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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1, it is unclear what is meant by "alkali earth metal salt". This terminology is not conventional. Rather, conventional terminology could be "alkaline earth metal salt" if this is what is meant.
Furthermore, as pertains to Claims 1, 4, and 6, it is unclear, in view of Claim 4, what is being claimed if this means "alkaline earth metal salt" since some of the mentioned salts in Claim 4 (e.g., strontium aluminum phosphate) appear to include cations that are other than alkaline earth metals (e.g., Al, in this case). It is unclear what is the breadth of what is being claimed. Must the alkaline earth metal constitute a primary metal component of the claimed salt in that the alkaline earth metal cation constitutes an essential component of a crystalline lattice of the salt? Do the claimed salts that could include cations other than alkaline earth metals encompass mixed salts or double salts?
Regarding Claim 4, it is unclear whether these claimed salts in all cases are necessarily single, perfectly stoichiometric compounds, or not necessarily.
Regarding Claims 4 and 6, these claims refer to “alkaline earth metal salt” in reference to what is claimed in Claim 1. To the extent that “alkali earth metal salt” of Claim 1 could be something else and/or non-inclusive of all alkaline earth metal salt or those specifically of Claim 4, these claims would lack antecedent basis.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. To the extent that the claimed salts of Claim 4 could be other than "alkali metal salts", Claim 4 would not be properly further limiting. To the extent that the claimed salts of Claim 4 are not "alkaline earth metal salts" because they contain non-alkaline earth metal cation which may render the salt as other than alkaline earth metal salt, the claim would not be properly further limiting. Regarding Claim 6, to the extent that the claimed salts of Claim 6 could be other than "alkali metal salts", Claim 6 would not be properly further limiting. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claim 2, 3, 5, and 7-10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding Claims 1-10, the reviewed prior art does not teach or suggest the subject matter of these claims. Particularly, the reviewed prior art does not teach or suggest article having steel substrate, claimed metal layer, and organic layer formed of diol compound containing two aliphatic rings, organic resin, and alkaline earth metal salt, in the claimed context. For example, Li CN 104817896 A expressly teaches coating composition formed of hydrogenated bisphenol A, which is a diol compound having two aliphatic rings (structure of compound in Claim 2 where each R1 is methyl and each of m and n is zero), organic resin, and further ingredients including bentonite and infusorial earth. However, bentonite and infusorial earth are not salts and are not primarily containing alkaline earth metal, when they do contain alkaline earth metal; some formulations may contain alkaline earth metal and others do not. As well, Li does not expressly teach or suggest coating directly on a metal layer as claimed. See Li (entire document).
Liao USPA 2020/0208006 is cited. Liao teaches coating composition formed from diol having hydrogenated bisphenol group, but not a coating composition that contains compound of diol having hydrogenated bisphenol group. See Liao (entire document).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL E. LA VILLA whose telephone number is (571)272-1539. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. through Fri. from 9:00 a.m. ET to 5:30 p.m. ET.
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, Humera N. Sheikh, can be reached at (571) 272-0604. 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 E. LA VILLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
31 December 2025