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. Status of Claims Claims 1-12 are pending in the current application . 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 (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 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. Claims 1 -4 and 6- 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Yokoi et al. (JP 2021/042279 A, herein English machine translation utilized for all citations) . Regarding Claim 1 , Yokoi teaches a polysiloxane-based resin comprising a polymer comprising a constitutional (structural) unit derived from a monomer having a radical-polymerizable group, wherein the monomer includes a monomer having a salt structure composed of (consisting of) an acid and a base such as sodium acrylate, a monomer having a polyoxyalkylene structure such as Bremmer PE-90 , and a structural unit derived from a silane compound such as tetramethoxysilane having a structure that satisfies formula (II) of claim 1 ( Yokoi , Abstract, Pgs 2 -4 , 7-8 ). "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). 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. Id. See MPEP 2112.01, II. Yokoi’s sodium acrylate is identical to (i) monomers in the specification as originally filed at [0046]-[0047] , and therefore, Yokoi’s sodium acrylate necessarily satisfies the characteristics of claim 1 . Yokoi’s Blemmer PE-90 is identical to (ii) monomers in the specification as originally filed at [0046]-[0047] , and therefore, Yokoi’s Blemmer PE-90 necessarily satisfies the characteristics of claim 1. Regarding Claim 2 , Yokoi teaches the monomer having a polyoxyalkylene structure includes Bremmer PE-90 that is identical to (ii) monomers in the specification as originally filed at [0046]-[0047], and therefore, Yokoi’s Blemmer PE-90 necessarily satisfies the characteristics of claim 2 ( Yokoi, Pg 8 ). Regarding Claim 3 , Yokoi teaches the polysiloxane-based resin has a structural unit (a) having a structure with a radically polymerizable unsaturated group and a hydrolysable silyl group derived from an alkoxy silane compound ( Yokoi, Pgs 3-4 ) ; a structural unit (b) derived from a monomer having a salt structure composed of an acid and a base, a radically polymerizable group, and no hydrolysable silyl group that is soluble in water (Yokoi, Pg 7); and a structural unit (c) derived from a monomer that has a polyoxyalkylene chain, a radically polymerizable group, and no hydrolysable silyl group (Yokoi, Pg 8). Yokoi’s monomers used to form the aforementioned structural units are identical to the monomers disclosed by the specification as originally filed, and therefore, satisfy the characteristics of claim 3 . Regarding Claim 4 , Yokoi teaches a structural unit derived from a monomer different than th ose discussed above that has a radically polymerizable group and no hydrolysable silyl group, where such a monomer includes methyl (meth)acrylate (Yokoi, Pg 8). Regarding Claim 6 , Yokoi teaches the structural unit (a) and the structural unit (d) are included in an amount of 30% by weight or more and 95% by weight or less (Yokoi, Pg 7). Yokoi’s structural unit (a) and (d) total content range is encompassed within the claimed range of not less than 10 wt %, and therefore, satisfies the claimed range (MPEP 2131.03). Regarding Claim 7 , Yokoi teaches a resin composition comprising the polysiloxane-based resin of claim 1 ( Yokoi , Abstract, Pgs 2, 9-10 ). Regarding Claim 8 , Yokoi teaches a solution comprising the resin composition of the polysiloxane-based resin of claims 1 and 7, where water is used as a medium (Yokoi, Abstract, Pgs 2 -3 , 9-10) . Regarding Claim s 9 and 10 , Yokoi teaches a water-based paint comprising the resin composition of the polysiloxane-based resin of claims 1 , 7 , and 8 (Yokoi, Abstract, Pgs 2, 9-10) . 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 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. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokoi et al. (JP 2021/042279 A, herein English machine translation utilized for all citations) as applied to claim s 1 and 3 above. Regarding Claim 5 , Yokoi teaches the polysiloxane-based resin discussed above for claims 1 and 3. Yokoi teaches the structural unit (b) is included in an amount of 2% by weight or more and 50% by weight or less (Yokoi, Pg 7). Yokoi’s structural unit (b) content range overlaps the claimed range of 1-20 wt %, and therefore, renders obvious the claimed range (MPEP 2144.05). Yokoi teaches the structural unit (c) is included in an amount of 6% by weight or more and 50% by weight or less (Yokoi, Pgs 8-9). Yokoi’s structural unit (c) content range overlaps the claimed range of 1-10 wt %, and therefore, renders obvious the claimed range (MPEP 2144.05). Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokoi et al. (JP 2021/042279 A, herein English machine translation utilized for all citations) as applied to claims 7-10 above, and further in view of Sandmeyer et al. (US 2018/0305576 A1) . Regarding Claims 11 and 12 , Yokoi teaches the water-based paint discussed above for claims 7, 8, 9, and 10. Yokoi teaches water-based paint can comprise an anti-foaming agent (Yokoi, Pg 10). Yokoi remains silent regarding a silicone-based defoaming agent. Sandmeyer , however, teaches aqueous solutions comprising silicone resins and a silicon defoamer (Sandmeyer, Abstract, [ 0002 ] , [0013]-[0028], [0119], [0144], Tables 1, 4 ) . Since Yokoi and Sandmeyer both disclose aqueous-based solutions comprising silicone resins and defoamers, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized Sandmeyer’s silicone-based defoamer as Yokoi’s anti-foaming agent to yield a composition that reduces foaming and can be tailored to specific applications as taught by Sandmeyer (Sandmeyer, [0 119 ] , [0144]-[0151] ). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ELI D STRAH whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-7088 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 9 am - 7 pm . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Aaron Austin can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-8935 . 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. /Eli D. Strah/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782