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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I, claims 1, 3-4, 6-9, and 12 in the reply filed on 06 August 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 10, 13-14, 17, 21-22, 24-28, and 49 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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 1, 4, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Drzal et al. (US 20050119371 A1) (previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Drzal teaches an epoxy coating comprising a copolymer derived from an epoxide and an epoxide curing agent, wherein the epoxide comprises an epoxidized biomass oil wherein the epoxidized biomass oil comprises an oil extracted from a biomass, which is an extracted biomass oil, and wherein said extracted biomass oil has been epoxidized, wherein the biomass comprises food waste (see vegetable oil) (Drzal, Abstract, Par. 0010-0011, 0081 Claims 1 and 6).
Regarding claim 4, Drzal teaches the epoxide curing agent comprises a phthalic anhydride (Drzal, Par. 0010 and Claim 7).
Regarding claim 9, Drzal teaches the epoxy coating is bio-based (Drzal, Par. 0009).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drzal as applied to claim 1 under 35 USC § 102 above, further in view of Lin et al. (CN 111732519 A; herein English machine translation used for all citations).
Regarding claim 3, Drzal teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above for claim 1. Drzal is silent regarding the epoxide curing agent being derived from the extracted biomass oil, the epoxidized biomass oil, or a combination thereof.
Lin teaches an epoxide curing agent derived from extracted biomass oil wherein the biomass oil is a vegetable oil (Lin, Par. 0001, 0011, and 0014).
Drzal and Lin are analogous art as they both teach epoxide curing agents. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the curing agent derived from extracted vegetable oil of Lin as the epoxide curing agent of Drzal. This would allow for toughened biomass based epoxy resin (Lin, Par. 0001-0004). This would further result in the epoxide curing agent being derived from the extracted biomass oil as required by claim 3.
Claim 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drzal as applied to claim 1 under 35 USC § 102 above, further in view of McCall (US 20220235162 A1) and Chen et al. (US 20150051306 A1).
Regarding claims 6-8, Drzal teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above for claim 1. Drzal is silent regarding the biomass comprising coffee beans as required by claim 6, is silent regarding the coffee beans comprising green coffee beans, roasted coffee beans, spent coffee grounds, or a combination thereof as required by claim 7, and is silent regarding the biomass comprising spent coffee grounds as required by claim 8.
McCall teaches a copolymer comprising an epoxidized biomass oil wherein the biomass oil may comprise a vegetable oil or a coffee oil (McCall, Par. 0060, 0131, 0144).
Drzal and Mccall are analogous art as they both teach copolymers comprising an epoxidized biomass oil wherein the biomass oil may comprise a vegetable oil. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used coffee oil as the biomass oil of Drzal as it is an art recognized equivalent for the same purpose, see MPEP 2144.06 & 2144.07.
Modified Drzal is silent regarding the coffee being coffee beans as required by claim 6, is silent regarding the coffee beans comprising green coffee beans, roasted coffee beans, spent coffee grounds, or a combination thereof as required by claim 7, and is silent regarding the biomass comprising spent coffee grounds as required by claim 8.
Chen teaches an epoxidized coffee oil wherein the coffee is coffee grounds (Chen, Abstract).
Modified Drzal and Chen are analogous art as they both teach epoxidized coffee oil. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used coffee grounds as the coffee for the coffee oil of modified Drzal as it is an art known recognized equivalent for the same purpose, see MPEP 2144.06 & 2144.07. This would further allow for the use of cheap waste material (Chen, Par. 0004).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drzal as applied to claim 1 under 35 USC § 102 above, further in view of Fenn et al. (US 20100331454 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Drzal teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above for claim 1. Drzal is silent regarding the copolymer comprising an acrylic polymer, a siloxane polymer, or a combination thereof.
Fenn teaches an epoxide copolymer which further comprises an acrylic polymer and/or a polysiloxane polymer (Fenn, Abstract, Par. 0020-0021).
Drzal and Fenn are analogous art as they both teach epoxide copolymers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the acrylic and/or siloxane polymer of Fenn with the copolymer of Drzal. This would allow for the coating to be able to be formed into a film (Fenn, Par. 0020-0021).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS J KESSLER JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3075. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5:30 M-Th.
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, Aaron Austin can be reached at 571-272-8935. 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.
/THOMAS J KESSLER/Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights