DETAILED ACTION
This rejection is maintained from the previous office action. Applicants’ reply and traversal have been considered but are not persuasive for reasons noted below. Note that the claims have not been amended in the reply dated 6/9/26.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1 - 8 and 10 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ziche et al. 8,357,755, in view of Wakabayashi et al. 2007/0203297.
Ziche et al. teach a crosslinkable organosilicon composition.
For claimed component a) see the polymer (A) found in line 52 of column 2. The
terminal group of formula (I) corresponds to the claimed general formula (I). See the specific formulas found on column 3, line 53, to column 4, line 5, which show preferred groups of formula (I). Note that lines 59 to 66 show various silanes meeting claimed (I) in which the N atom is attached to a methyl group and an alkylene group, as well as attachment to the polymer itself.
For claimed component c) see the catalyst found in column 5, lines 50 to 61. This teaches multiple metal alkoxides.
For claimed component d) see column 7, lines 20 to 62, which teaches polymers having an acid number of from 40 to 230. The working examples use polymers having an acid number of 130 and 70-90 which fall directly within the claimed range.
Finally column 9, line 25, teaches alkyl aromatics as useful solvents. These are aprotic organic solvents.
As such Ziche et al. teach each of claimed a), c), d) and e). This differs from that claimed in that it does not teach claimed b). . Note, though, that the teachings in Ziche et al. are inclusive of all known and useful condensation catalysts (column 5, lines 48 and 49).
Wakabayashi et al. teach, as a condensation catalyst (c2) metal carboxylates having a quaternary carbon adjacent to the carbonyl group. See paragraph 109. This improves curability and adhesiveness. See paragraphs 104 and 105. Examples of the metal carboxylates are found in paragraph 115 to 118 and include potassium versatate (or potassium neodecanoic, as found in claims 4 and 20).
Wakabayashi et al. also teach that these catalyst can be used in combination with other metal carboxylate catalysts. See paragraph 130. This combination increases catalytic activity, curability and other properties.
From this one having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to add the metal carboxylate (c2) in Wakabayashi et al. to the composition of Ziche et al. such that there is a combination of the claimed catalysts b) and c) therein, in an effort to take advantage of the properties and benefits thereof as taught by Wakabayashi et al., noted supra. In this manner claims 1, 4 and 20 are rendered obvious
For claims 2 and 16 to 18, again see the end groups shown in column 3, lines 59 to 66, which show formulas meeting this claim.
For claims 3 and 19, see column 5, lines 43 to 46. The preferred range of 20 to 40 wt% falls within the claimed range.
For claims 5 and 8, note that adjusting the amount of catalyst in the combined composition noted supra would have been well within the skill of the ordinary artisan, in an effort to optimize properties while not using an excess of catalyst. This is true particularly in view of the fact that Wakabayashi et al. teach adding two different catalysts.
For claims 6 and 7, note that paragraph 130 in Wakabayashi et al. teach each of these catalysts.
For claim 10, note that no pigment or colorant is required such that the obvious composition noted above would be expected to be a clearcoat. Note that the claimed compositions are the same (with the exception of one catalyst) as that in Ziche et al. such that the appearance of the compositions would be expected to be the same.
For claim 11, note that of the required components in Ziche et al., none is a crosslinking agent or a tin containing compound such that these limitations are met. On the other hand, see column 5, line 66 to column 6, line 4, which teaches this tin amount.
For claims 12 to 15, see column 10, line 16, which teaches using the composition as a coating. Note that multilayered coatings are extremely common and well known, in an effort to ensure optimal coverage and thickness and smoothness of the resulting layers.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/9/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First it is argued that none of the compounds listed as curing catalysts (B) are a metal alkoxide. This argument is not persuasive. Not only are the compounds tetrabutyl titanate, tetrapropyl titanate and tetra-isopropyl titanate, specifically taught by Ziche et al., metal alkoxides but they meet the requirement of dependent claim 7 which further limits the metal alkoxide C2.
It is argued that the Examiner has not met the burden of prima facie obviousness and that there is no reason to combine the catalyst of Wakabayashi et al. with the com-position of Ziche et al. The Examiner disagrees, as the office action specifically referred to Wakabayashi et al. as providing motivation to add the catalyst C1. Paragraph 130 (the top of page 12) teaches that using the catalysts in combination increases the catalytic activity, deep part curability, thin film curing property and adhesiveness. From this the combination of catalysts C1 and C2 would have been obvious.
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 MARGARET MOORE whose telephone number is (571)272-1090. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday, 10 am to 5 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Heidi Kelly, can be reached at 571-270-1831.
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 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.
Mgm
6/17/26
/MARGARET G MOORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765
Prosecution Insights