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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-17 in the reply filed on April 28, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that examining the claims of Group I together with the claims of Group II, claims 18-20, would not impose a serious burden since there is overlap between the two groups. This is not found persuasive because the two groups would require further search burden on the examiner, since they are classified in separate areas and would require different text search.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 18-23 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on April 28, 2026.
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.
Claim 14 is 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.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "said functionalized thermoset polymer" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0335117 (Ochi et al.) as evidenced by ALLNEX, “Crylcoat 4890-0 Technical Data Sheet”, of record, and “Lumiflon 710 Data Sheet”.
Regarding claim 1, Ochi discloses a hybrid powder composition for forming a stratified (layered) monocoat layer (see paragraph 0011), said composition comprising:
A functionalized fluorinated polymer comprising hydroxy and/or carboxylic acid functional groups (see paragraph 0025, “Lumiflon 710 Data Sheet”); and
A non-fluorinated polymer (see paragraphs 0145 and 0147),
Wherein a weight ratio of the functionalized polymer is present from 10 to 50 parts by mass, and the non-fluorinated polymer is present 10 to 90 parts by mass (see paragraph 0010), which overlaps the claimed ratio of 60/40 to 30/70. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Ochi does not state the complex viscosities for the fluorinated polymer or the non-fluorinated polymer; however, the reference discloses that the fluorinated polymer may be Lumiflon 710 (see paragraph 0137) and the non-fluorinated polymer may be Crylcoat 4890-0 (see paragraph 0156). In the instant disclosure at paragraph 0092, it is stated that the functionalized fluorinated polymer is also Lumiflon 710. Since the same fluorinated polymer is used it would inherently have a viscosity within the claimed range. If the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (see MPEP 2112.01). For the non-fluorinated polymer, “Crylcoat 4890-0 Technical Data Sheet” teaches that it has a viscosity is from 4-6 Pa.s (4000-6000 mPa.s) at 200 degrees C, which is within the claimed range of 0.1 to 35 Pa.s at 200 degrees C.
Regarding claim 2, while Ochi does not state the difference between the complex viscosity of the functionalized fluorinated polymer and the complex viscosity of the non-fluorinated polymer, utilizing Lumiflon 710 and Crylcoat 4890-0 as explained above, would inherently result in a difference between the viscosities that is within the claimed range of at least 20 Pa.s at 200 degrees C.
Regarding claim 3, Ochi also discloses that the functionalized fluorinated polymer has a preferred OH value of 10 to 80 mg KOH/g (see paragraph 0114), which is within the claimed range of 10 to 100 mg KOH/g; and since it is disclosed that the non-fluorinated polymer may be Crylcoat 4890-0 (see paragraph 0156), “Crylcoat 4890-0 Technical Data Sheet” teaches that it has an OH value of 25-35 mg KOH/g, which is within the claimed range of 5 to 200 mg KOH/g.
Regarding claim 4, Ochi also discloses that the functionalized fluorinated polymer has a glass transition temperature of particularly preferably of 50 to 100 degrees C (see paragraph 0131), which overlaps the claimed range of 10 to 90 degrees C; and the non-fluorinated polymer being Crylcoat 4890-0, as discussed above, has a glass transition temperature of approximately 58 degrees C (see “Crylcoat 4890-0 Technical Data Sheet”), which is within the claimed range of 30 to 90 degrees C. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding claim 5, Ochi does not state the complex viscosities for the fluorinated polymer or the non-fluorinated polymer; however, the reference discloses that the fluorinated polymer may be Lumiflon 710 (see paragraph 0137) and the non-fluorinated polymer may be Crylcoat 4890-0 (see paragraph 0156). In the instant disclosure at paragraph 0092, it is stated that the Functionalized Fluorinated Polymer is also Lumiflon 710. Since it is the same fluorinated polymer it would have a viscosity within the claimed range. For the non-fluorinated polymer, “Crylcoat 4890-0 Technical Data Sheet” teaches that it has a viscosity is from 4-6 Pa.s (4000-6000 mPa.s) at 200 degrees C, which is within the claimed range of 0.3 to 20 Pa.s at 200 degrees C. Ochi also discloses that the functionalized fluorinated polymer has preferred OH value of 10 to 80 mg KOH/g (see paragraph 0114), which overlaps the claimed range of 30 to 80 mg KOH/g; and since it is disclosed that the non-fluorinated polymer may be Crylcoat 4890-0 (see paragraph 0156), “Crylcoat 4890-0 Technical Data Sheet” teaches that it has an OH value of 25-35 mg KOH/g, which is within the claimed range of 10 to 180 mg KOH/g. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding claim 6, Ochi also discloses that the functionalized fluorinate polymer is a tetrafluoroethylene or a fluoroethylene vinyl ether (see paragraphs 0069, 0074, 0089 and 0278).
Regarding claim 7, Ochi also discloses that the functionalized fluorinated polymer may comprise Lumiflon 710, which is a FEVE polymer comprising hydroxy functional groups (see Lumiflon Data Sheet, paragraph 0085).
Regarding claim 8, Ochi also discloses that the FEVE has an OH value of 46 mg KOH/g (see “Lumiflon 710 Data Sheet”), which is within the claimed range of 40 to 50 mg KOH/g. While Ochi does not state the complex viscosities for the fluorinated polymer, the reference discloses that the fluorinated polymer may be Lumiflon 710 (see paragraph 0137). In the instant disclosure at paragraph 0092, it is stated that the functionalized fluorinated polymer is also Lumiflon 710. Since the same fluorinated polymer is used it would inherently have a viscosity within the claimed range. If the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (see MPEP 2112.01).
Regarding claim 9, Ochi also discloses that the functionalized polymer comprises a FEVE polymer comprising carboxylic acid functional groups (see paragraphs 0116-0119).
Regarding claim 10, Ochi also discloses that the non-fluorinated polymer comprises a functionalized thermoset polymer comprising functional groups including hydroxy functional groups or carboxylic acid functional groups (see paragraph 0149).
Regarding claim 11, Ochi also discloses that the functionalized thermoset polymer is a polyester, acrylic or epoxy (see paragraph 0147).
Regarding claim 12, Ochi also discloses that the functionalized thermoset polymer is a polyester comprising hydroxy functional groups (see paragraph 0149).
Regarding claim 13, Ochi does not state the complex viscosity or the OH value for the polyester; however, the reference discloses that the polyester may be Crylcoat 4890-0 (see paragraph 0156). The “Crylcoat 4890-0 Technical Data Sheet” teaches that it has a viscosity is from 4-6 Pa.s (4000-6000 mPa.s) at 200 degrees C, which is within the claimed range of 0.5 to 10 Pa.s at 200 degrees C, and an OH value of 25-35 mg KOH/g, which is within the claimed range of 20 to 140 mg KOH/g.
Regarding claim 14, Ochi also discloses that the functionalized thermoset polymer is a polyester comprising hydroxy functional groups (see paragraph 0149).
Regarding claim 15, Ochi discloses that the weight ratio of the functionalized polymer is present from 10 to 50 parts by mass, and the non-fluorinated polymer is present 10 to 90 parts by mass (see paragraph 0010), which overlaps the claimed ratio of 60/40 to 40/60. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding claim 16, Ochi also discloses that the hybrid powder composition further comprises titanium dioxide (see paragraphs 0201-0202).
Regarding claim 17, Ochi also discloses that the hybrid powder composition further comprises a curing agent reactive with at least one of the functionalized fluorinated polymer and the non-fluorinated polymer, and the curing agent which may be a blocked isocyanate, triglycidyl isocyanate, or hydroxyalkyl amide (see paragraphs 0183-0186).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WENDY L BOSS whose telephone number is (571)272-7466. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-6:30.
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, Katelyn Smith can be reached at 571-270-5545. 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.
/WENDY L BOSS/Examiner, Art Unit 1749
/ALICIA J WEYDEMEYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights