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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
1. Claim 1-3, 5-6, and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2007/114941 to Adams et al. (“Adams”) in view of US 2018/0037765 to Tamura et al. (“Tamura”) and JP 2004204073 to Yamaguchi et al. (“Yamaguchi”), a translation of which is provided herewith and referred-to herein.
With regard to Claim 1, Adams teaches an aqueous dispersion composition comprising a heat-resistant resin, non-melt-processible fluorine-containing polymer, and a melt-processible fluorine-containing polymer (see Abstract; Pg. 5, Lns. 4-32; Pg. 6, Lns. 9-12 and Lns. 17-20; Pg. 11, Lns. 12-32). According to Adams, the particle sizes of fluorine-containing polymer are 0.5 microns (see Pg. 6, Lns. 24-25). Adams does not expressly teach particle sizes of the heat-resistant resin. Tamura is directed to similar aqueous coating compositions comprising heat-resistant resin, non-melt-processible fluorine-containing polymer, and a melt-processible fluorine-containing polymer, and teaches usage of the same types of heat-resistant resin as that of Adams with particle sizes of 2 microns (see Abstract; ¶¶ [0079], [0108]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have employed a heat-resistant resin with particle sizes within the claimed range in the composition of Adams, as taught by Tamura, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Adams teaches inclusion of nonionic surfactant (see Table 1); however the reference does not expressly teach surfactants featuring an HLB within the claimed range. Yamaguchi is directed to similar aqueous coating compositions and primers, and teaches addition of nonionic surfactant featuring an HLB of 10 or less to primer compositions renders improved mechanical and storage stability (see Abstract; Pgs. 1-2, 4, 14-15, 17). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have employed nonionic surfactants featuring an HLB of 10 or lower in the composition of Adams, as taught by Yamaguchi, in order to obtain improved mechanical and storage stability.
With regard to Claims 2-3, Adams teaches the claimed types of heat-resistant resin (see Pg. 11, Lns. 12-32).
With regard to Claims 5-6, Adams teaches the claimed compositions (see Pg. 5, Lns. 4-20; Pg. 5, Ln. 21 through Pg. 6, Ln. 8).
With regard to Claims 8-10, Adams teaches applying the coating composition as a primer on the claimed types of substrates, and applying thereon additional middle and top layers, the top layer containing fluorine-containing polymer (see Pg. 3, Ln. 3 through Pg. 4, Ln. 30; Pg. 14, Ln. 33 through Pg. 15, Ln. 14; ).
2. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adams in view of Tamura and Yamaguchi as applied to Claim 3, and further in view of US 6,333,372 to Tomihashi et al. (“Tomihashi”).
With regard to Claim 4, Adams teaches the claimed combination of heat-resistant resin materials (see Pg. 11, Lns. 12-32); however the reference does not expressly teach the claimed mass ratios. Tomihashi is directed to similar aqueous fluororesin compositions, and teaches the claimed mass ratios of the same heat-resistant resin constituents as that of Adams, and the claimed mass ratios of the heat-resistant resin to that of fluororesin content yield good adhesion and improved corrosion resistance properties (see Abstract). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have employed the claimed mass ratios in the composition of Adams, as taught by Tomihashi, in order to obtain good adhesion and improved corrosion resistance.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 02 January 2026 have been fully considered, but are not found persuasive. Applicant argues that the combination of Adams in view of Tamura and Yamaguchi does not yield the unexpected results realized by Claim 1 as amended, and therefore the references do not render the claimed invention obvious (see Response at Pgs. 6-7). This argument is not found persuasive. As discussed in the Non-Final Rejection and restated herein, Adams teaches inclusion of a nonionic surfactant (see Adams at Table 1), and Yamaguchi teaches inclusion of a nonionic surfactant featuring an HLB value of 10 or lower yields improved properties (see Yamaguchi at Abstract; Pgs. 1-2, 4, 14-15, 17). Thus one of ordinary skill in the art practicing the invention of Adams would find motivation within the teachings of Yamaguchi to include the claimed type of surfactant in order to obtain the improved properties identified by Yamaguchi independent of whether the results argued by Applicant would be expected.
The grounds of rejection have been modified in response to the claims as amended.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael P Rodriguez whose telephone number is (571)270-3736. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 6:00 Eastern M-F.
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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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.
/Michael P. Rodriguez/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1715