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. 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 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 , 2, 5 and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2014/0315030 ( Niimoto ) in view of US 5266105 ( Tsuneta ). Niimoto discloses an antifouling coating composition comprising: an acrylic copolymer including structural units derived from triisopropylsilyl methacrylate and triisopropylsilyl acrylate ( meets Applicants’ silyl ester polymer ); a rosin compound [0075] ( meets Applicants’ rosin compound ); a water solvent [0 1 13] ( meets Applicants’ water ); and o ther additives inclusive of antifouling agents [0081-0084] (e.g., abstract, [0075], [0081-0084], [0 1 13], examples, claims). In essence, claim 1 differs from Niimoto’s disclosure in further including a poly( vinyl alcohol) resin. From Tsuneta , it is known that the inclusion of a hydrophilic polyvinyl alcohol resin (C) ( meets Applicants’ poly( vinyl alcohol) resin ) in an antifouling coating composition comprising an acrylic hydrophobic resin (A) and a rosin (B) (abstract, C3:20-29) serves to prevent slime deposition and maintain the antifouling performance for a long time (C3:53-67). Thus, it would have been within the purview of one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to further include a polyvinyl alcohol as per Tsuneta in Niimoto’s antifouling composition for its expected benefits of slime deposition prevention and extended antifouling performance. As to claim 2 , Niimoto’s acrylic copolymer includes structural units derived from triisopropylsilyl methacrylate (abstract). As to claim 5, Niimoto discloses [0034] a weight ratio of triisopropylsilyl methacrylate-based acrylic copolymer to rosin of 99.9/0.1 to 30/70, and in Example 4 (Table 3 ) expressly discloses a ratio of 9 (18/2). Thus, it is within the purview of Niimoto’s inventive disclosure, and obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, to use a weight ratio falling within the presently claimed scope with the reasonable expectation of success. As to claim 7, Tsuneta is unlimited as regards the content of polyvinyl alcohol resin based on total solid content of the antifouling composition and, as such, implicitly suggests that any content (inclusive of that presently claimed ) can be used satisfactorily. Thus, absent evidence of criticality for the presently claimed poly( vinyl alcohol) resin amount no patentability can be seen therein. D ifferences in concentrations do not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating criticality for the claimed ranges because “it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation”, In re Aller , 105 USPQ 233. As to claim 8, it is within the purview of Niimoto’s inventive disclosure, and obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, to further include antifouling agent (D) [0081] for its expected additive effect. As to claim 9, Niimoto discloses the production of films (abstract). As to claims 10 and 11, Niimoto discloses coating or impregnating a substrate with the antifouling film and drying [0037]. Claim s 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2014/0315030 ( Niimoto ) in view of US 5266105 ( Tsuneta ) as described hereinabove further in view of JP 10030071 A (Ito) abstract. As to claims 3 and 4, Niimoto discloses the use of “rosin derivatives” [0075] but does not expressly disclose a rosin metal salt. Ito (cited by Niimoto [0017]) teaches that rosin metal salts, e.g., rosin zinc salts, are commonly used rosin derivatives in antifouling coating compositions comprising silyl-based acrylic copolymers . Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use a rosin zinc salt as the rosin derivative disclosed by Niimoto for its expected additive effect and with the reasonable expectation of success. Claim 6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2014/0315030 ( Niimoto ) in view of US 5266105 ( Tsuneta ) described hereinabove as evidenced by KR 20200138222 A (Sasaki) abstract and machine translation. Tsuneta uses the polyvinyl alcohol Kurarepoval PVA 117, which as evidenced ty Sasaki (bottom of page 10) has a saponification degree of 98-99%, falling within the presently claimed scope. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Ana L Woodward whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1082 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 8am-5pm . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Heidi Kelley can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-270-1831 . 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. /ANA L. WOODWARD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765