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 .
The Office Action is in response to the application filed 12/30/2023.
Claim Analysis
Summary of Claim 1:
A method of making a coating composition for non-skid or non-slip of the Automobile Tire, Truck Tire and Shoe (Footwear) in icy road conditions,
wherein the components and method comprises of mixing a Polymer base and Abrasive particles to form a dispersion in polymer matrix wherein the amount of abrasive particles can range from 0.001% to 90% by weight of the polymer coating or composite composition.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because in Figure 1, the text above “Tread pattern” appears to have been cut off. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3- 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “Automobile”, “Tire”, “Truck”, “Shoe”, “Footwear”, “Polymer”, “Abrasive” (emphasis added). However, these words should not be capitalized. Similarly, Claims 3, 5, 8-20 use improperly capitalized words.
Claim 1 recites “comprises of mixing”. However, the word “of” does not need to follow “comprises”. Similarly, Claims 3-4, 8, 10, and 16 recite “comprises of” and Claims 2 and 15 recite “comprise of”. Applicant is advised to rephrase to “comprises”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the Automobile Tire, Truck Tire and Shoe" (emphasis added). Applicant is advised to rephrase to "an Automobile Tire, Truck Tire and Shoe"(emphasis added). Claim 1 recites “non skid” and “non slip”. Applicant is advised to rephrase to “non-skid” and “non-slip”.
Claims 3-4 recite “wherein the Synthetic diamond particles comprises” (emphasis added) which is grammatically incorrect. Applicant is advised to rephrase to “wherein the Synthetic diamond particles comprise” (emphasis added).
Claim 5 recites “wherein the abrasive particles could also consists of abrasive particles such as CBN (Cubic Boron Nitride), Boron Carbide, Aluminum oxide, Silicon Dioxide, Silicon carbide, Titanium dioxide, Tungsten Carbide, Silicon Nitride, Gallium Nitride” (emphasis added). Applicant is advised to rephrase to “wherein the abrasive particles comprise abrasive particles such as cubic boron nitride, boron carbide, aluminum oxide, silicon dioxide, silicon carbide, titanium dioxide, tungsten carbide, silicon nitride, gallium nitride” (emphasis added) so that Claim 5 further limits Claim 1, which Claim 5 is dependent upon.
Claim 5 recites “along with diamond particles or without diamond particles” which is redundant. Applicant is advised to remove “along with diamond particles or without diamond particles”.
Claim 6 recites “wherein the abrasive particle hardness range from” (emphasis added) which is grammatically incorrect. Applicant is advised to rephrase to “wherein the abrasive particle hardness range is from” (emphasis added).
Claim 7 recites “wherein the base polymer can be a thermoplastic polymer”. Applicant is advised remove the “can” language so that the claim reads “wherein the polymer base comprises a thermoplastic polymer”. Similarly, Claim 1 recites “can range”, Claims 1, 8 and 10-13, 17-18 recite “can be” language, Claim 5 recites “could also”, Claims 9, 12-13, 15, and 19 recite “could be”, Claims 10 recites “could have”, Claim 17 recites “can have”, Claim 20 recites “could”. Applicant is advised to remove this language and suggested to replace the “could” and “can” language with preferred transitional phrases such as “comprising”. See MPEP 2111.03 .
Claim 8 comprises of multiple sentences which is improper. “Each claim begins with a capital letter and ends with a period. Periods may not be used elsewhere in the claims except for abbreviations”. See MPEP 601.08(m). Applicant is advised to rephrase the language of Claim 8 to be one sentence.
Claim 8 is suggested to rephrase to “wherein the coating can be a Paint with pigments or dyes, Ink with pigment or dye, Clear coating, Pressure sensitive Adhesive, hotmelt adhesive, reactive hotmelt adhesive, UV cured adhesive, Composite coating, 3D printed thermoplastic , 3D printed thermoset polymer with abrasive particles cured with UV and/or heat, solvent, , ingcomprising or reactive hotmelt adhesive with abrasive particles comprising wherein the coating composition
Claim 11 recites “polymers that are solvent soluble thermoplastic Polymer”. Applicant is advised to rephrase to “polymers that are solvent soluble thermoplastic Polymers”(emphasis added).
Claim 11 is objected to because of the “or” in the group consisting of polymers is not proper Markush language. The claims recite “selected from the group consisting of A or B or C” whereas the proper Markush language is "selected from the group consisting of A, B and C" (emphasis added). See MPEP 803.02.
Claim 14 recites “more than one polymer, combination of polymers” which is redundant. Applicant is advised to remove the redundancy.
Claim 16 recites “wherein the coating comprises of Amine” which is grammatically incorrect. Applicant is advised to rephrase to “wherein the coating comprises of Amines” (emphasis added).
Claim 20 has lines appearing before and after the claim. Applicant is advised to remove the lines.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “wherein the components and method” (emphasis added). Applicant is advised to rephrase to " wherein the method"(emphasis added). There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the components” in the claim.
Claims 1, 8, and 14 recite “(Footwear)” of Claim 1, (During Tire manufacturing, Shoe manufacturing)” of Claim 8, and “(Epoxy acrylates, Urethane Acrylates, Polybutadiene acrylate, Epoxy Novolac acrylate)” of Claim 14, and “(Maleic Acid/Anhydride ester)” of Claim 14, respectively. However it is unclear if the phrases in the parentheses are required, rendering the claims indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the phrases in the parentheses will be interpreted to not be required.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the polymer coating or composite composition" and it is unclear what the “polymer coating” and the “composite composition” are referring to and if they are referring to the same thing. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Furthermore, Claim 1 recites “0.001% to 90% by weight of the polymer coating or composite composition” and it is unclear whether the weight is normalized to the polymer coating or if it is normalized to the composite composition.
Claims 1, 9, and 18 recite “the polymer coating; Claims 7 and 11 recited “the base polymer”; Claims 8 and 12 recite “the substrate”; Claim 19 recites “another substrate”; Claims 8, 10, 14, 16-17, and 20 recite “the coating”; Claim 8 recites “the mix of the UVA, UVB”; Claim 11 recites “the air”; Claims 12-13 recite “the polymer with abrasive particle coating”; and Claim 13 recites “the mat”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims.
Regarding Claim 5, 11-12, 14, and 19-20, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For the purposes of examination, the phrases after “such as” will be interpreted to not be required.
Claim 8 recites “wherein the coating can be” different paints, coatings, and adhesives. Then Claim 8 further recites “The coating can be a solvent”. However, it is unclear whether the latter recitation is in addition to the former list of what the coating can be, or if the latter recitation is in alterative to the former list.
Claim 8 recites “3D printed thermoset polymer with abrasive particles”. However, it is unclear whether the abrasive particles refer to the abrasive particles of Claim 1, which Claim 8 depends upon, or refer to additional abrasive particles separate from those in Claim 1.
Claim 8 recites “solid polymer with abrasive extruded” (emphasis added). However, it is unclear what is abrasive and extruded.
Claim 14 uses the acronyms “VMCH, VAGH, VYHH, VAGD, VMCC, VMCA,VYNS-3”, and Claim 16 uses the acronym “DMDEE” which are undefined in the claim language and instant Specification. Every abbreviation used in the claims or specification should be defined the first time it is used.
Claims 16 recites “in case of” twice in “wherein the coating comprises of Amine or mixture of amines in case of Epoxy resin, polyol, DMDEE in case of Polyurethane or Silane or Titanate cross linker in case of polymer with –COOH, -OH, -CHO, -C=O functionality present on the polymer.” However, it is unclear what the second “in case of” is referring to rendering the claim in definite. For the purposes of examination, the phrase after the second “in case of” will be interpreted to not be required.
Claims 2-19 are rejected for being dependent on a rejected base claim.
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5, 7-8, 14, 17-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (KR 2020/0032392A; English translation incorporated herein; hereafter as “Lee”).
Regarding the interpretation of Claim 1: Claim 1 recites “a coating composition for non skid or non slip of the Automobile Tire, Truck Tire and Shoe (Footwear)”. The instant Specification and Drawings disclose preferred embodiments that suggest the coating composition is meant to be applied on tires and shoes to prevent slippage and skidding. However, Claim 1 is currently phrased such that the coating composition could be interpreted to coat tires and shoes, but could also be interpreted to coat other things to prevent the slippage of tires and shoes, such as roads and sidewalks. Since the Specification and Drawings cannot be read into the claims and there is no positive recitation of the coating being applied only to tires and shoes in Claim 1, for the purposes of examination, the broadest reasonable interpretation of Claim 1 will include coating anything as long as it prevents the slippage of tires and shoes.
Regarding Claims 1, 5, 7, 14, 18 and 20, Lee teaches preparation of an acrylic anti-slip paint composition for sidewalks and roadways [Claim 1; Example 1; ¶ 0017], corresponding to a coating composition for non-skid or non-slip of the Automobile Tire, Truck Tire and Shoe of Claim 1, comprising:
Polymerized methyl methacrylate and 2-ethylhexyl acrylate [Claim 1; Example 1; ¶ 0024], corresponding to the polymer base of Claim 1, and thereby reading on the thermoplastic polymer of Claim 7, thereby reading on the acrylic copolymer of Claim 14, and thereby reading on the crosslinked polyacrylates of Claim 20;
20 to 30 parts by weight of filler, of which is one third by weight silica sand particles [Claim 1; Example 1], which is equivalent to 22-48% by weight of silica sand particles (
m
i
n
.
%
s
i
l
i
c
a
p
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
s
=
m
i
n
.
p
a
r
t
s
s
i
l
i
c
a
m
a
x
.
t
o
t
a
l
w
e
i
g
h
t
=
20
90
=
22
%
;
m
a
x
.
%
s
i
l
i
c
a
p
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
s
=
m
a
x
.
p
a
r
t
s
s
i
l
i
c
a
m
i
n
.
t
o
t
a
l
w
e
i
g
h
t
=
30
63
=
48
%
), which corresponds to wherein the amount of abrasive particles can range from 0.001% to 90% by weight of Claim 1, and thereby reading on the silicon dioxide of Claim 5.
Claim 1 recites "for non skid or non slip of an automobile tire, truck tire and shoe in icy road conditions" which is interpreted to be an intention to use. Case law has held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). Lee teaches a method of preparing a coating composition (an anti-slip paint) by mixing a polymer (PMMA and 2-ethyl hexyl acrylate) with an abrasive particle (silica sand) as set forth in the rejection above, and thereby meets the claimed structural limitations of “for non-skid or nonslip of an automobile tire, truck tire, and shoe in icy road conditions.” As such, the coating of Lee satisfies the claimed structural limitations and thereby reads on the coating composition for non-skid or non-slip of an automobile tire, truck tire or shoe in icy road conditions.
Regarding Claim 8, Lee further teaches:
Wherein the paint composition comprises pigments [¶ 0040], thereby reading on the paint with pigments of Claim 8.
Regarding Claim 17, Lee teaches the paint composition is water-based [¶ 0017] but is silent to the water comprising other components, and thus, for the purposes of examination, the water of Lee will be interpreted to be pure water thereby reading on the DI water of Claim 17.
Regarding Claim 18, Lee teaches the paint composition is a paint cured at a temperature of -15 to 30°C [Claim 1] thereby reading on the paint cured by an ambient curing process of Claim 18.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (KR 2020/0032392A; English translation incorporated herein; hereafter as “Lee”) as evidenced by Shaw Resources (What Is Silica Sand & How Is It Different From Regular Sand? - Shaw Resources. Shaw Resources; hereafter as “Shaw”).
Lee teaches the non-skid or non-slip coating composition, polymer base, and abrasive particles of Claim 1 as set forth above and incorporated herein by reference.
Shaw teaches silica sand grades at a 7 out of 10 on Mohs hardness scale [¶ 1], thereby corresponding to wherein the abrasive particle hardness range from 3.4 to 10 on the MOHS scale of hardness of Claim 6.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (KR 2020/0032392A; English translation incorporated herein; hereafter as “Lee”) as evidenced by Yu et al. (Solubility of Polymethyl Methacrylate in Organic Solvents, Russian Journal of Applied Chemistry, Vol. 78, No. 10, 2005, pp. 1576-1580).
Lee teaches the non-skid or non-slip coating composition, polymer base, and abrasive particles of Claim 1 as set forth above and incorporated herein by reference.
Yu teaches the polymethyl methacrylate of Lee is soluble in organic solvents [Conclusion], thereby reading on polymers that are solvent soluble thermoplastic polymers of Claim 11.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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, and 7-8 rejected are under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or (a)(2) as being anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kariakin et al. (CZ8091U1; English translation incorporated herein; hereafter as “Kariakin”).
Kariakin teaches a tread part in footwear [Claims 1], corresponding to the coating composition for footwear of Claim 1, and thereby reading on the composite coating of Claim 8, comprising:
polymerized substances such as polyethylene [Claims 1, 7; ¶ 0015], corresponding to the polymer base of Claim 1, and thereby reading on the thermoplastic of Claim 7; and
semi-precious stones in an amount from a trace amount to 5% by weight [Claim 3; ¶ 0008], corresponding to from 0.001% to 90% by weight of abrasive particles of Claim 1.
However, Kariakin does not explicitly teach wherein the coating composition is for non skid or non slip of the Automobile Tire, Truck Tire and Shoe of Claim 1, and wherein the tread part in footwear is non-skid or non-slip of Claim 1.
Nevertheless, Kariakin teaches the same composition as required by the instant claims as set forth in the rejection above. The recitation “is for non skid or non slip of the Automobile Tire, Truck Tire and Shoe” is an intended use of the composition. Case law has held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claim apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations (Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987)). Since Kariakin teaches the same composition as required by the instant claims, the composition taught by Kariakin is considered to meet the structural limitations and thereby read on the intended use of “is for non skid or non slip of the Automobile Tire, Truck Tire and Shoe” as required by the claim.
Furthermore, Kariakin teaches the same footwear composition comprising the same polymer and abrasive particles as required by the instant claim as set forth in the rejection above. Therefore, the mechanical and surface properties of the footwear composition of Kariakin would inherently result in the same non-slip properties as required by the instant claims if the footwear composition of Kariakin was subjected to the same testing. Case law has held that claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). The courts have stated that a chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655, (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430, (CCPA 1977). "Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established." Further, if it is the applicant's position that this would not be the case, evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant's position. In the alternative that the above disclosure is insufficient to anticipate the above listed claims, it would have nonetheless been obvious to the skilled artisan to produce the claimed coating composition, as the reference teaches each of the claimed ingredients (polymer base and abrasive particles) for the same utility (to produce a coating composition) and for the same purpose (for footwear).
Claim 6 is rejected are under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or (a)(2) as being anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kariakin et al. (CZ8091U1; English translation incorporated herein; hereafter as “Kariakin”) as evidenced by Shaw Resources (What Is Silica Sand & How Is It Different From Regular Sand? - Shaw Resources. Shaw Resources; hereafter as “Shaw”).
Kariakin teaches the non-skid or non-slip coating composition, polymer base, and abrasive particles of Claim 1 as set forth above and incorporated herein by reference.
Shaw teaches silica sand grades at a 7 out of 10 on Mohs hardness scale [¶ 1], thereby corresponding to wherein the abrasive particle hardness range from 3.4 to 10 on the MOHS scale of hardness of Claim 6.
Claim 11 is rejected are under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or (a)(2) as being anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kariakin et al. (CZ8091U1; English translation incorporated herein; hereafter as “Kariakin”) as evidenced by Yu et al. (Solubility of Polymethyl Methacrylate in Organic Solvents, Russian Journal of Applied Chemistry, Vol. 78, No. 10, 2005, pp. 1576-1580).
Kariakin teaches the non-skid or non-slip coating composition, polymer base, and abrasive particles of Claim 1 as set forth above and incorporated herein by reference.
Yu teaches the polymethyl methacrylate of Lee is soluble in organic solvents [Conclusion], thereby reading on polymers that are solvent soluble thermoplastic polymers of Claim 11.
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 2, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR 2020/0032392A; English translation incorporated herein; hereafter as “Lee”) in view of Lu et al. (CN 109957143A; English translation incorporated herein; hereafter as “Lu”).
Lee teaches the non-skid or non-slip coating composition, polymer base, and abrasive particles of Claim 1 as set forth above and incorporated herein by reference.
However, Lee does not explicitly teach wherein the abrasive particles comprise of synthetic diamond particles of Claim 2, or wherein the synthetic diamond particles comprises of diamond with particle size ranging from 1 nm to 100 microns or higher of Claim 4.
Nevertheless, Lu teaches a preparation of nanodiamond-filled rubber with increased adhesiveness that improves wet slip resistance [Claim 1; ¶ 0009, 0015], comprising:
nano-diamond powder preparation method such as static/dynamic high-pressure high-temperature synthesis [Claims 1 and 3], corresponding to the synthetic diamond particles of Claim 2;
wherein the nano-diamond powder has a particle size of less than 100 nm [¶ 0006], corresponding to wherein the synthetic diamond particles comprises of diamond with particle size ranging from 1 nm to 100 microns or higher of Claim 4.
Lu offers the motivation that the diamond-filled rubber has significantly improved hardness [¶ 0031].
Lee and Lu are considered to be analogous art as the claimed invention, as all are in the same field of methods of preparing non-slip compositions comprising polymers and diamond particles.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the nanodiamond-filled rubber of Lu with the anti-slip paint composition of Lee, with the motivation to improve hardness, thereby arriving at the claimed invention.
Claim 3, 8, 10, 12-14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR 2020/0032392A; English translation incorporated herein; hereafter as “Lee”) in view of Peace et al. (US 2018/0163410 A1; hereafter as “Peace”).
Lee teaches the non-skid or non-slip coating composition, polymer base, and abrasive particles of Claim 1 as set forth above and incorporated herein by reference.
However, Lee does not explicitly teach wherein the Synthetic diamond particles comprises of Monocrystalline or Polycrystalline diamond or mixture of the Monocrystalline and Polycrystalline diamond of Claim 3, wherein the coating can be a composite coating of Claim 8, wherein the coating could have a plasticizer comprises of a group that can be Phthalate, Adipate, Citrate, Benzoate or Any organic acid ester, Gamma Butyrolactone (GBL), epoxidized soybean oil of Claim 10, coating methods of Claim 12, wherein the polymer with Abrasive particle coating can be applied onto the mat made using plastic or rubber or metal, that could be used to get tire traction for a car or truck stuck in snow of Claim 13, natural rubber of Claim 14, or coating methods of Claim 19.
Nevertheless, Peace teaches a non-slip coating layer [¶ 0036] comprising polymers [¶ 0033, 0035], thereby reading on the composite coating of Claim 8, and:
monocrystalline or polycrystalline diamonds [¶ 0029], thereby reading on the monocrystalline or polycrystalline diamonds of Claim 3; and
epoxidized soya bean oil [Table 1], thereby reading on the epoxidized soybean oil of Claim 10;
where the coating layer may be applied via screen, gravure or flexo printing [¶ 0032], thereby reading on flexo, gravure, and screen coating methods of Claim 12, and thereby reading on the flexography and screen printing of Claim 19;
the coating layer may be a material that is suitable for being applied such as a metal strip [¶ 0032], thereby reading on wherein the polymer with Abrasive particle coating can be applied on to the mat made using metal of Claim 13; and
natural rubber [¶ 0040], thereby reading on the natural rubber of Claim 14.
Peace offers the motivation that the non-slip coating layer may impart protective properties onto the coated substrate [¶ 0036].
Lee and Peace are considered to be analogous art as the claimed invention, as all are in the same field of methods of preparing non-slip compositions comprising rubber and diamond particles.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the monocrystalline or polycrystalline diamonds, epoxidized soya bean oil, and printing methods of Peace, with the anti-slip paint composition of Lee, with the motivation to protect the substrate, thereby arriving at the claimed invention.
Claims 5, 8-9, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR 2020/0032392A; English translation incorporated herein; hereafter as “Lee”) in view of Rolland et al. (US 2021/0245425 A1; hereafter as “Rolland”).
Lee teaches the non-skid or non-slip coating composition, polymer base, and abrasive particles of Claim 1 as set forth above and incorporated herein by reference.
However, Lee does not explicitly teach wherein the abrasive particles are cubic boron nitride or tungsten carbide of Claim 5, wherein the coating can be a composite coating of Claim 8, two component systems of Claim 9, wherein the polymer could be thermoset two component chemistry comprise of Epoxy resin with Amine catalyst or Polyurethane with catalyst, epoxy novolac or epoxy-phenol formaldehyde or Phenol formaldehyde crosslinked with catalyst of Claim 15, wherein the coating comprises of Amine or mixture of amines in case of Epoxy resin, polyol, DMDEE in case of Polyurethane or Silane or Titanate cross linker in case of polymer with –COOH, -OH, -CHO, -C=O functionality present on the polymer of Claim 16, and organic solvent of Claim 17.
Nevertheless, Rolland teaches a method of making a cured object having a surface coating [Claim 1] comprising:
polymers and abrasive particles [Claim 1], thereby reading on the composite coating of Claim 8, and further comprising:
abrasive particles such as diamonds, cubic boron nitride, and tungsten carbide [Claims 1, 12], thereby reading on the cubic boron nitride, and tungsten carbide with diamond particles of Claim 5;
epoxy resin with a polyamine epoxy hardener [Claim 1; ¶ 0023, 0062], thereby reading on the two-component system with curing agent of Claim 9, thereby reading on the epoxy resin with amine catalyst of Claim 15, and thereby reading on wherein the coating comprises amines of Claim 16; and
organic solvents [¶ 0028], thereby reading on the organic solvents of Claim 17.
Rolland offers the motivation that the abrasive particles and epoxy-amine resins may be surface modified to include surface reactive functional groups [¶ 0073].
Lee and Rolland are considered to be analogous art as the claimed invention, as all are in the same field of methods of preparing compositions comprising polymers and abrasive particles such as diamonds.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the abrasive particles, epoxy resin with polyamine epoxy hardener and organic solvents of Rolland, with the anti-slip paint composition of Lee, with the motivation to protect the substrate, thereby arriving at the claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Stier et al. (US 4931330A) teaches a clear slip-resistant surface coating comprising polyethylene terephthalate [Claims 1-2], acrylic polyurethane [Claim 8], and finely-divided abrasive silica particles, said particles having an average diameter of from about 150 to 200 microns [Claim 1].
Leach et al. (WO 2023/159265 A1) teaches boron nitride with polymers to form a composite material used as a coating and in a tire to reduce slipperiness [Abstract; ¶ 0113].
Tang et al. (CN 217906496) teaches a boot with a sprayable silicon carbide coating to prevent slipping [Claim 1; ¶ 0007].
Cai et al. (CN 218008413) teaches a shoe having a silicon carbide coating [¶ 0007].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DORIS LING whose telephone number is (571)270-3961. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am-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, ARRIE LANEE REUTHER can be reached on (571)270-7026. 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.
/DORIS LING/Examiner, Art Unit 1764
/ARRIE L REUTHER/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights