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. Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of FILLIN "Enter claim indentification information" \* MERGEFORMAT claims 1-13 in the reply filed on FILLIN "Enter mail date of the reply." \* MERGEFORMAT 11/07/2025 is acknowledged. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Claim Objections Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: The list of fillers in claim 13 includes instances where the types of fillers are repeate d . At the top of page 4, the claim repeats silica, clays, calcium carbonate, zinc oxide, magnesia, calcium carbonate (a third time), talc, mica, wollastonite, and graphite. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 s 1-2, 5, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being FILLIN "Insert either—clearly anticipated—or—anticipated—with an explanation at the end of the paragraph." \d "[ 3 ]" anticipated by FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon." \d "[ 4 ]" Hirai, M., US-20160096959A1. Regarding claim s 1 -2, 5 and 12-13 , Hirai teaches a curable silicone composition comprising a hydroxyl organopolysiloxane (A), and organohydrogenpolysiloxane (B), reaction product of an amino group-containing organoalkoxysilane and an acid anhydride (C), an epoxy group containing organoalkoxysilane (D), colloidal silica (filler) (E), bismuth catalyst (F), and water as solvent (G), see abstract. In the examples, component A-1 ¶[ 0098] and A-2 ¶[0099] are emulsions of hydroxyl terminated polysiloxane s , structure s shown in ¶[0098] and ¶[0099] respectively. Component B is a n emulsion of hydrogen functional organopolysiloxane , structure shown in ¶[ 0100], which has hydrogen bonded to the silicon atom with 50 repeat units. Component D is glycidoxypropyltrimethoxysilane , which is an adhesion promoter, ¶[ 0074,0106] and reads on claim 12. Component E is colloidal silica ¶0106], which reads on the silica filler of claim 13. The catalyst (F) is bismuth trioctoate , which reads on claims 2 and 5. Table 1 on page 6 shows the compositions of examples 1-4, where only the bismuth catalyst is used in examples 1-4 and the tin catalyst (H) is used in the comparative example. Water is interpreted as a solvent because applicant does not specify the solvent must be non-aqueous in the as-filed specification and states that the solvent is selected as desired for a particular purpose or intended application, ¶[ 0031]. Furthermore, under the BRI of a solvent, it does not have to be one that dissolves the materials, but need only be a substance capable of dissolving another substance, as defined in Hawley’s Condensed Dictionary. Claims 1- 3, 6- 7, 11- 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being FILLIN "Insert either—clearly anticipated—or—anticipated—with an explanation at the end of the paragraph." \d "[ 3 ]" anticipated by Sumida, H., US-4252933. Regarding claim s 1 -3 , 6 -7 , 12, Sumida teaches a self-bonding polysiloxane coating composition comprising a hydroxyl end-blocked polydiorganosiloxane polymer, and a polysiloxane having epoxy functional groups mixed with an amino-functional silicone compound , there may also be a hydride-containing polysiloxane and a metal salt of a carboxylic acid , abstract. In table 2, Col.8, the composition #41 is shown as comprising hydroxyl end blocked PDMS, a methylhydrogen polysiloxane where the hydrogen is bonded to the silicon atom and there are 20 repeat units, an epoxy functional polysiloxane (reads on claim 12) , aminopropyltrimethoxysilane adhesion promoter (reads on claim s 7 and 12), and trichloroethylene solvent. The catalyst in table 2 is dibutyltin di octoate , but Sumida teaches in example 10, Col. 10 lines 63-66, that the composition 41 is replicated and the tin is replaced with the catalysts of Table 4, shown in Col. 11. The composition 103 shows that zinc octoate is the catalyst, which is a different name for zinc 2-ethylhexanoate, and reads on claims 2, 3, and 6. Regarding claim 11, Sumida teaches the organic solvent can be hexane, heptane, petroleum hydrocarbon, toluene, xylene, isopropyl alcohol, or butyl alcohol, Col. 5 lines 17-21. Regarding claim 1 3 , Sumida teaches the compositions can further comprise fillers such as fumed or precipitated silica , Col. 5 lines 25-26. 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 . This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claim s 8 -10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sumida, H., US-4252933. Regarding claim 8, Sumida teaches the invention according to claim 1 as explained above. Sumida exemplifies 3 parts of zinc octoate added to composition 103 in table 4, which when compared to the amount of aminopropyltrimethoxysilane listed in table 2, the ratio is 3:10. Sumida does not explicitly teach the claimed ratio in an example. But Sumida teaches that the catalyst is used in a n a mount of 0.6-6 wt.% based on the amount of components A-C. T he total of the components A-C in table 2 is 217 parts and 6 wt.% of this is 13.02 parts. Therefore , at its highest recommended amount the zinc octoate can be a ratio of 13.02:10 parts amino silane in composition 103, which is equal to 1.3:1 and satisfies claim 8. It would be obvious to the skilled artisan to use up to 6 wt.% catalyst based on the total of ingredients A-C because it is the suggested amount by Sumida. Regarding claims 9-10, Sumida teaches the invention according to claim 1 as explained above. Sumida exemplifies 3 parts of zinc octoate and 10 parts amino silane in compositions 41 and 103 (tables 2 and 4), which means the ratio of metal carboxylate to amino silane is 3:10 or 0.3:1. Sumida does not explicitly teach the claimed ratios . Sumida discloses that the amount of component (B), which is the total of the epoxy siloxane and the amino silane, to component (A), which is the hydroxy polysiloxane, is especially preferably 0.1-1 part (B) to 1 part (A), Col. 4 lines 30-31 . The minimum 0.1(B): 1(A) ratio becomes 10(B):100 (A) because composition 103 uses 100 parts (A). Adjusting composition 103 to have this minimum 10(B ) : 100(A) ratio, and keeping the other ingredients the same, the ratio of metal carboxylate to amino silane is 3 .3 :1, which reads on claims 9 -10. See the table below for the ingredients and their respective parts, examiner has kept the ratio of epoxy siloxane and amino silane the exemplified 100:10 ratio and not e the zinc octoate catalyst is still within the recommended 0.6-6 wt.% range. Composition 103 Minimum Preferred (B) Component parts percent parts percent (A) SiOH 100 45.45% 100 83.33% (C) hydride 7 3.18% 7 5.83% (B1) epoxy siloxane 100 45.45% 9.1 7.58% (B2) amino silane 10 4.55% 0.91 0.76% zinc octoate 3 1.36% 3 2.50% Total 220 100.00% 120.01 100.00% zinc octoate/amino silane 0.30 3.30 Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In the case where the claimed ranges “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). Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sumida, H., US-4252933 in view of Ryang , H., US-4472565A. Regarding claim 4, Sumida teaches the invention according to claim 1 as explained above. Sumida teaches that the metal salt of a carboxylic acid causes dehydrogenation condensation reaction between the hydroxyl end-blocked polyorganosiloxane and the polyorganohydrogensiloxane Col. 1 lines 65-68. Sumida does not teach using a titanium carboxylate catalyst. Ryang discloses a condensation curing composition comprising a silicone polyimide copolymer with hydride radicals and a silanol terminated polydiorganosiloxane , which react in the presence of a catalyst, abstract. It is further disclosed that the catalysts suitable for the condensation reaction include titanium compounds such as titanium naphthenate which is a titanium carboxylate, and is listed with other metal carboxylates such as zinc 2-ethylhexanoate, Col. 6 lines 62-68, Col. 7 lines 5-8. The titanium carboxylate catalyst is listed as functionally equivalent to zinc 2-ethylhexanoate, which is the catalyst exemplified by Sumida, under the name zinc octoate. Sumida and Ryang are analogous to the claimed invention because both are directed to catalysts having utility in the dehydration-condensation of SiH and SiOH -bearing compounds . It is prima facie obvious to substitute one material for another to obtain predictable results when the materials provide the same use and function, in this case as a condensation reaction catalyst. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to practice the invention of Sumida but substituting the zinc octoate catalyst for the claimed titanium carboxylate catalyst with a reasonable expectation of success in obtaining a condensation curing composition because it is a simple substitution of functionally equivalent catalysts . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT VIRGINIA L STONEHOCKER whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-3431 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday 7:00AM-4:00PM EST . 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 Randy Gulakowski can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-1302 . 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. /V.L.S./ Examiner, Art Unit 1766 /MARC S ZIMMER/ Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1765