DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s amendment dated 18 December 2025 and supplemental amendment dated 14 January 2026 is hereby acknowledged. Claims 1-20 as amended are pending. All outstanding objections and rejections made in the previous Office Action, and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn.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.
New grounds of rejection set forth below are necessitated by applicant’s amendment filed on 18 December 2025. For this reason, the present action is properly made final.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-10, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 0754200 B1 (“Carlblom”) in view of JP H11-254607 A (“Miyashita”).
As to claim 1, Carlblom teaches a coating composition having a polyepoxide, thus an epoxy resin (claim 1), and a polyamine that is a reaction product of an amine compound with an epoxy compound (claim 1). Carlblom teaches that the polyepoxide is a curing agent for the polyamine, which is another way of saying that the polyamine is a curing agent for the polyepoxide.
While not exemplified, Carlblom teaches the epoxy resin has a preferable epoxy equivalent weight from 60 to 350, preferably 90 to 250, which includes epoxy equivalent weight in the recited range, and is such an obvious modification suggested as a preferred weight by Carlblom.
While not exemplified, Carlblom teaches the utility of the inclusion of silicones to assist in wetting (para. 0048).
Further, while not exemplified, Carlblom teaches the utility of pigments for decreasing gas permeability, including aluminum flakes (a scaly aluminum powder) as a preferred such pigment (para. 0047). Carlblom does not discuss the D50 of the scaly aluminum powder. However, it is known, from Miyashita, of the utility of scaly aluminum (flakes) as gas barrier fillers. Miyashita teaches the use of flakes having mean particle size of 7 micrometers preferred (para. 0026) for gas barrier properties (para. 0015). As such, the use of scaly aluminum particles, including those of the recited particle size, are an obvious modification given the teaching of Miyashita for their suitability for gas barrier.
As to claim 3, Carlblom does not discuss heat resistance. However, since Carlblom in view Miyashita teaches the recited composition, it is presumed to have heat resistance.
As to claims 4 and 5, Carlblom teaches a coating film on a substrate (para. 0078).
As to claim 6, Carlblom teaches applying the composition to a substrate, then allowing solvent to evaporate, thus drying, to form a cured film (para. 0051).
As to claim 7, Carlblom teaches a preferred molecular weight of the epoxy resin of 200 to 1000, which includes weights in the recited range (para. 0036), and thus the use of weight average molecular weight in the recited range is an obvious modification suggested by Carlblom.
As to claims 8 and 9, Carlblom does not discuss the amount of epoxy resin. However, Carlblom teaches a preferred ratio of amine hydrogen of the adduct to epoxide resin of 5:1 to 2:1 (para. 0033). In combination, with adduct A (para. 0061),having an amine hydrogen equivalent weight of 200, an epoxy resin in the range of 200 to 350 g/eq taught by Carlblom would provide epoxy resin content of approximately 17 to 47 wt % of the resins, which are the required materials of the compositions; given the amounts recited for pigments (such as aluminum flake) and silicones (paras. 0047-0048),which are preferably in minor amounts, providng amounts of epoxy resin in the recited ranges of claims 8 and 9 is an obvious modification in preferred ranges taught by Carlblom.
As to claim 10, while not exemplified, Carlblom teaches that the silicone wetting agent may be polydimethylsiloxane, a linear silicone (para. 0048).
As to claims 18-20, Carlblom does not teach the recited aspect ratio. However, Miyashita teaches the use of scaly aluminum powder for gas barrier, and teaches particles having mean diameter of 7 micrometer and thickness of 0.19 micrometers, thus an aspect ratio of 35, which is within the recited range of claims 18-20. Miyashita teaches the importance of the diameter for gas barrier properties, and thickness for preventing uneven coating (para. 0015). As such, the use of aluminum scaly particle in the recited aspect ratio is an obvious modification for gas barrier as taught by Miyashita.
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 0754200 B1 (“Carlblom”) in view of JP H11-254607 A (“Miyashita”) as applied to claim 1, further in view of US 2010/0056649 (“Henning”).
As to claim 11, Carlblom does not discuss branched silicone. However, Carlblom is not limiting as to the silicones, and Henning teaches that branched silicones may be used as wetting agents for coatings and paints (para. 0025), and therefore branched silicone is an obvious modification known in the art for coatings.
Claim(s) 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 0754200 B1 (“Carlblom”) in view of JP H11-254607 A (“Miyashita”) as applied to claim 1, further as evidenced by US 3,725,521 (“Ebling”).
As to claims 12-14, while not explicitly set forth, Carlblom teaches the use of polydimethylsiloxane, which as evidenced by Ebling, 2:40-45, meets formula (I) where R1s are each methyl, R2 are each methyl, as required by claims 12-14.
Claim(s) 1-10 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2007/0213492 (“Mowrer”) in view of US 2009/0017315 (“Hamilton”) as evidenced by US 2004/0235980 (“Honda”)
As to claim 1, Mowrer teaches a coating composition (abstract) silicones (abstract) and epoxy resins (para. 0034; exemplified at para. 0085). Mowrer teaches an epoxy resin EP-4080E, which has equivalent weight of 215 g/eq, as evidenced by Honda, para. 0144.
Mowrer teaches a curing agent (abstract), specifically amine curing agent; while not exemplified, Mowrer teaches the composition may include epoxy amine adduct (para. 0030).
While not exemplified, Mowrer teaches the composition may include aluminum flakes for high heat resistance (para. 0072), thus a scaly aluminum powder. Mowrer does not specify the size for such a scaly aluminum powder, but Hamilton teaches coating compositions for heat resistance including aluminum flake, and teaches a preferred diameter of 10 to 25 micrometers for such flakes; as such, modifying the composition of Mowrer, including amine epoxy adduct as suggested by Mowrer, and aluminum flake, including in the recited size as taught by Hamilton to be appropriate for heat resistant coatings, is an obvious modification suggested by Mowrer in view of Hamilton.
As to claim 2, Mowrer teaches silanes including amiopropyltrimethoxysilane and aminopropyltriethyoxysilane, both of which are silane coupling agents (para. 0085).
As to claim 3, as discussed with respect to claim 1, Mowrer teaches that aluminum flake (scaly aluminum) improves heat resistance.
As to claims 4 and 5, Mowrer teaches a coating film on a substrate (para. 0079).
As to claim 6, Mowrer teaches teaches coating a substrate and drying to form a film (paras. 0079-0080).
As to claim 7, Mowrer does not discuss the weight average molecular weight of the epoxy resin. However, as evidenced by Honda, para. 0144, Adeka EP-4080E is hydrogenated bisphenol A epoxy resin having an epoxy equivalent weight of 214. Since it is a bifunctional resin, it is reasonable to conclude that the resin has a weight average molecular weight of approximately 428.
As to claims 8 and 9, the example of Table 1, para. 0085, is calculated to have, based on a solids content of 1617 g, of 12 %.
As to claim 10, Mowrer teaches linear silicone resins (para. 0016).
As to claims 12-14, the formula of a silicone of para. 0016, where the end groups R2 correspond to the recited R2 groups, and R1 includes C1-C6 alkyl and up to C6 aryl, and as such, the formula of para. 0016 encompasses the recited structures of claims 12 to 14; the range of groups R1 and R2 are close enough to those taught by Mowrer to be obvious therefrom.
As to claims 15 and 16, the example of Table 1, para. 0085, uses 176.44 g of DC-3074 in 1617 g of solids, or approximately 11 wt %.
As to claim 17, the example of Table 1, para. 0085, the ratio of the epoxy resin EP-4080E to silicone resin DC-3074 is approximately 1.1:1.
As to claims 18-20, Mowrer does not discuss the aspect ratio; however, Hamilton teaches aluminum flakes for use in heat resistant coating applications, and teaches a preferred diameter of 10 to 25 micrometers (para. 0032), and thickness 0.05 to 2 microns (para. 0030). This calculates to a range of aspect ratio from 5 to 500, which encompasses the recited range of claims 18-20. As such, the use of aluminum flakes, including in the recited ranges, is an obvious modification based on preferred diameter and thickness of Hamilton for heat resistant coating.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20, supported by the declaration of Shinsho Kodama, have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. To the extent the evidence of superior properties outlined in Kodama’s declaration are relevant to the pending rejections, the evidence is not commensurate in scope with the claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 KREGG T BROOKS whose telephone number is (313)446-4888. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9 am to 5:30 pm.
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 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.
/KREGG T BROOKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights