DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 5/28/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground that it would not be a serious search burden to examine all claims together since the claims share a number of similar features. This is not found persuasive because a search for a polymer film that is coated with a PSA and a coating composition is not at all within the realm of a relevant search for a coating composition alone. The claims of Group II require an additional search and, consequently, additional examiner such that it would in fact be an undue burden on the Examiner to search both groups at once.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1 to 10 and 16 to 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In many of these claims applicants use language for groupings that is confusing. See M.P.E.P 2173.05(h), drawn to alternative limitations, specifically Markush groups.
For instance in claim 1, the material includes at least one of a hygroscopic material and a hydrophilic material. The term “and” indicates that both the hygroscopic and hydrophilic materials are required. The phrase “at least one of” suggests that only one of these materials is required. Clarification is required.
Similarly the language “including a nitrogen containing moiety, an oxygen containing moiety and a combination thereof” makes it unclear if both nitrogen and oxygen containing moieties are required. The term “and” suggests that they are but the alternative of “a combination thereof” indicates that they can be present alone.
Such issues arise in claims 3, 5, 6, 8 and 16 to 18.
In claim 1 and claim 16, note that the phrase “is immersible” is confusing and the Examiner believes that applicants intended “immiscible”.
In claim 8, it is confusing to require the species to be ionic when many of the species are not. See for instance N-methyldiethanolamine, amongst others.
Also, “hemicalsium” appears to be a misspelling.
In claim 9, it is unclear where the ionic species is, as the claims states “between the fluorine containing polymer” but does not indicate the other component. The term “between” indicates that there are 2 components in addition to the ionic species.
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.
Claims 1 to 3, 5, 6, 10, 16 to 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graham et al. 2005/0065271.
Graham et al. teach a fluorinated silane coating composition that can contain
each of the four components found in instant claim 1. Generally see paragraphs 6 to 8.
More specifically, for the continuous phase, a first material that is a fluorine containing polymer (as found in claim 2), see paragraph 17 and subsequent paragraphs that further detail this polymer. By virtue of the preparation method, this will have a functionality greater than 2. Note that this meets the material in claim 5, as it is a fluorinated acrylate polymer. The specific polymer in paragraph 42 meets claim 6, as it has a hydroxyl group and the monomers in paragraphs 21, 30 and 41 can contain amine groups.
As the second material that is dispersed within the continuous phase, paragraph 54 and subsequent paragraphs further define this component. As can be seen, a non-aqueous dispersion polymer is present in this composition. Paragraph 64 teaches a preferred polymer that is formed from monomers including acrylic acid and hydroxyethyl acrylate. These groups render the material hydrophilic. This meets the second material that is fluorine free in claim 2, as well as the poly(2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate) and poly(acrylic acid) in claim 4.
In summary, the above excerpts in Graham et al. meet the claimed continuous phase and plurality of domains of second material in each of claims 1 to 3 and 6.
Paragraph 60 teaches that the dispersed polymers are adapted to react with the fluorinated silane polymer (continuous phase) by means of crosslinking functionalities. Paragraph 62 goes on to teach that isocyanate groups can be crosslinking functional-ities. This is further detailed in paragraph 67. This meets the claimed requirement that the first and second material be bonded with an isocyanate containing moiety.
Finally paragraph 68 teaches the presence of an amino0plast crosslinking agent. One specific compound that is taught is Resimine 4514 which is an aminoplast having 5 methoxy groups which contribute to crosslinking. This meets the requirement of a cross-linking molecule having at least 4 functional groups including a nitrogen and oxygen moiety.
A much more concise teaching in found in claim 1 of Graham et al.
While each of the necessary components are taught in the prior art the Examiner does not believe that they are taught in combination in a manner sufficient to render the claims anticipated. It is clear, though, that one having ordinary skill in the art would have found a coating composition meeting the requirements of claims 1 to 3, 5 and 6 to have been obvious over the teachings of Graham et al.
Please note that the term “anti-icing” does not lend any distinguishing patentable weight to the claims, as the claims are fully and adequately defined by the composition components. In addition the skilled artisan would have found anti-icing to have been an obvious property associated with the coating of Graham et al. since it has improved weathering properties and is used to coat vehicles that will experience icing.
For claim 10 see paragraph 57 which teaches a particle size range that overlaps with that claimed such that the skilled artisan would have been motivated to select a particle size from the teachings in Graham et al. that fall within the claimed range.
The limitations in claims 16 to 18 are addressed in the rejection rationale supra, as it applies to claims 1 to 3, 5 and 6.
For claim 20 see paragraph 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 7 to 9 and 19 are allowable over the prior art. There is nothing that teaches or suggests a polytetrafluoroethylene having pendant hydroxyl groups as the continuous phrase (clam 7). The monomers in Graham et al. are all (meth)acrylates and the Examiner was unable to find any motivation to make a change to a polytetra-fluoroethylene polymer. In claims 7 and 8 there is nothing that would motivate the skilled artisan to include either the specific compounds of claim 7, or the presence of an ionic species in the crosslinker. For claims 4 and 19, there is no teaching or suggestion of a poly(ethylene glycol) in the dispersed phrase. Paragraph 50 generally refers to the presence of an unfluorinated polyol but provides nothing to render a poly(ethylene glycol) obvious. Also note that this is not present in the dispersed phrase.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARGARET MOORE whose telephone number is (571)272-1090. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday, 10 am to 5 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Heidi Kelly, can be reached at 571-270-1831.
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 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.
/MARGARET G MOORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765
Prosecution Insights