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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I claims 1-6 in the reply filed on 06/05/25 is acknowledged. Claims 7-16 and 18 are thus withdrawn as being directed towards non-elected inventions. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the claims 7-16 contain the same elements as elected claims 1-6, and thus there is not an undue burden to examine at least claims 1-16 together. This is not found persuasive for the reasons set forth in the mailed written restriction. Furthermore, elected claims 1-6 contain the identity of being an additive corrosion inhibitor, yet said identity is lost in non-elected coating claims 7-16.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claim 6 is 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.
Dependent claim 6 is indefinite in regards to the limitation of “usable weight ratios . . .”. What does applicant mean by the modifying word “usable” in said limitation?
Furthermore, dependent claim 6 can also be said to be indefinite in regards to the metes and bounds of the actually claimed weight ratio of the first corrosion inhibitor to the second corrosion inhibitor due to Applicant’s recitation of multiple different weight ratios.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Applicant’s provided English Language translation of CN 105349000 A.
CN 105349000 A discloses a primary core emulsion obtained by polymerizing a mixture of monomers which has benzotriazole absorbed thereto to thereby obtain a secondary core emulsion. Said secondary core emulsion is then polymerized with styrene so as to produce polymer nanoparticles coated with benzotriazole, see paragraphs [0022]-[0025].
Said polymer nanoparticles coated with benzotriazole are then combined with other components to produce the final metal corrosion inhibiting coating composition. Said metal corrosion coating composition comprises: epoxy acrylic resin 60-80 parts, butyl ether amino resin 10-15 parts, fluorocarbon resin 5-8 parts, methyl isobutyl ketone 2-5 parts, cobalt oxide 2-4 parts, zinc phosphate 1-2 parts, 3-aluminum polyphosphate 1-2 parts, polymer nanoparticles coated with benzotriazole 5-10 parts, polyacrylate 2-4 parts, xylene 1-2 parts, 3-ethylenetetraamine 2-5 parts and industrial water 40-60 parts, see paragraph [0026] and claim 1.
Please note that said “polymer nanoparticles coated with benzotriazole” corresponds to Applicant’s “first corrosion inhibitor” and that both “zinc phosphate” and “aluminum polyphosphate” particles correspond to Applicant’s “second corrosion inhibitor” of Applicant’s independent claim 1. Furthermore, all the limitations of Applicant’s dependent claims 2-6 are fully met by said final metal corrosion inhibiting coating composition.
Claim(s) 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2018/197869 A1 in view of Applicant’s provided English Language translation of CN 105349000 A.
WO 2018/197869 A1 discloses an additive for adding to a coating that imparts corrosion resistance to a metal substrate, which includes a particle-shaped corrosion inhibitor containing an organic cation in a cation exchange resin, wherein azole (e.g. benzotriazole or its derivatives) or oxime are used as the organic cation, and wherein a styrene/divinylbenzene copolymer having a negatively charged group may be used as a cation exchange resin. The organic cation in a cation exchange resin corrosion inhibitor is preferably admixed with other components such as an inorganic cation modified silica (e.g. calcium silicate) used as a secondary corrosion inhibitor, and a polymer/resin binder (e.g. acrylic, polyurethane, or polyvinyl butyral), see claims, and page 4, line 9 to page 5, line 26.
WO 2018/197869 A1 differs from Applicant’s claimed invention in that there is not an explicit disclosure to the further addition of a phosphate compound as an additional corrosion inhibitor.
Applicant’s provided English Language translation of CN 105349000 A has been described above and clearly discloses that zinc phosphate and aluminum polyphosphates are both well-known corrosion inhibitors used in corrosion inhibiting compositions for metal substrates.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use the disclosure of the secondary reference to CN 105349000 A as strong motivation to actually incorporate zinc phosphate and/or aluminum polyphosphate particles as further additional corrosion inhibitor(s) into WO 2018/197869 A1’s corrosion inhibiting coating compositions for the benefits they would individually impart to enhance corrosion protection. This incorporation of zinc phosphate and/or aluminum polyphosphate particles into WO 2018/197869 A1’s corrosion inhibiting coating compositions is further strongly supported by the fact that both WO 2018/197869 A1 and CN 105349000 A both use an organic cation in a cation exchange resin as the required first corrosion inhibiting component.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH DAVID ANTHONY whose telephone number is (571)272-1117. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10:00AM-6:30PM.
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, Arrie (Lanee) Reuther can be reached at 571-270-7026. 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.
/JOSEPH D ANTHONY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764