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 Interpretation It is noted that claims 4, 5, and 6 recite the makeup of a composition containing the triazine silane according to claim 1 and, also, in combination or as an alternative as marked by “and/or”, a “triazine silane oligomer”. Whereas it may have been Applicants’ intent that said oligomer be derived from the triazine silane compound of claim 1, and thus has the same structural attributes bound to the ring structure, there is no language confining the oligomer in this manner. Regarding claim 6, give n that the claimed composition/working solution may contain the triazine silane compound or triazine silane oligomer in the alternative, but the latter is only optional, and insofar as water is likewise optional, the claim could be deemed unpatentable over an organic solvent alone. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. Claim s 1, 3 -5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Itoh et al., U.S. Patent # 4,876,344 . Applicant is directed to anticipatory compound (1) in column 2 that is correlated with the claimed triazine silane where X and Y are SH, E is -S-, Z is -C(=O)NH-, n is 1-8, p is zero, and T (equated with R 2 in the formula) is a C 1 -5 alkyl. The compounds are prepared in a THF solution (column 3, lines 29-30 and Example 1), a cyclic ether, which is water - miscible as claim 5 requires. Claim s 1, 3 -5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Mori, JP 2007-131556 . Mori teaches in Example 11 the reaction of triazine trithiol with glycidoxypropyltrimethoxysilane thus providing a product anticipatory of an embodiment of the triazine silane in claim 1 wherein X and Y are SH, E is -S-, Z is -CH(OH)CH 2 O-, n is 3, p is zero, and T (equated with R 2 in the formula) is a methyl group. Product isolation involves recrystallization from an ethanol solution, which is water-miscible. Claim s 4, 5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Magistro et al., EP 339262 . Applicant is reminded of the determination that the claimed oligomers are not required to have been derived from the triazine silane compound of claim 1, as claims 4, 5, and 7 are written. Magistro teaches alkoxysilylated triazine compounds (“multisilane”) used as a sizing agent for glass fibers. Applicants are directed to Examples 1 and where a THF solution of a silylated triazine compound is described and Example 6 where the silylated compound is said to be aged in solution (insofar as the aged material is said to be combined with the epoxy resin and other components as a 5 to 10% by weight solution.) The paragraph bridging pages 5 and 6 says that “aging” refers to polymerization/oligomerization of the multisilane thus the product in THF solution added to the epoxy resin is an oligomer/polymer of the silylated triazine. Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer . Claim 1 0 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/550,145 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Both the instant- and co-pending claims are directed to a method of increasing adhesion between a metal/metal oxide/metal alloy and an organic material with the only meaningful difference being that the metal of the co-pending claims is confined to copper whereas the instant claims allow any metal substrate, including copper to be used . Both methods entail providing metal/metal oxide/metal alloy and contacting a surface thereof with a silane compound; there being substantial overlap in the species embraced with the description of the instant triazine silane and the silane compound of the co-pending application. Subsequently, both methods call for “applying” the organic material. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 2, 6, 8, and 11-14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claim s 10-14 are allowable over the prior art. As for claims 2 and 8, the cited art only applies where the ring substituent reacting with the glycidyl/isocyanate group is a thiol. Concerning claim 6 and 10-14, the examples relied upon had significantly higher concentrations of the silylated triazine compound in their solutions and were not contemplated for use in a manner similar to that outlined in claim 10 hence there would be nothing motivating a practitioner of the inventions defined by the prior art to prepare alternative solutions of similar dilution to that required by claim 6 . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT MARC S ZIMMER whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1096 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 8:30-5:00 . 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 Heidi Kelley can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-270-1831 . 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. March 26, 2026 /MARC S ZIMMER/ Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1765