DETAILED ACTION A restriction was mailed on 11/24/2025. Applicant filed a response on 01/23/2026. Claims 15-33 are pending. Claims 24-28 are rejected. Claims 15-23 and 29-33 are withdrawn from consideration. 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. Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, claims 24-28, in the reply filed on 01/23/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 15-23 and 29-33 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/23/2026. Claim Interpretation Claim 24 recites that the weight percent of the catalyst is relative to the weight of the at least one silane, wherein the silane is selected from the group consisting of triethoxypropylsilane, methyltriethoxysilane, methyltrimethoxysilane, trimethoxysilane, triethoxysilane, and mixtures thereof . W hen evaluating the weight percent of catalyst used in the exemplified compositions of the prior art, the weight percent of catalyst has been calculated based on the weight of the specifically claimed silanes triethoxypropylsilane, methyltriethoxysilane, methyltrimethoxysilane, trimethoxysilane, triethoxysilane, and mixtures thereof . Similarly, the weight percent of filler disclosed in the prior art has been calculated based upon the weight of the claimed silanes triethoxypropylsilane, methyltriethoxysilane, methyltrimethoxysilane, trimethoxysilane, triethoxysilane, and mixtures thereof . It is further noted that the weight percent of colloidal silica or silica sol has been calculated based upon the solids content of silica (i.e., silicon dioxide) within the colloid or sol. Claim Objections Claim 25 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 25, line 6, it is suggested to amend “magnesium, oxide” to “magnesium oxide.” Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale , or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dubanchet et al, US 9814349 B2 ( Dubanchet) . Regarding claim 24 , Dubanchet discloses a coating obtained by a sol-gel process that incorporates anisotropic particles, and that can be used on any type of substrate such as a culinary article (Dubanchet; col. 1, lines 17-21). Dubanchet discloses preferred sol-gel compositions in Table 1 (Dubanchet; col. 9, lines 24-38), wherein the preferred example includes: Klebosol ( 30% colloidal silica ) , 29% by weight Demineralized water, 10% by weight Isopropyl alcohol, 4.5% by weight MTES (methyltriethoxysilane as claimed ; Dubanchet, col. 7, line 66), 35% by weight Formic acid (i.e., a monoprotic acid catalyst as claimed ), 0.5% by weight. Therefore, Dubanchet discloses coating compositions which comprise a dispersing agent comprising water and the C3 alcohol isopropanol, wherein the total amount of dispersing agent is 14.5% by weight (10% by weight water + 4.5% by weight isopropanol), and wherein water compris es 69% by weight , relative to the weight of the dispersing agent ( i.e., more than 55% by weight as claimed ) (10% water / 14.5% total dispersing agent x 100 = 69% ) . Regarding the acid catalyst: ( 0.5% by weight formic acid / 35% by weight MTES ) x 100 = 1.42% by weight monoprotic acid catalyst, relative to the weight of the at least one silane MTET. 1.42% falls within the claimed range of 0.01-3.0% by weight, relative to the weight of the at least one silane. Dubanchet, therefore, anticipates the coating compositions of claim 24. 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. 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. Claims 24-2 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jana et al, US 2020/0207992 A1 (Jana). Regarding claims 24 and 26 , Jana teaches a curable surface-protective coating comprising: at least one alkoxysilane selected from the group consisting of Formulas A and B: , wherein the total amount of alkoxysilanes of Formulas A and B does not exceed about 50%, preferably about 45%, more preferably about 40 weight% of the coating composition; at least one metal oxide in particulate form in an amount of from about 5% to about 50 weight% of the coating composition; at least one water miscible organic solvent; at least one acid hydrolysis catalyst; water, and optionally, at least one condensation catalyst (Jana; [0004-0019]). Examples of trialkoxysilanes of Formula A include methyltrimethoxysilane, methyltriethoxysilane and methyltriethoxy silane as claimed (Jana; [0056]). Jana exemplifies using methyltrimethoxysilane as claimed as the alkoxysilane (Jane; [01220-0124], [0133] and [0147]). The alkoxysilane amounts of not exceed ing about 50%, preferably about 45%, more preferably about 40 weight% of the coating composition, overlaps in scope with the claimed amount of silane ranging from 40% to 80% in weight relative to the total weight of the coating composition (claim 26). As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim , 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff , 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The acid hydrolysis catalyst includes polyprotic acids such as sulfuric acid, and monoprotic acids such as hydrochloric acid, as claimed (Jana; [0074]). Jana exemplifies using the monoprotic acid acetic acid as the acid hydrolysis catalyst (Jane; [01220-0124], [0133] and [0147]). The acid catalyst is present in an amount of fr o m about 0.1 to about 5 weight percent, based on the total weight of the coating forming composition. When the coating forming composition comprises the metal oxide silica modified with alumina, the amount of the acid hydrolysis catalyst can range from about 0.1 to about 2 weight percent, based on the weight of the coating forming composition (Jana; [0075]). Th e s e acid catalyst weight percentages overlap in scope with the claimed range of from 0.01 to 3 weight% , relative to the weight of the at least one silane ( claim 24 ), and from 0.01 to 1 weight% relative to the weight of the at least one silane ( claim 26 ) . For example, a coating composition having a silane content of about 4 0 weight% wherein the silane is methyltrimethoxy silane, may comprise 0. 4 % of acid hydrolysis catalyst. In this example, the acid catalyst is present in an amount of 1. 0 weight% , base d on the weight of the silane (0. 4 acid / 40 silane * 100 = 1. 0 %). As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim , 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff , 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Water miscible organic solvents may be present in an amount ranging from about 10 to about 80, more specifically 10 to 50 weight%, based on the total composition, wherein organic solvents include methanol, ethanol, propanol, isopropanol, n-butanol and tert-butanol (i.e., C1-4 alcohols) (Jana; [0072]). Water may be present in amount s of about 5 to about 40% , based on the total weight of the composition (Jana; [0078]). Jana further teaches preferred ranges of 13-19% water, 0-16% 2-propanol, and 15-17% n-butanol (Jana; [0133]). The organic solvent and water ranges of Jana overlap in scope with the claimed range wherein the dispersing agent comprises more than 55 weight% water , relative to the weight of the dispersing agent. For example, a coating composition comprising 19% water and 15% n-butanol would have 56% by weight water, relative to the total dispersing agent ( 19% water / {19 water + 15 n-butanol total dispersing agent} x 100 = 56%). As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim , 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff , 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Given that Jana discloses coating compositions that overlap the presently claimed coating compositions , including coating compositions comprising a silane, acid catalyst, and dispersing agent in the claimed amounts , it therefore would have be en obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to formulate such coating compositions , which are both disclosed by Jana and encompassed within the scope of the present claims , and thereby arrive at the claimed invention. In MPEP 2141, III, one of the rationales set forth as to “why” the claimed invention would be obvious is choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. Therefore, given that Jana discloses a finite number of coating compositions, and given that the reference discloses all the coating compositions being equally applicable, there would be a reasonable expectation of success when using the coating compositions as set forth by the examiner. It is further noted the fact that “..the [prior art] patent discloses a multitude of effective combinations does not render any particular formulation less obvious.….”; See, e.g., Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed. Cir. 1989) See also In re Corkill, 771 F.2d 1496, 1500 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (affirming obviousness rejection of claims in light of prior art teaching that “hydrated zeolites will work” in detergent formulations, even though “the inventors selected the zeolites of the claims from among ‘thousands’ of compounds”). Regarding claim 25 , Jana is relied upon as teaching the limitations of claim 24 as discussed above. The coating may comprise a metal oxide, including silica, alumina and ceria as claimed (i.e., silicon dioxide, aluminum oxides and cerium oxide), with aqueous colloidal silica being preferred (Jana; [0060-0063]). Another embodiment uses a mixture of alumina and silica (Jana; [0066]). Coatings comprising the claimed metal oxide silica, alone or in combination with alumina, are exemplified (Jan a ; [01220-0124], [0133] and [0147]). The amount of the metal oxide incorporated in the coating forming compositions ranges from about 5 to about 50% by weight, based on the total weight of the coating composition (Jana; [0069]). The amount of alkoxysilanes does not exceed about 50% of the coating composition (Jana; [0026]). These ranges overlap in scope with the claimed range of inorganic filler from 0.30% to 10% by weight, relative to the weight of the at least one silane. For example, a composition comprising 50% of the alkoxysilane methyltrimethoxysilane and 5% by weight silica, equals 10% by weight silica , relative to the total weight of the at least one silane as claimed (5% silica / 50% silane x 100 = 10%). As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim , 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff , 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Regarding claim 27 , the claims further limit s the organic fil ler which is an optional embodiment of claim 25 (i.e. , the filler compris es an inorganic filler and/ or an organic filler ) , and therefore is not required. As such, claims 27 is rejected based on identical/substantially identical reasons as claim 25 . Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jana as applied to claim 26 above, and further taken in view of evidence by Sigma-Aldrich, Product Specification/Name “LUDOX® AS-40” (LUDOX® AS-40). Regarding claim 28 , Jana is relied upon as teaching the limitations of claim 26 as discussed above. In a preferred embodiment of Table 10, Jana teaches coating compositions comprising the silica metal oxide dispersion LUDOX AS 40 i n an amount of 3-14% by weight (Jana; [0133]). As is evidenced by LUDOX® AS-40, this silica dispersion contains 40. 0% silica (LUDOX® AS-40; page 1). Therefore , the compositions of Table 10 comprise 1.2-5.6% by weight silica (3-15% LUDOX AS - 40 x 0.4 silica = 1.2-5.6% by weight silica). The compositions of Table 10 contain 35% by weight of the silane methyltrimethoxysilane (MTMS) as claimed (Jana; [0133]). Therefore, Jana teaches coating compositions which comprise the metal oxide silicon dioxide in amounts which overlap with the claimed range of 0.3 to 5.0 weight%, relative to the weight of the at least one silane. For example, a composition comprising 1% silicon dioxide and 35% MTMS would contain 2.85 weight% silicon dioxide, based o n the weight of MTMS (1% silicon dioxide / 35% MTMS x 100 = 2.85%). As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim , 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff , 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer . Claims 15-1 7 , 19, 21, 2 4 -26 , 28 -3 1 and 33 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5, 7- 8 and 12-1 4 of copending Application No. 19/252077 (‘077). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because: Regarding claims 15-1 7, 21 and 33 , claim 8 of copending application ‘077 claims a method of coating a cellulose-comprising substrate with a composition comprising at least one silane as claimed , i.e. , methyltriethoxysilane, methyltrimethoxysilane, trimethoxysilane, triethoxysilane, and mixtures thereof ; 0.05-5.0% of at least one acid catalyst , relative to the total weight of the composition; and an aqueous dispersing agent. Claim 4 of copending application ‘077 claims that the acid catalyst may be a monoprotic or polyprotic catalyst as claimed, e.g., hydrochloric acid. Claim 5 of copending application ‘077 claims that the dispersing agent is 100% water. Regarding claim 19 , claim 8 of copending application ‘077 claims that the coating composition comprises 1% to 15% of the organic filer microcrystalline cellulose. Regarding claims 24-26 , claim 1 -3 and 7 of copending application ‘077 claims a coating composition comprising 1-15% by weight relative to the total weight of the composition of a microcrystalline cellulose (organic filler) ; 50-80% by weight relative to the total weight of the composition of at least one silane as claimed , i.e. , methyltriethoxysilane, methyltrimethoxysilane, trimethoxysilane, triethoxysilane, and mixtures thereof ; 0.05-5.0% by weight relative to the total weight of the composition of at least one acid catalyst ; an optional inorganic filler; and an aqueous dispersing agent. Claim 4 of copending application ‘077 claims that the acid catalyst may be a monoprotic or polyprotic catalyst. Claim 5 of copending application ‘077 claims that the dispersing agent is 100% water. Regarding claim 28 , claim 3 of copending application ‘077 claims that the inorganic filler may be silicone dioxide. Although no proportion of sil ic on dioxide is claimed, “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller , 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). (see MPEP § 2144.05, II ) . Regarding claims 29-30 , claims 12 and 13 of copending application ‘077 claim a composite article comprising a substrate coated with the composition of copending claim 1 as discussed above, wherein the substrate is at least 70% cellulose ( copending claim 12 ) or is made of metal or plastic ( copending claim 13 ). Regarding claim 31 , claim 1 4 of copending application ‘077 claims that the composite article is selected from paper or cardboard. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Claims 24-31 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 16-21, 23, 25-28 and 33-35 of copending Application No. 18/870526 (‘526). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because: Regarding claims 24-28 , claim 1 6 of copending application ‘526 claims a coating composition comprising: a cellulose composition, in an amount ranging from 0.1% to 15% by weight relative to the total weight of the coating composition, wherein cellulose is selected from the group consisting of microcrystalline cellulose, microfibrillated cellulose and a mixture thereof ( an organic filler) ; at least one silane in an amount ranging from 50% to 80% by weight relative to the total weight of the coating composition; at least one acid catalyst in an amount ranging from 0.05% to 5.0% by weight relative to the total weight of the composition; optionally at least one inorganic filler; and a liquid dispersion phase in sufficient quantity to reach 100% of the total weight of the coating composition. Claims 17-18 of copending application ‘526 claim silanes as claimed, e.g., methyltriethoxysilane and methyltrimethoxysilane . Claims 19-20 of copending application ‘526 claim silicon dioxide inorganic fillers as claimed. Claim 2 1 of copending application ‘526 claims monoprotic and polyprotic acid catalysts as claimed. Claim 23 of copending application ‘526 claims the dispersion is an aqueous phase. Claims 25-2 8 of copending application ‘526 claims the dispersion phase may be 100% water. Regarding claim s 29- 31 , claim 33-35 of copending application ‘526 claims a composite article coated with the coating composition of copending claim 16 as discussed above, wherein the substrate may comprise cellulose (copending claim 33 ), metal or plastic (copending claim 34 ), or paper or carboard (copending claim 35 ). This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Schutt, US 2001/0032568 A1, discloses coating compositions of claim 24. See, for example, Example 1 at ¶ [0179] wherein Schutt discloses a coating composition comprising 15 parts methyltrimethoxysilane , water, and 0.4 parts acetic acid. A rejection over Schutt would be cumulative of the above rejection over Dubanchet. Rong, CN 111500186A, teaches a three parts coating wherein Part A comprises 20-70 parts aqueous silica sol, 5-40 parts organosilane, 0.2-3 parts catalyst, and 1-30 parts water. Part B comprises 30-60 parts aqueous silica sol, 2-20 parts organosilane, 0-10 parts filler, and 1-10 parts water. Part C comprises 10-50 parts aqueous silica sol, 1-10 parts organosilane, and 0-10 parts fillers (machine English translation; page 2, lines 32-39). The organosilane is methytrimethoxysilane and the catalyst is acetic acid (see Examples). Deng et al, CN 110183878A, teaches coating compositions which may comprise fillers (silica, cerium oxide, chitin, barium sulfate), acid catalysts, alkoxysilanes, and water as claimed (see, e.g., Example 1 of machine English translation). GB 1596151, teaches coatings comprising methyl trimethoxy silane, water, acetic acid, and colloidal silica. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT CAROLINE D LIOTT whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (703)756-1836 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 8:30-5 . 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, Coris Fung can be reached at (571)270-5713 . 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. /CDL/ Examiner, Art Unit 1732 /STEFANIE J COHEN/ Examiner, Art Unit 1732 4/1/26