DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/27/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received on 04/27/2026:
claims 1-6, 8-13 and 15-21 are currently pending
claims 1 and 15 are amended
new prior art grounds of rejection applying Moradian, Laura, Houston, Pomero, Walden and Maulad are presented herein
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 text of those sections of Title 35 U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
Claim 1-6, 8-9, 11-13 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moradian et al. (US 6312509 B1), hereinafter referred to as MORADIAN, in view of Laura et al. (US 4729791 A), hereinafter referred to as LAURA, and Houston et al. (US 6596393 B1), hereinafter referred to as HOUSTON.
Regarding claim 1, MORADIAN teaches a corrosion inhibiting composition (Col. 1, lines 48-50: the products of the present invention are extremely resistant to chemical, salt and corrosive environment) comprising:
a paraffinic oil present from 5 to 10 total weight percent (Table 1: b) naphthanic and paraffinic oils; and Col. 2, line 57: (b) 0.05 to 20 weight percent; and Col. 4, lines 32-33: naphthanic and paraffinic oil is a mixture containing from about 5 to 95 weight percent of paraffinic oil), thus, MORADIAN teaches 0.0025 to 19 weight percent paraffinic oil;
a sulfonated oil present from 15 to 25 total weight percent (Table 1: c) oil-soluble alkali-metal sulfonate; and Col. 2, line 56: (b) 0.02 to 25 weight percent);
a paraffin wax present from 1 to 10 total weight percent (Table 1: a) microcrystalline wax; and Col. 2, line 55: (a) 5 to 60 weight percent);
at least one solvent present from 50 to 70 total weight percent (Table 1: g) solvent, e.g., mineral spirit; and Col. 2, line 61: (g) 15 to 70 weight percent).
MORADIAN teaches ranges which overlap and render obvious the claimed ranges. 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. See MPEP §2144.05(I).
But MORADIAN fails to explicitly teach a polymer present from 1 to 5 total weight percent, the polymer being selected from the group consisting of polyurethanes, polyethylene powder, polyamides, tetrafluoroethylene polyester, and combinations thereof.
However, LAURA discloses coating compositions for metals effective to inhibit corrosion (see LAURA at Abstract). LAURA teaches corrosion-inhibiting compositions comprising additives together with the thixotropic over based alkaline earth metal organic sulfonate/alkaline earth metal carbonate complex, the drying oil, and the drier (see LAURA at Col. 12, lines 66-68 – Col. 13, lines 1-3). LAURA also teaches additives components comprising microcrystalline waxes, mineral oil, particularly paraffins, resins (see LAURA at Col. 13, lines 13-18). Additionally, LAURA teaches oil-modified polyurethane resin (see LAURA at Col. 17, lines 63-64), and discloses that resins impart to the coating compositions the property of forming coating on the metals which are firm rather than being soft and greasy; firm coatings being advantageous because they provide additional resistance to the abrasion, dirt pickup, etc. (see LAURA at Col. 5, lines 17-22). LAURA also teaches that the proportions of the resins are variable, but it is preferred that they be used in amounts ranging from about 3 to about 10 wt.% of the corrosion-inhibiting compositions as a whole (see LAURA at Col. 18, lines 2-5).
MORADIAN and LAURA both disclose corrosion-inhibiting compositions comprising similar components. According to MPEP § 2144.06(I), "It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art." In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the composition of MORADIAN by including the resin such as oil-modified polyurethane resin in amounts ranging from about 3 to about 10 wt.% of the corrosion-inhibiting compositions as a whole as disclosed by LAURA since LAURA explicitly teaches that resins impart to the coating compositions the property of forming coating on the metals which are firm rather than being soft and greasy; firm coatings being advantageous because they provide additional resistance to the abrasion, dirt pickup, etc. (see LAURA at Col. 5, lines 17-22).
While MORADIAN discloses the composition comprising 15-17 wt% of solvent, e.g., mineral spirit, MORADIAN fails to explicitly teach wherein the solvent comprises a glycol ether in an amount of more than 2 total weight percent, and the at least one solvent does not include aromatic solvents.
However, HOUSTON discloses corrosion-inhibiting composition comprising a corrosion-inhibiting compound dispersed in an oil and a stabilizer to maintain the dispersion (see HOUSTON at Col. 7, lines 66-67-Col. 8, lines 1-2). HOUSTON teaches that the corrosion-inhibiting compound is typically an oil-soluble, water-insoluble compound and can be selected from the group consisting of petroleum sulfonates, preferably, the corrosion-inhibiting compound is a petroleum sulfonate salt. (see HOUSTON at Col. 8, lines 12-9); the corrosion-inhibiting compound is dispersed in an oil, preferably, the oil is a paraffinic oil (see HOUSTON at Col. 8, lines 38-39); and that the stabilizer is selected from the group consisting of propylene based glycol ethers, propylene based glycol ether acetates, ethylene based glycol ethers, and ethylene based glycol ether acetates; for example, propylene glycol methyl ether, propylene glycol t-butyl ether (see HOUSTON at Col. 8, lines 52-60). Additionally, HOUSTON teaches that the corrosion-inhibiting composition preferably includes from about 1% to about 10% by weight of the stabilizer (see HOUSTON at Col. 9, lines 2-3). Finally, HOUSTON teaches that the stabilizers have been found to be particularly useful in the compositions of the disclosed invention in preventing the corrosion-inhibiting compounds, and particularly, the petroleum sulfonate salts, from precipitating out of the oil; specifically, the stabilizers allow for larger amounts of the corrosion-inhibiting compounds (about 15% by weight or greater) to be used in the corrosion-inhibiting compositions without precipitation of the corrosion-inhibiting compounds (see HOUSTON at Col. 9, lines 6-14).
Furthermore, LAURA discloses the corrosion-inhibiting composition comprising the volatile organic solvents which can be of aliphatic, cycloaliphatic or aromatic character, and include hydrocarbons, chlorinated hydrocarbons, alcohols, ketones and ethers which are compatible in the system; preferred volatile organic solvents are aliphatic solvents, especially suitable being odorless mineral spirits because of its low toxicity and relatively low cost as well as its advantageous flash point (see LAURA at Col. 16, lines 15-24).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the potential benefit of improving the composition of MORADIAN by including a stabilizer such as propylene based glycol ether in an amount from about 1% to about 10% by weight, as disclosed by HOUSTON, since HOUSTON explicitly teaches that the stabilizers have been found to be particularly useful in preventing the corrosion-inhibiting compounds from precipitating out of the oil; specifically, the stabilizers allow for larger amounts of the corrosion-inhibiting compounds (about 15% by weight or greater) to be used in the corrosion-inhibiting compositions without precipitation of the corrosion-inhibiting compounds (see HOUSTON at Col. 9, lines 6-14). Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to further modify the composition of MORADIAN by utilizing odorless mineral spirits as a solvent as disclosed by LAURA, since LAURA explicitly teaches that odorless mineral spirits are preferred because of its low toxicity and relatively low cost as well as its advantageous flash point (see LAURA at Col. 16, lines 15-24).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the composition of MORADIAN by including a stabilizer such as propylene based glycol ether in an amount from about 1% to about 10% by weight, as disclosed by HOUSTON, and utilizing odorless mineral spirits as a solvent as disclosed by LAURA, in order to prevent the corrosion-inhibiting compounds from precipitating out of the oil and use a solvent having low toxicity and relatively low cost.
Regarding claim 2, MORADIAN as modified by LAURA and HOUSTON teaches the corrosion inhibiting composition of claim 1 wherein the paraffinic oil is present from 7 to 8 total weight percent (see MORADIAN at Table 1: b) naphthanic and paraffinic oils; and Col. 2, line 57: (b) 0.05 to 20 weight percent; and Col. 4, lines 32-33: naphthanic and paraffinic oil is a mixture containing from about 5 to 95 weight percent of paraffinic oil). Thus, MORADIAN teaches 0.0025 to 19 weight percent paraffinic oil, which overlaps and renders obvious the claimed range.
Regarding claim 3, MORADIAN as modified by LAURA and HOUSTON teaches the corrosion inhibiting composition of claim 1 wherein the sulfonated oil is present from 21 to 22 total weight percent (see MORADIAN at Table 1: c) oil-soluble alkali-metal sulfonate; and Col. 2, line 56: (b) 0.02 to 25 weight percent). MORADIAN teaches a range which overlaps and renders obvious the claimed range.
Regarding claim 4, MORADIAN as modified by LAURA and HOUSTON teaches the corrosion inhibiting composition of claim 1 wherein the paraffin wax is present from 4 to 5 total weight percent (see MORADIAN at Table 1: a) microcrystalline wax; and Col. 2, line 55: (a) preferably 5 to 15 weight percent). MORADIAN teaches a range which overlaps and renders obvious the claimed range.
Regarding claim 5, MORADIAN as modified by LAURA and HOUSTON teaches the corrosion inhibiting composition of claim 1 wherein the polymer is present from 2 to 3 total weight percent (see rejection of claim 1 above and LAURA at Col. 18, lines 2-5: in amounts ranging from about 3 to about 10 wt.% of the corrosion-inhibiting compositions as a whole). LAURA teaches 3-10 wt .%, which overlaps and renders obvious the claimed range.
Regarding claim 6, MORADIAN as modified by LAURA and HOUSTON teaches the corrosion inhibiting composition of claim 1 wherein the paraffin wax is a microcrystalline wax (see MORADIAN at Table 1: a) microcrystalline wax).
Regarding claim 8, MORADIAN as modified by LAURA and HOUSTON teaches the corrosion inhibiting composition of claim 1 wherein a polyurethane is present as the polymer as one of the polyurethanes (see rejection of claim 1 above and LAURA at Col. 17, lines 63-64: oil-modified polyurethane resins).
Regarding claim 9, MORADIAN as modified by LAURA and HOUSTON teaches the corrosion inhibiting composition of claim 1 wherein the composition dries as a film after application (see MORADIAN at Col. 7, lines 6-7: the compositions are applied to substrates to achieve a thickness of … dry film thickness).
Regarding claim 11, MORADIAN as modified by LAURA and HOUSTON teaches the corrosion inhibiting composition of claim 1 wherein the solvent includes an organic solvent (see MORADIAN at Table 1: g) solvent, e.g., mineral spirit).
Regarding claim 12, MORADIAN as modified by LAURA and HOUSTON teaches the corrosion inhibiting composition of claim 11 wherein the solvent is present from 50 to 60 total weight percent (see MORADIAN at Table 1: g) solvent, e.g., mineral spirit; and Col. 2, line 61: (g) 15 to 70 weight percent). MORADIAN teaches a range which overlaps with the claimed range.
Regarding claim 13, MORADIAN as modified by LAURA and HOUSTON teaches the corrosion inhibiting composition of claim 11 wherein the organic solvent is mineral spirits (see MORADIAN at Table 1: g) solvent, e.g., mineral spirit).
Regarding claim 15, MORADIAN as modified by LAURA and HOUSTON teaches the corrosion inhibiting composition of claim 1, wherein the glycol ether solvent is present in an amount up to 6 total weight percent (see rejection of claim 1 above and HOUSTON at Col. 8, lines 52-60: propylene-based glycol ethers, for example, propylene glycol methyl ether, propylene glycol t-butyl ether; and Col. 9, lines 2-3: from about 1% to about 10% by weight of the stabilizer). HOUSTON teaches range which overlaps with the claimed range.
Regarding claims 16-17, MORADIAN as modified by LAURA and HOUSTON teaches the corrosion inhibiting composition of claims 1 and 16, wherein the at least one solvent includes a propylene glycol butyl ether solvent (claim 15), and the propylene glycol butyl ether solvent is present from 5 to 6 total weight percent (claim 17) (see HOUSTON at Col. 8, lines 52-60: propylene-based glycol ethers, for example, propylene glycol methyl ether, propylene glycol t-butyl ether; and Col. 9, lines 2-3: from about 1% to about 10% by weight of the stabilizer). HOUSTON teaches range which overlaps with the claimed range.
Regarding claim 18, MORADIAN as modified by LAURA and HOUSTON teaches the corrosion inhibiting composition of claim 1 further comprising at least one additive present from 0 to 5 total weight percent (see MORADIAN at Table 1: o) UV-resistant pigment; and Col. 3, line 3: (o) 2 to 35 weight percent).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MORADIAN in view of LAURA and HOUSTON as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pomero et al. (FR 2869918 A1) with reference to the provided machine translation, hereinafter referred to as POMERO.
Regarding claim 10, MORADIAN as modified by LAURA and HOUSTON teaches the corrosion inhibiting composition of claim 1, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the composition is an aerosol.
However, POMERO discloses a method for combating lead corrosion by coating the outer surface of lead objects with a paraffin and that this paraffin can be placed in different ways, using melted paraffin or paraffin emulsion or aerosol or paraffin oil or paste induction (see POMERO at paragraph [0004]). POMERO teaches that the paraffin mixture can be vaporized or sprayed onto heavy metal object in the form of aerosols using a pressurized gas, which is very convenient and produces a film of very controlled thickness (see POMERO at paragraph [0007], p. 5).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the potential benefit of applying the composition of MORADIAN by means of spaying in the form of aerosol as disclosed by POMERO since POMERO explicitly teaches that the paraffin mixture can be vaporized or sprayed onto heavy metal object in the form of aerosols using a pressurized gas, which is very convenient and produces a film of very controlled thickness (see POMERO at paragraph [0007], p. 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the composition of MORADIAN by means of spaying in the form of aerosol as disclosed by POMERO in order to conveniently produce a film of very controlled thickness.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MORADIAN in view of LAURA and HOUSTON as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Walden et al. (Pub. No.: US 20130251589), hereinafter referred to as WALDEN.
Regarding claim 19, MORADIAN as modified by LAURA and HOUSTON teaches the corrosion inhibiting composition of claim 18, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the at least one additive includes a fragrance present from 0.1 to 1 total weight percent.
However, WALDEN discloses a composition for the creation of a protective barrier on a wide variety of materials to prevent the deterioration and degradation caused by exposure to moisture and sun over time (see WALDEN at Abstract). WALDEN also discloses that the composition provided remarkable protection and corrosion resistance, providing 100% corrosion protection and durability (see WALDEN at paragraph 0044]). WALDEN teaches the composition comprising the additives such as dye and fragrance (see WALDEN at paragraph [0027]). WALDEN also teaches a composition comprising wax, glycerol ester, oil mineral spirits and about 1-2% of fragrance (see WALDEN at paragraph [0016]). Additionally, WALDEN teaches fragrances include, but are not limited to, fruit, plant, flower and freshener scents known to those of ordinary skill in the art (see WALDEN at paragraph [0027]).
Both MORADIAN’s and WALDEN’s disclosures are form the same field of endeavor and describe the corrosion inhibiting composition. According to MPEP § 2144.06(I), "It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art." In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the composition of MORADIAN by including additives, e.g., 1-2% of fragrance as disclosed by WALDEN (see WALDEN at paragraph [0016]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that addition of fragrance would improve the scent of the composition based on teachings of WALDEN describing that fragrances include, but are not limited to, fruit, plant, flower and freshener scents known to those of ordinary skill in the art (see WALDEN at paragraph [0027]).
The rationale for such modification would have been combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP §2143(I) (Exemplary rationale (A)).
Regarding claim 20, MORADIAN as modified by LAURA and HOUSTON teaches the corrosion inhibiting composition of claim 18, wherein the at least one additive includes a dye present from 0.01 to 0.05 total weight percent.
However, WALDEN discloses a composition for the creation of a protective barrier on a wide variety of materials to prevent the deterioration and degradation caused by exposure to moisture and sun over time (see WALDEN at Abstract). WALDEN also discloses that the composition provided remarkable protection and corrosion resistance, providing 100% corrosion protection and durability (see WALDEN at paragraph 0044]). WALDEN teaches the composition comprising the additives such as dye and fragrance (see WALDEN at paragraph [0027]). WALDEN also teaches a composition comprising wax, glycerol ester, oil mineral spirits and about 0.2-1.5% carbon black dye (see WALDEN at paragraph [0028]). Additionally, WALDEN teaches that in no way is disclosed listing of ranges and specific percentages intended to be exhaustive, as other ranges could be contemplated in additional embodiments of the composition. (see WALDEN at paragraph [0027]).
Both MORADIAN’s and WALDEN’s disclosures are form the same field of endeavor and describe the corrosion inhibiting composition. According to MPEP § 2144.06(I), "It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art." In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the composition of MORADIAN by including additives, e.g., dye as disclosed by WALDEN (see WALDEN at paragraph [0028]). Furthermore, MPEP states that "[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", and “the normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages” (see MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A)). Based on teachings of WALDEN describing that in no way is disclosed listing of ranges and specific percentages intended to be exhaustive, as other ranges could be contemplated in additional embodiments of the composition. (see WALDEN at paragraph [0027]), one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the composition of MORADIAN by including the dye in the composition and by adjusting amount of dye to be within the claimed range.
The rationale for such modification would have been combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP §2143(I) (Exemplary rationale (A)).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MORADIAN in view of LAURA as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Maulad et al. (Synthesis of polyurethane using soybean oil based polyol and characterization of their coating properties, IEEE Xplore, 2011, pages 184-187), hereinafter referred to as MAULAD.
Regarding claim 21, MORADIAN as modified by LAURA and HOUSTON teaches the corrosion inhibiting composition of claim 8, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the polyurethane is a soya oil modified polyurethane.
However, MAULAD discloses that polymeric materials prepared from natural and renewable resources have attracted the attention due to their potential to substitute petrochemical derivatives; and that interest in cheap biodegradable polymeric materials has encouraged the development of such materials from readily available, renewable, inexpensive natural sources such as edible oils (see MAULAD at I. Introduction, left column, first paragraph, p. 184). MAULAD teaches that polymeric coating based on renewable sources such as soybean oil is attractive due to its low cost and biodegradable properties (see MAULAD at Abstract). MAULAD also teaches that the modification of different polyol from soybean oil had been done for polyurethane synthesis application (see MAULAD at Abstract).
MPEP §2143(I)(Example Rationale (F)) states: “Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.” Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the potential benefit of improving the composition of MORADIAN as modified by LAURA by utilizing polyurethane synthesized using soybean oil as disclosed by MAULAD since MAULAD explicitly teaches that polymeric coating based on renewable sources such as soybean oil is attractive due to its low cost and biodegradable properties (see MAULAD at Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the composition of MORADIAN as modified by LAURA by utilizing polyurethane synthesized using soybean oil as to reap the benefits as disclosed by MAULAD such as lowering cost.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 04/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the modification of MORADIAN with the teachings of LAURA presented in Office Action mailed on 01/26/2026 fails to meet objectives of MORADIAN given that LAURA teaches the use of VOCs, LAURA is not aluminum-based composition, and MORADIAN requires “Hi-Sol 10 is an aromatic hydrocarbon solvent”. See Remarks received on 04/27/2026 spanning paragraphs on pages 7-8.
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees for the following reasons. MORADIAN discloses the ingredients employed for formulating the coating compositions of the disclosed invention in table 1; according to Table 1, solvent can be selected from mineral spirits, Vista LPA 210, corn solvent (ethyl lactate), soy solvent Hi-Sol 10 and Vansol 53 (see MORADIAN at Table 1). Additionally, while Example 8 comprises Hi-Sol 10, MORADIAN explicitly teaches that alternative solvent can be used (see MORADIAN at Col. 5, Example 8, Table). According to MPEP §2123: “A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc. 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989)” and “disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971)”. Thus, based on teachings of MORADIAN describing different solvents used to form the composition (see MORADIAN at Table 1), and that various changes may be made in the process, components and compositions without departing from the spirit and scope of the invention or sacrificing its material advantages (see MORADIAN at Col. 7, lines 16-19), and considering the benefits associated with the use of odorless mineral spirits disclosed by LAURA such as low toxicity and relatively low cost (see LAURA at Col. 16, lines 15-24), one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to utilize the aliphatic VOC as disclosed by LAURA.
Regarding LAURA teaching the use of aromatic VOCs (see Remarks received on 04/27/2026 at paragraph 2, p. 8), it is noted that LAURA discloses that the volatile organic solvents can be of aliphatic, cycloaliphatic or aromatic character, and include hydrocarbons, chlorinated hydrocarbons, alcohols, ketones and ethers which are compatible in the system, and that preferred volatile organic solvents are aliphatic solvents, especially suitable being odorless mineral spirits because of its low toxicity and relatively low cost as well as its advantageous flash point (see LAURA at Col. 16, lines 15-24). Thus, based on LAURA’s teachings, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the polymer disclosed by LAURA would be applicable to the composition of MORADIAN, since both MORADIAN and LAURA teach similar solvent systems.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the references fail to show certain features of Applicant’s invention, it is noted that the feature upon which Applicant relies (i.e., transparent polymer hazing) is not recited in the rejected claim.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 14-17 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Hattori et al. (GB 2205320 A) discloses a rust preventive coating composition including 10 wt% of metallic salt of sulfonic acid, 10 wt% of metallic salt of petrolatum oxider 7 wt% of microcrystalline wax, 7 wt% of paraffin synthetic oil, 0.1 wt% of carbon black, and 65.9 wt% of mineral spirit (paragraph 2, p. 1); wherein the solvent is a mixture of aliphatic solvents and aromatic solvents (paragraph 1, p. 6); the reforming agent of the rust preventive coating composition is rubber such-as SBR, EVAr ordinary temperature drying type alkyd resin, polyurethane resin and/or the like; the reforming agent is blended in an amount ranging from 1 to wt% of the total amount of the rust preventive coating composition in order to improve tipping resistance (paragraph 4, p. 6-paragraph 1, p. 7).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANASTASIA KUVAYSKAYA whose telephone number is (703)756-5437. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00am-5:00pm.
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, Amber Orlando can be reached at 571-270-3149. 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.
/A.A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1731
/ANTHONY J GREEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights