air and forms a concentrated ferric chloride solution. This solution causes electrochemical corrosion and rusting under the coating and ultimately results in coating failure. In general, chloride contaminants must be completely removed from the surface to avoid future coating failures.
Chloride contamination of rebar in concrete poses another serious problem. If the rebar becomes contaminated with chloride, corrosion products will build up on the rebar within the concrete. These corrosion products may have up to four times the volume of the original rebar, resulting in stressing and eventually cracking and deterioration of the concrete, rendering it substandard or unsatisfactory for its intended use.
Furthermore, flash rust (metal oxide) may develop on metal surfaces contaminated with chloride, further promoting coating failure and adding undesirable color.
No standards exist as to the particular level of chloride ion or soluble salts that can be tolerated by particular surfaces in various applications, and performance of the surfaces depends quite heavily on the particular environment. For example, some of the most difficult applications include off-shore oil drilling rig platforms, and highways heavily salted to remove ice and snow during the winter months. Furthermore, some coatings are porous, providing increased opportunity for chloride contamination and subsequent coating failure. Given the variety of applications in which metallic, concrete and plastic surfaces are used, and the lack of a standard as to the tolerable level of chloride ion contamination, the best performance for any coating or environment will result if the surface is free of chloride ion or soluble salts prior to the application of the coating.
Johnson at page 1, left col. lines 6-53, emphasis added.
Johnson fairly teaches one ordinary skilled artisan that chloride ion should be removed from a coating composition and the surface to be coated because chloride ion can cause coating failure.
Obvious Rationales of Claims 1, 6,8 and 10-13, 15
It would have been prima facie obvious for one skilled artisan to arrive at the instantly claimed invention based on the teachings from Takashi and Johnson with a reasonable expectation of success before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 10 and 13 are obvious because one ordinary skill seeking coating of a microstructure is motivated to modify the Takashi coating agent comprising the Takashi compound of CF3-(CF2-CF2-CF2-O)2-40-Si(OCH3)3 by limiting less concentration of chloride ion because Johnson teaches that chloride ion should be removed from a coating composition and the surface to be coated because chloride ion can cause coating failure. Regarding the claimed chloride ion concentration, "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. MPEP § 2144.05(II) (citing In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Therefore, claims 1,10 and 13 are obvious.
Claim 6 is obvious because as discussed above that the RF in the Takashi compound of CF3-(CF2-CF2-CF2-O)2-40-Si(OCH3)3 is -(OCF2-CF2-CF2-O)1-39 which meet the limitation of f1 in the instant claim 6.
Claim 8 is obvious because as discussed above that in the Takashi compound of CF3-(CF2-CF2-CF2-O)2-40-Si(OCH3)3 both α and β are 1.
Claim 11-12 are obvious because one ordinary skilled artisan is motivated to modify the proposed method by including a perfluoropolyether as a solvent as Takashi teaches that the silicon-containing compound may be diluted with various solvents such as perfluoropolyether which is a fluorine-containing oil per claim interpretation above.
Claim 15 is obvious because one ordinary skilled artisan is also motivated to prepare a pellet comprising the proposed composition for surface treating because Takashi teaches that method for coating with the composition comprising the Takashi compound of CF3-(CF2-CF2-CF2-O)2-40-Si(OCH3)3 not particularly limited.
35 USC § 103 rejection over Young and Johnson
Rejection of claims 1, 6, 9, 10, 13 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over C.H.Young KR20150054147A (2015) (“Young”) in view of J. R. Johnson, et al, US5609692 (1997)(“Johnson”) is maintained for the same reason as given in the previous Office action and is repeated below.
C.H.Young KR20150054147A (2015) (“Young”)
Young is published in Korean, a copy of machine translation is attached as the second part of Takashi resulting the total page of the reference is 21, the format for citation of the reference is xx/21.
Young teaches an antifouling coating agent represented by the formula (1) having excellent antifouling property to prevent adhesion of contaminants (fingerprints, etc.) and excellent adhesion to a substrate. Young at 14/21, Summary of the invention; and page 2/21 for formula (1).
Young teaches working examples such as the Example compound 5 having a chemical structure as indicated below. Young at 10-11/21, example 5.
PNG
media_image2.png
321
592
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The Young Example compound 5 maps the formula (1) in the instant claim 1 as:
Rf1 is CF3- CF2-CF2- which is a C1-6 perfluoroalkyl group;
RF is
PNG
media_image3.png
130
200
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Wherein a=b=c=e=0, d is 18, f is 1;
q is 0;
XA is
PNG
media_image4.png
114
231
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Wherein, R25 is C=O ( both R57 and R59 are single bond, X58 is C=O), both R26 and R27 are -CH2CH2CH2- which is a C1-6 alkyl group and R26 and R27 are each bonded to -Si (OCH3)3;
Rsi is -Si(OCH3)3 which maps the formula (S2) SiR113 in that R11 is -OCH3 which is a hydrolysable group and
Wherein, α is 1 and β is 2.
The Young Example compound 5 meets each and every structural limitation of the formula (1) of claims 1, 6, 9.
Young also teaches an antifouling coating made from the Young Example compound 5. Young at 18-19/21 and table 1 at 13/21. Thus Young also teaches an antifouling coating agent comprising Young Example compound 5.
Young further teaches that the method of coating the composition containing the antifouling coating on the substrate is generally used in the art, for example, dipping, spin coating, flow coating, roll coating, spray coating, screen printing, etc. Young 16/21, the last 4th paragraph.
Difference between Young and the instant Claims
Young differs from the independent claim 1 only in that Young does not teach the claimed chlorine ion concentration in the antifouling coating agent comprising Young Example compound 5.
J. R. Johnson, et al, US5609692 (1997)(“Johnson”)
As discussed above that Johnson teaches that chloride ion should be removed from a coating composition and the surface to be coated because chloride ion can cause coating failure.
Obvious Rationales of Claims 1, 6, 9 and 10,13, 15
It would have been prima facie obvious for one skilled artisan to arrive at the instantly claimed invention based on the teachings from Takashi and Johnson with a reasonable expectation of success before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 10 and 13 are obvious because one ordinary skill seeking coating of a microstructure is motivated to modify the Young method by decreasing the concentration of chloride ion in the composition comprising the Young Example compound 5 compound because Johnson teaches that chloride ion should be removed from a coating composition and the surface to be coated because chloride ion can cause coating failure. Regarding the claimed chloride ion concentration "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation except the claimed ranges are critical. MPEP § 2144.05(II) (citing In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Herein, neither prior art nor the specification provides evidence the claimed treating time ranges is critical to the claimed composition. Therefore, claims 1,10 and 13 are obvious. Further, one ordinary skilled artisan is also motivated to purify the Young Example compound 5 such as through washing with methanol and/or distillation thus arrive at the Young Example compound 5 comprising the claimed amount of chloride ion. One ordinary skilled artisan is motivated to do so with a reasonable expectation of success because Young teach to remove unreacted starting material/reagents. See Young Example 1/5.
Claim 6 is obvious because as discussed above that the RF in the Young Example compound 5 is
PNG
media_image3.png
130
200
media_image3.png
Greyscale
which meets the limitation of f5 in the claim 6 that is f is 1, a=b=c=e is 0, d is 18.
Claim 9 is obvious because as discussed above that in the Young Example compound 5, α is 1 and β is 2.
Claim 15 is obvious because one ordinary skilled artisan is also motivated to prepare a pellet comprising the proposed composition for surface treating because Young teaches that method for coating with the composition can be any method in the art.
Applicant’s Argument
Applicant first argues on the ground that:
Johnson merely discloses a method of removing chloride ion, a compound thereof, or flash rust (metal oxide) from a surface contaminated with chloride (abstract; col. 2, lines 36-38).
Johnson does not disclose a coating composition, much less the chlorine ion concentration in a coating composition.
Remarks filed on 12/15/2025 at page 14, line 2-5.
This argument is not persuasive. While Johnson does not teach a coating composition, Johnson does teach that chloride contaminants in a coating must be removed from the surface because it eventually leads to destructive results such as coating adhesion failure, therefore, one ordinary skill seeking coating with Takashi/Young coating composition is motivated to decrease the concentration of chloride ion in the composition(s).
Applicant then argues on the ground that:
In the Amendment Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111 filed March 19, 2025, Applicant explained that in the claimed invention, an additional step is done after the steps (i), (ii), and (iii); in other words, in the claimed invention, (iv) the chlorine ion concentration contained in the surface- treating agent is adjusted to the chlorine ion concentration in the surface-treating agent by purifying a composition with a high chlorine ion concentration or adding a compound which produces chlorine or chlorine ions (e.g., HCl or a compound having a -SiCl3 group), after the steps (i), (ii), and (iii) (paragraph [0238]).
Remarks filed on 12/15/2025 at page 14, line 6-12. This argument is not persuasive because Applicant argues something that not be claimed.
Applicant further argues on the ground that:
Here, the claimed chlorine ion concentration contained in the surface-treating agent is not taught or suggested by Takashi/Young and Johnson. Also, there would have been no general conditions to optimize by routine experimentation. Accordingly, at least one limitation is missing and the present claims would not have been obvious over Takashi/Young and Johnson.
Remarks filed on 12/15/2025 at page 14, the second last paragraph.
These arguments are not persuasive. Regarding the claimed chlorine ion concentration, generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. MPEP § 2144.04(II)(A) (citing In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) ("[w]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation”)), herein, the application does not provide evidence to show the claimed concentration is critical to the full scope of the claims, rather one ordinary skill has a motivation to optimize the concentration of chloride in the prior art coating composition into the claimed ranges for the reason given above.
Conclusion
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 FRANK S. HOU whose telephone number is (571)272-1802. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30 am-2:30 pm Eastern on Monday to 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, Scarlett Goon can be reached on (571)2705241. 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.
/FRANK S. HOU/Examiner, Art Unit 1692
/ALEXANDER R PAGANO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1692