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 .
Status of Claims
Claim 1 is amended in view of applicant’s response filed 11/10/2025. Claim 2 is canceled. Therefore, claims 1 and 3-20 are currently under examination.
Status of Previous Allowable Subject Matter
The indicated allowability of claims 8-11 is withdrawn in view of the newly discovered reference(s) to Inbe et al. US 2009/0223407(Inbe). Rejections based on the newly cited reference(s) follow.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 12 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McMillen et al. US 2018/0057773(McMillen).
McMillen teaches an alkaline activating rinse[0105] comprising dispersed manganese phosphate particles[0090-0092,0095,0099] and a polymer dispersant comprising monomers such as (meth)acrylic acid[0101], wherein the phosphate particles have a D90 of 0.2-1µm[0091,0095,0099,0255,0256].
Regarding claims 1 and 4, the manganese phosphate particle size D90 as taught by McMillen significantly overlaps the claimed nanoscale manganese phosphate particles. Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claims 2 and 17, the D90 as taught by McMillen encompasses the claimed manganese phosphate particle D90. Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claims 3 and 18, McMillen further teaches that the manganese phosphate concentration is 50-1500ppm(i.e. 0.005-0.1wt%), which overlaps the claimed manganese phosphate concentration. Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claims 5 and 19, also McMillen does not explicitly teach the claimed dispersant concentration, it would have been well within a skilled artisan to have arrived at the claimed dispersant concentration via routine optimization since the claimed dispersant concentration is a result effective variable that affects how well dispersed the manganese phosphate particles are in the activating solution, absent persuasive evidence that the particularly claimed dispersant concentration is significant.
Regarding claim 6, McMillen teaches that the activating rinse further comprises a biocide[0106].
Regarding claim 7, McMillen further teaches that the activating rinse has a pH of 7.5-8.5[0105], which reads on the claimed pH.
Regarding claim 12, McMillen further teaches that the activation rinse can be prepared by diluting a concentrate with water[0112].
Regarding claim 20, McMillen further teaches that the biocide is present in a concentration of 10-140ppm which overlaps claimed biocide concentration. Therefore, prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claim(s) 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McMillen et al. US 2008/0057773(McMillen), and as evidenced by Inbe et al. US 2009/0223407 (WO423).
The teaching of McMillen are discussed in section 5 above.
Regarding claim 8, McMillen further teaches a method for producing an alkaline aqueous activating rinse comprising mixing phosphate pigment, deionized water, and dispersant and supplying the mixture to be milled in a horizontal mill containing 0.5mm zirconium oxide media, thereby, to produce a concentrate phosphate activating rinse[271].
Inbe teaches a process for producing a surface conditioning composition comprising phosphate particles and water, wherein a mixture of phosphate particles and water was processed in a mill filled with 1mm size zirconia beads(i.e. zirconium oxide media of 1mm in size) to produce a concentrated form of surface conditioning composition, which can be further diluted with water[0101]. Inbe refers this preparation method as wet pulverization[0075-0077][, which is a wet grinding process.
In light of the teaching of Inbe, the examiner concludes that the method of McMillen is a process involving a mixture of phosphate particles and polymer dispersant being wet ground in a bead mill as claimed.
Regarding claim 9, it would have been well within an ordinary artisan to have utilize any suitable bead mill, including the claimed agitator bead mill in the process of McMillen in view of Inbe with expected success, absent persuasive evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claims 10-11, the instant claims are rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claims 4-5 above.
Claim(s) 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McMillen et al. US 2008/0057773(McMillen) and further in view of WO2016/162423 (WO423).
The teaching of McMillen are discussed in section 5 above.
McMillen further teaches a metal treatment process comprising application of claimed activation solution, and the application of a polymer coating[134].
However, McMillen does not explicitly teach applying a manganese phosphate conversion coating after the application of the activation solution.
WO423 teaches a metal treatment process comprising contacting a metal surface with an activating solution, followed by applying a manganese phosphate containing conversion coating solution, optionally rinsed and dried, followed by applying a polymer containing coating layer(abstract).
Regarding claim 13, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the manganese phosphate conversion coating treatment as taught by WO423 into the process of McMillen in order to provide corrosion protection to the metal substrate without using environmentally harmful nickel as taught by WO423(abstract).
Regarding claim 14, WO423 further teaches the presence of an accelerator such as nitroguanidine in the manganese phosphate containing conversion coating solution(page 6 lines 5-7).
Regarding claim 15, WO423 further teaches that the S value(i.e. ratio of free acid to total acid) is in the range of 0.03-0.065(page 8 lines 27-page 9 line 2), which implies a total acid to free acid ratio of 15-33, which overlaps the claimed total acid to free acid ratio. Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 16, the process of McMillen in view of WO423 would have produced a phosphatized metal substrate as claimed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the remarks, applicant argues that Figs 1-4 of the instant specification shows that the claimed size distribution is critical by comprising the corresponding values of prior art reference particles.
The examiner does not find applicant’s argument convincing because prior art reference process conditions were not discussed in the instant specification, and wet grinding was also performed in the process of McMillen in view of Inbe as discussed in section 5 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LOIS L ZHENG whose telephone number is (571)272-1248. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:15-4:45.
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, Keith Hendricks can be reached at 571-272-1401. 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.
LOIS ZHENG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1733
/LOIS L ZHENG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733