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 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. Claim s 1, 12-16, 22, 23 and 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Polk (US 2010/0294667) . Regarding claim 1, Polk teaches an electrodepositable coating composition (Abstract) comprising an addition polymer comprising a polymerization product of a polymeric dispersant and a second stage ethylenically unsaturated monomer composition comprising a second stage (meth)acrylamide monomer (paragraphs [0072]-[0074] ); an ionic salt group-containing film-forming polymer different from the addition polymer (paragraphs [0087]-[0091] ) ; and a curing agent (paragraphs [0011], [008], [0092], [0094] and [0099]). As to the amount of the second stage (meth)acrylamide monomer based on the total weight of the second stage monomer composition, Polk does not specifically teach another second stage ethylenically monomer must be used and further suggest amounts of the monomer in the composition that suggest a range that overlaps the claimed range (paragraph [0075]). Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious. As to claim 12, Polk teaches an ionic polymeric dispersant (paragraphs [0010] and [0011]). As to claim 13, Polk teaches amino functional monomer (paragraph [0069] , [0070] and [0118]). As to claims 14 and 15, Polk teaches an acid functional monomer as claimed (paragraphs [0042], [0061], [0070]). As to claim 16, Polk suggests amounts that overlap the claimed range (paragraph [0075]). As to claims 22 and 23, Polk teaches cationic and anionic salts as claimed (paragraphs [0087]-[0091]). As to claim 27, Polk suggest amounts of the materials in amounts that overlap the claimed range (paragraph [0075]; Examples). As claims 28 and 29, Polk teaches the composition may be utilized to coat a substrate (Abstract; paragraphs [0099]-[0105]). Claim s 1, 4, 5, 7-16, 18, 19, 22, 23 and 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stone et al. (WO 2018/160799) in view of Polk (US 2010/0184911) . Regarding claim 1, Stone et al. teach an electrodepositable coating composition (Abstract) comprising an addition polymer (paragraph [0013]) comprising a polymerization product of a polymeric dispersant and a second stage ethylenically unsaturated monomer composition comprising a second stage (meth)acryl ate monomer (paragraphs [00 09 ] and [0 124 ] ); an ionic salt group-containing film-forming polymer different from the addition polymer (paragraphs [0009] and [0124]) ; and a curing agent (paragraphs [0009] and [0124]), wherein the second stage monomer is utilized in an amount greater than 40% by weight of the second stage (paragraphs [0009], [0124], [0125]) . Stone et al. do not teach the second stage ( meth ) acrylate monomer can be substituted for a (meth)acrylamide. However, Polk teaches an analogous coating wherein a (meth)acrylamide can be used as an equivalent alternative or a substitute for (meth)acrylate monomer (paragraphs [0072]-[0074]). Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventio to have combined the teaching of Stone et al. and Polk and to have utilized (meth)acrylamide as a replacement/substitute/equivalent/alternative for (meth)acrylate in the method of Stone et al., as suggested by Polk, for the purpose, as suggested by the references, of utilizing art recognized suitable second stage ethylenically unsaturated monomers for the production of a suitable electrodepositable coating (see MPEP 2144.06-2144.07). As to claims 4, 5,7-9, 18 and 19, Stone et al. teach and suggest utilizing a hydroxyl functional (meth)acrylate (paragraphs [0017] , [0035], [0045], [0046], [0056] ). In combination with the teaching of Polk, this also suggests utilizing a hydroxyl functional (meth)acrylamide. The reason for combing the references is the same as that set forth above. As to claims 10 and 11, Stone et al. teach the composition further comprises a phosphorous acid functional monomer as claimed (paragraphs [0019] and [0020]). As to claim s 12 -15 , Stone et al. teach the dispersant comprises an ionic salt and polymerization product as claimed (paragraphs [0129]-[0133]) As to claim 16, Stone et al. teach and suggest amounts as claimed (paragraph s [0134] and [0135] ). As to claims 22 and 23, Stone et al. teach the ionic salt group contains a cation or anion salt (paragraphs [0062]-[0073]) . As to claim 27, Stone et al. teach and suggest amounts as claimed (paragraphs [0134], [0135], [0147], [0148], and [0149]). As to claim 28 and 29, Stone et al. teach applying the coating to a substrate (paragraphs [0096]-[0104]). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Jeff Wollschlager whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-8937 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 7:00-3:30 . 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 Christina Johnson can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-1176 . 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. /JEFFREY M WOLLSCHLAGER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742