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 with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on June 9, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the examination of Group II would not add a serious search burden. This is not found persuasive because Group I would require a search in at least CPC C09D5/14, along with a unique text search, and Group II would not be searched as above and would instead require a search in at least CPC B32B2255/00, along with a unique text search, as set forth in the restriction requirement of April 14, 2026.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 27-40 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 18 is 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.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the organic solvent" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7-15, and 41-50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang et al (US 2015/0141563 A1) in view of Mani et al (US 2025/0346768 A1).
Regarding Claim 1: Liang teaches a liquid composition for making a hydrophobic and oleophobic coating (para. 0001) comprising a fluorinated polymer/fluorosiloxane, an acrylic polymer, a coupling agent, and an organic solvent (para. 0006), wherein the fluorinated polymer is present in an effective amount to provide hydrophobicity (par. 0039), the acrylic polymer is present in an effective amount to impart durability and UV resistance to the composition (para. 0044), the coupling agent is present in an effective amount to disperse/improve compatibility of the fluorinated polymer and the acrylic resin (para. 0045), and the organic solvent is present in an effective amount to provide good flowability/leveling to the composition (para. 0048).
Liang is silent to the antimicrobial agent.
Mani teaches an acrylic-based clear coating composition having an antimicrobial agent (para. 0020) which imparts antimicrobial activity to the surface of an article of manufacture (para. 0106) in a wide variety of applications (para. 0110). Mani and Liang are analogous art because they are directed toward the same field of endeavor, namely transparent polymer coating compositions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add an antimicrobial agent to the composition of Liang in order to maintain a clean surface and prevent the spread of disease.
Regarding Claim 2: Liang teaches an acid catalyst (para. 0006), including inorganic acids such as hydrochloric acid or sulfuric acid (para. 0018).
Regarding Claim 3: Liang teaches a perfluoro polyether siloxane (para. 0009).
Regarding Claim 4: Liang teaches a silane with amine and ethoxy functionalities (para. 0012).
Regarding Claim 5: Liang teaches alcohols, acetone, and ketone/MEK solvents (para. 0016-0017).
Regarding Claim 7: Liang teaches 0.1-15wt% of the fluorinated polymer (para. 0039), with specific working examples having 0.7wt% of perfluoro polyether siloxane/ECC4000 (Table 2, Examples 1-b and 1-d).
Regarding Claim 8: Liang teaches 0.1-15wt% of the coupling agent (para. 0045), with specific working examples having 7wt% and 30wt% of the silane coupling agent/KH560 (Table 2, Examples 1-b and 1-d).
Regarding Claim 9: Liang teaches 1-30wt% of the acrylic polymer (para. 0044), with specific working examples having 14wt% of polyacrylic acid (Table 2, Examples 1-b and 1-d).
Regarding Claim 10: Liang teaches 33-98wt% of the organic solvent (para. 0048), with specific working examples having 33-77.6wt% of a solvent (Table 2, Examples 1-b, 1-c, 1-d, and 1-e).
Regarding Claim 11: Mani teaches 0.004-5wt% or 0.5-2wt% of the antimicrobial agent (para. 0061).
Regarding Claim 12: Liang teaches an acrylic homopolymer (Table 2, polyacrylic acid).
Regarding Claim 13: Liang teaches a ratio between the coupling agent and the acrylic polymer of 1:1 (Table 2, Example 1-a), 1:2 (Example 1-b), 2.1:1 (Example 1-d), and 1:4.3 (Example 1-e).
Regarding Claim 14: Liang teaches a ratio between coupling agent and the fluorinated polymer of 10:1 (Table 2, Examples 1-a and 1-b), 5:1 (Example 1-c), and 43:1 (Example 1-d).
Regarding Claim 15: Liang teaches 0.1-15wt% of fluorinated polymer, 1-30wt% polyacrylic resin, and 0.1-15wt% coupling agent (para. 0037), with a sum of 1.2-60wt%. Mani teaches 0.5-2wt% of the antimicrobial agent (para. 0061). Based on calculations, the ratio between the antimicrobial agent and the sum of the fluorinated polymer, coupling agent, and acrylic polymer is from 1.8:1-120:1.
This overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an overlapping ratio of the antimicrobial agent to the other ingredients, and they would have been motivated to use a ratio favoring the fluorinated polymer, coupling agent, and acrylic polymer in order to maximize transparency and durability (para. 0039, 0044-0045).
Regarding Claims 41-42: Liang teaches an article comprising the liquid composition applied to a substrate (para. 0026) such as transparent glass (para. 0079).
Regarding Claim 43: Liang teaches 0.1-15wt% of the fluorinated polymer (para. 0039), with specific working examples having 0.7wt% of perfluoro polyether siloxane/ECC4000 (Table 2, Examples 1-b and 1-d).
Regarding Claim 44: Liang teaches 0.1-15wt% of the coupling agent (para. 0045), with specific working examples having 7wt% and 30wt% of the silane coupling agent/KH560 (Table 2, Examples 1-b and 1-d).
Regarding Claim 45: Liang teaches 1-30wt% of the acrylic polymer (para. 0044), with specific working examples having 14wt% of polyacrylic acid (Table 2, Examples 1-b and 1-d).
Regarding Claim 46: Liang teaches 33-98wt% of the organic solvent (para. 0048), with specific working examples having 33-77.6wt% of a solvent (Table 2, Examples 1-b, 1-c, 1-d, and 1-e).
Regarding Claim 47: Mani teaches 0.004-5wt% or 0.5-2wt% of the antimicrobial agent (para. 0061).
Regarding Claim 48: Liang teaches a ratio between the coupling agent and the acrylic polymer of 1:1 (Table 2, Example 1-a), 1:2 (Example 1-b), 2.1:1 (Example 1-d), and 1:4.3 (Example 1-e).
Regarding Claim 49: Liang teaches a ratio between coupling agent and the fluorinated polymer of 10:1 (Table 2, Examples 1-a and 1-b), 5:1 (Example 1-c), and 43:1 (Example 1-d).
Regarding Claim 50: Liang teaches the sum of fluorinated polymer, coupling agent, and acrylic polymer is 1.2-67wt% (para. 0039, 0044-0045, 0048). Mani teaches 0.5-2wt% of the antimicrobial agent (para. 0061). Based on calculations, the ratio between the antimicrobial agent and the sum of the fluorinated polymer, coupling agent, and acrylic polymer is from 1.8:1-134:1.
This overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an overlapping ratio of the antimicrobial agent to the other ingredients, and they would have been motivated to use a ratio favoring the fluorinated polymer, coupling agent, and acrylic polymer in order to maximize transparency and durability (para. 0039, 0044-0045).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang et al (US 2015/0141563 A1) in view of Mani et al (US 2025/0346768 A1) and Neigel et al (US 2011/00233810 A1).
Liang and Mani teach the limitations of claim 1, as set forth above. Mani further teaches that the antimicrobial agent is a quaternary ammonium compound (para. 0047) but is silent to it being a quaternary ammonium silane.
Neigel teaches an antimicrobial plastic article containing a silanol quaternary ammonium compound as an antimicrobial agent (para. 0001), wherein the quaternary ammonium silane homopolymerizes with itself as well as reacting with oxides and hydroxides in the matrix polymer during curing, which immobilizes the quaternary ammonium silane and completely prevents leaching of the antibacterial agent, allowing for a long-lasting/permanent effect (para. 0141-0142). Neigel and Mani are analogous art because they are directed toward the same field of endeavor, namely antimicrobial polymer compositions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the quaternary ammonium compounds of Mani with a quaternary ammonium silane in order to facilitate a reaction between the antimicrobial agent and the hydroxide groups in the polymer matrix, such as the hydroxy modified polyacrylic resin of Liang (para. 0014), thereby creating a permanent antimicrobial effect.
Claims 16-26 and 51-54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang et al (US 2015/0141563 A1) in view of Mani et al (US 2025/0346768 A1) and Neigel et al (US 2011/00233810 A1).
Regarding Claim 16: Liang teaches a transparent hydrophobic and oleophobic coating (para. 0001) comprising a fluorinated polymer/fluorosiloxane, an acrylic polymer, and a silane coupling agent (para. 0006), wherein the fluorinated polymer is present in an effective amount to provide hydrophobicity (par. 0039), the acrylic polymer is present in an effective amount to impart durability and UV resistance to the composition (para. 0044), the coupling agent is present in an effective amount to disperse/improve compatibility of the fluorinated polymer and the acrylic resin (para. 0045), and the organic solvent is present in an effective amount to provide good flowability/leveling to the composition (para. 0048).
Liang is silent to the antimicrobial agent.
Mani teaches an acrylic-based clear coating composition having an antimicrobial agent (para. 0020) which imparts antimicrobial activity to the surface of an article of manufacture (para. 0106) in a wide variety of applications (para. 0110). Mani and Liang are analogous art because they are directed toward the same field of endeavor, namely transparent polymer coating compositions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add an antimicrobial agent to the composition of Liang in order to maintain a clean surface and prevent the spread of disease.
Mani further teaches that the antimicrobial agent is a quaternary ammonium compound (para. 0047) but is silent to it being a quaternary ammonium silane.
Neigel teaches an antimicrobial plastic article containing a silanol quaternary ammonium compound as an antimicrobial agent (para. 0001), wherein the quaternary ammonium silane homopolymerizes with itself as well as reacting with oxides and hydroxides in the matrix polymer during curing, which immobilizes the quaternary ammonium silane and completely prevents leaching of the antibacterial agent, allowing for a long-lasting/permanent effect (para. 0141-0142).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the quaternary ammonium compounds of Mani with a quaternary ammonium silane in order to facilitate a reaction between the antimicrobial agent and the hydroxide groups in the polymer matrix, such as the hydroxy modified polyacrylic resin of Liang (para. 0014), thereby creating a permanent antimicrobial effect.
Regarding Claim 17: Liang teaches a perfluoro polyether siloxane (para. 0009).
Regarding Claim 18: Liang teaches an organic solvent, prior to drying/curing of the coating, comprising alcohols, acetone, and ketone/MEK solvents (para. 0016-0017).
Regarding Claim 19: Liang teaches 0.1-15wt% of the fluorinated polymer in the liquid composition before the solvent is removed (para. 0039). Since the oleophobic/hydrophobic coating is obtained after solvent removal and curing, the amount of fluorinated polymer based on solids is taken to be equivalent to the amount based on the solids content of the composition.
The total content of the non-solvent components is 0.1-15wt% of fluorinated polymer, 1-30wt% polyacrylic resin, 0.1-15wt% coupling agent, and 0.05-15wt% acid (para. 0037). Based on calculations, the content of fluorinated polymer in the coating is 0.17-93wt%. Specific working examples have a fluorinated polymer content of 4.7wt% (Table 2, Example 1-a), 3.1% (Example 1-b), 0.6% (Example 1-c), and 1.5% (Example 1-d).
Regarding Claim 20: Based on the calculations set forth above, the content of silane coupling agent in the coating is 0.17-93wt%. Specific working examples (Table 2) have a silane coupling agent content of 46.5wt% (Example 1-a), 31% (1-b), and 66% (1-d).
Regarding Claim 21: Based on the calculations set forth above, the content of acrylic polymer in the coating is 2.2-99wt%. Specific working examples (Table 2) have an acrylic polymer content of 46.5wt% (Example 1-a), 62.5% (1-b), 31% (1-d), and 51% (1-e).
Regarding Claim 22: Mani teaches 0.5-2wt% of the antimicrobial agent, based on the total weight of the composition (para. 0061). Based on the calculations set forth above, the content of antimicrobial agent in the coating is 0.7-62wt%. This overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an overlapping amount of the antimicrobial agent and would have been motivated to do so on the low end of said range (i.e., higher amounts of fluorinated polymer, acrylic polymer, and coupling agent) to maximize transparency and durability (para. 0039, 0044-0045).
Regarding Claim 23: Liang teaches an acrylic homopolymer (Table 2, polyacrylic acid).
Regarding Claim 24: Liang teaches a ratio between the coupling agent and the acrylic polymer of 1:1 (Table 2, Example 1-a), 1:2 (Example 1-b), 2.1:1 (Example 1-d), and 1:4.3 (Example 1-e).
Regarding Claim 25: Liang teaches a ratio between coupling agent and the fluorinated polymer of 10:1 (Table 2, Examples 1-a and 1-b), 5:1 (Example 1-c), and 43:1 (Example 1-d).
Regarding Claim 26: Liang teaches 0.1-15wt% of fluorinated polymer, 1-30wt% polyacrylic resin, and 0.1-15wt% coupling agent (para. 0037), with a sum of 1.2-60wt%. Mani teaches 0.5-2wt% of the antimicrobial agent (para. 0061). Based on calculations, the ratio between the antimicrobial agent and the sum of the fluorinated polymer, coupling agent, and acrylic polymer is from 1.8:1-120:1.
This overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an overlapping ratio of the antimicrobial agent to the other ingredients, and they would have been motivated to use a ratio favoring the fluorinated polymer, coupling agent, and acrylic polymer in order to maximize transparency and durability (para. 0039, 0044-0045).
Regarding Claim 51-52: Liang teaches an article comprising the coating applied to a substrate (para. 0026) such as transparent glass (para. 0079).
Regarding Claim 53: Liang teaches a ratio between the coupling agent and the acrylic polymer of 1:1 (Table 2, Example 1-a), 1:2 (Example 1-b), 2.1:1 (Example 1-d), and 1:4.3 (Example 1-e).
Regarding Claim 54: Liang teaches 0.1-15wt% of fluorinated polymer, 1-30wt% polyacrylic resin, and 0.1-15wt% coupling agent (para. 0037), with a sum of 1.2-60wt%. Mani teaches 0.5-2wt% of the antimicrobial agent (para. 0061). Based on calculations, the ratio between the antimicrobial agent and the sum of the fluorinated polymer, coupling agent, and acrylic polymer is from 1.8:1-120:1.
This overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an overlapping ratio of the antimicrobial agent to the other ingredients, and they would have been motivated to use a ratio favoring the fluorinated polymer, coupling agent, and acrylic polymer in order to maximize transparency and durability (para. 0039, 0044-0045).
Additional Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Poverenov et al (Formation of contact active antimicrobial surface by covalent grafting quaternary ammonium compounds, 25 May 2018, Colloids and Surfaces B: Biointerfaces, vol. 169, p.195-205) teaches the use of quaternary ammonium silanes as antimicrobial agents.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAITLIN N ILLING whose telephone number is (571)270-1940. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-4PM.
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, Mark Eashoo can be reached at (571)272-1197. 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.
/C.N.I./Examiner, Art Unit 1767
/MARK EASHOO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1767
Prosecution Insights