DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/8/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Any rejections and/or objections made in the previous Office action and not repeated below are hereby withdrawn.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Objections
Claim 20 objected to because of the following informalities: “dislkoxyl” should read “dialkoxyl”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as based on a disclosure which is not enabling. The disclosure does not enable one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the invention without a carrier, which is/are critical or essential to the practice of the invention but not included in the claim(s). See In re Mayhew, 527 F.2d 1229, 188 USPQ 356 (CCPA 1976).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 20-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ni et al (CN 106752724) in view of Ye (CN111073507).
Ni teaches an anticorrosive coating composition comprising 2-5 wt% of a polysilsesquioxane, 3-6 wt% of graphite, 1-3 wt% of a silane coupling agent and 5-10 wt% of water [0008]. The graphite dispersed in water and other solvents reads on a graphene slurry as claimed. The cured coating is capable of inhibiting dirt and debris adhesion.
It is noted that claim 20 is a product claim, how each ingredient is mixing and the order of mixing have no patentable weight unless some criticality is of record. The limitation “a graphene slurry in which said graphene is dispersed in a solvent from 0.5 to 80 wt% of the slurry” indicates the graphene and the solvent are mixed before being mixed with other ingredients which is a product by process limitation and has no patentable weight. The weight percent of graphene indicates the weight ratio between graphene and the solvent. As long as the weight ratio of these two ingredients in the composition overlaps the claimed range, it reads on this limitation. However, the composition allows additional solvent to present which would lower the weight ratio and make the claimed weight ratio meaningless, because in a composition having more solvent than required to meet the claimed weight ratio, the solvent can be divided into two parts, one part is used to meet the weight ratio requirement, the other would be the additional solvent.
Ni does not teach the claimed silane.
However, Ye discloses an anticorrosive coating and teaches the silane coupling agent can be amonopropyltriethoxysilane [0002, 0009, 0016]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize amonopropyltriethoxysilane as the silane coupling agent for the composition of Ni because it is recognized in the art it is suitable for an anticorrosive coating composition.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WENWEN CAI whose telephone number is (571)270-3590. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9am-6pm.
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, Joseph Del Sole can be reached on (571)272-1130. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WENWEN CAI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763
Prosecution Insights