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 .
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 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.
Claims 1-14 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, and species in which R1 is methyl or phenyl and c is zero (see interview summary, upon further consideration, R2 does not need to be specified as part of the species requirement), claims 1-10 in the reply filed on 05/15/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the inventions include overlapping subject matter that would not constitute burden and the examination of all species would not constitute burden (not persuasive because burden is not a factor in a 371 restriction).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim(s) 11-14 is/are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected subject matter, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 05/15/26.
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 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.
If 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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
When something is indicated as being “obvious” this should be taken as shorthand for “prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains before the effective filing date of the invention”.
When a range is indicated as overlapping a claimed range, unless otherwise noted, this should be taken as short hand to indicate that the claimed range is obvious in view of the overlapping range in the prior art as set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizutani (U.S. 5,780,530) in view of Fujimoto (WO 2020/036074, see U.S. 2021/0189070), in view of Okamoto (U.S. 2016/0122539) .
Regarding claims 1-10, Mizutani discloses a coating composition comprising an acrylic polyol as in claim 2, an organopolysiloxane overlapping ingredient C as in claims 4-8, (e.g., when the alkoxysilanes used to form the polysiloxane are tetrameth/ethoxysilane, methyl trimeth/ethoxysilane, and phenyl trimeth/ethoxysilane are used as the monomers, as in the elected species, yielding a value of “a” and “b” of greater than zero and less than 1, values of c and d being zero under the claimed formula with the amount of “e” repeating units being overlapped by the “less than 100% hydrolysis and condensation,” i.e., some amount of the alkoxy groups of the monomers, less than 100%, remain unreacted in the condensate) and a condensation catalyst as in claim 10, with the disclosed amount of polyol and condensate overlapping the claimed weight range (see abstract, col. 3, lines 25-30, col. 7, line 45-col. 8, line 20, col. 12, line 40-65).
Mizutani discloses organopolysiloxane overlapping the claimed ingredient C as explained above (sufficient to render the claimed ingredient prima facie obvious), but does not disclose the polysiloxane explicitly/exactly as claimed. However, Fujimoto is also directed to a coating composition that includes a polysiloxane with residual unreacted hydrolyzable groups, as in Mizutani, and discloses the polysiloxane in seemingly the same way as in the present claims, with benefits including crack suppression, scuff resistance, hardness, and weather resistance ([0015]-[0021]). Fujimoto also discloses that the MW of such ingredient should overlap the values in the present specification for benefits related to shelf stability and even coating application (see abstract, [0015], [0023]). Thus, it would have been obvious to have used the polysiloxane as in Fujimoto for the siloxane ingredient in Mizutani for the above described benefits from Fujimoto (i.e., crack suppression, scuff resistance, hardness, weather resistance, shelf stability and even coating application). Having used such a molecular weight for the siloxane in modified Mizutani, the resulting polysiloxane has an overlapping chemical structure, degree of hydrolysis and condensation, and MW compared to the siloxanes used in the present specification, and those overlapping embodiment in modified Mizutani will inherently have the same viscosity (within claim 9) as the overlapped embodiments in the present application.
Mizutani also suggests silane coupling agents (col. 11, line 20-25) but does not disclose the claimed isocyanurate compound. However, Okamoto is also directed to polyol based compositions with silane coupling agents and discloses that the isocyanurate compound as in claim 3 was a known silane coupling agent for improving adhesion in such compositions when used in amounts overlapping the claimed range (see abstract, [0169]-[0170]). Thus, it would have been obvious to have used such a coupling agent in Mizutani because Okamoto discloses that was known to promote adhesion for polyol compositions.
In addition to the above amounts overlapping the claimed ranges, the claimed amounts are also prima facie obvious even without such overlapping ranges. See MPEP 2144.05 II A. Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In reAller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 (“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.”); In reHoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969) (Claimed elastomeric polyurethanes which fell within the broad scope of the references were held to be unpatentable thereover because, among other reasons, there was no evidence of the criticality of the claimed ranges of molecular weight or molar proportions.). For more recent cases applying this principle, see Merck & Co. Inc.v.Biocraft Lab. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 809, 10 USPQ2d 1843, 1848 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989)(Claimed ratios were obvious as being reached by routine procedures and producing predictable results); In reKulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 1149, 14 USPQ2d 1056, 1058 (Fed. Cir. 1990)(Claimed amount of wash solution was found to be unpatentable as a matter of routine optimization in the pertinent art, further supported by the prior art disclosure of the need to avoid undue amounts of wash solution); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 1997)(Claims were unpatentable because appellants failed to submit evidence of criticality to demonstrate that that the wear resistance of the protective layer in the claimed thickness range of 50-100 Angstroms was “unexpectedly good”); Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree “will not sustain a patent”); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438, 4 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1929) (“It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.”). See also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007) (identifying “the need for caution in granting a patent based on the combination of elements found in the prior art.”).
Conclusion
References cited in any corresponding foreign applications have been considered but would be cumulative to the above. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL B NELSON whose direct telephone number is (571)272-9886 and whose direct fax number is (571)273-9886 and whose email address is Michael.Nelson@USPTO.GOV. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Sat, 7am - 7pm.
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, Callie Shosho can be reached on 571-272-1123. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300 (faxes sent to this number will take longer to reach the examiner than faxes sent to the direct fax number above).
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL B NELSON/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights