DETAILED ACTION
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 § 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 10, 11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang (CN 112694772 A).
Re claim 10, Wang discloses an antioxidant coating composition comprising: an inorganic acid; and a colloidal suspension comprising a hydrophobic agent in an aqueous carrier, the hydrophobic agent comprising lanthanum phosphate. (Translation – Page 4, Par. 2-3)
Re claim 11, Wang discloses wherein the inorganic acid comprises phosphoric acid. (Translation – Page 4, Par. 3)
Re claim 14, Wang discloses at least one of boric acid or boric anhydride. (Translation – Page 4, Par. 3)
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.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN 112694772 A) in view of Poteet et al. (us 2021/0198159 A1).
Re claims 12, Wang does not teach wherein the antioxidant coating further comprises a surfactant. Poteet et al. teaches an antioxidant coating comprising a surfactant. ([0145]) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the surfactant as taught by Poteet et al. to improve consistency and dispersion.
Re claim 13, Wang does do not teach wherein the antioxidant coating further comprises at least one of mono-aluminum phosphate, manganese phosphate, zinc phosphate, or potassium phosphate. Poteet et al. teaches an antioxidant coating comprising at least one of mono-aluminum phosphate, manganese phosphate, zinc phosphate, or potassium phosphate. ([0014], [0144]) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include mono-aluminum phosphate provide sealing as taught by Poteet et al.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9 and 16-20 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Brown-Tseng et al. disclose an article comprising: a substrate comprising graphitic carbon or a carbon composite; and an antioxidant coating applied to at least a portion of the substrate.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MELANIE TORRES WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-7127. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 7:00AM-3:00PM.
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, Robert Siconolfi can be reached at 571-272-7124. 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.
/MELANIE TORRES WILLIAMS/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3616
MTWAugust 26, 2026
Prosecution Insights