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
1. Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-8 and 11-18 in the reply filed on 7/3/26 is acknowledged. Claims 9-10 and 19-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. 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.
3. Claims 2, 3 and 8 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.
4. Claim 2 is indefinite because it is not clear what is meant by the recitation of “an effective component” of the organosilicon material. It is not clear what constitutes the “effective component”.
5. Claim 3 is indefinite because it is not clear how the fiber glass reinforced layer “adopts” several layers. Does the fiber glass reinforced layer comprise several layers?
6. Claim 8 is indefinite because it is not clear how the hydrophobic layer “adopts” a nanocomposite
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. Claim(s) 1, 6 and 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 102400546 A.
The published CN document teaches arranging several anti-corrosion layers over concrete or a pipeline (see abstract). The published CN document teaches anti-corrosive layer has good adhesion ability, wear resistance, acid resistance and heat resistance (paragraph 0002). The published CN reference teaches an inner (first) layer comprising epoxy resin and its modified resin, polyurethane and its modified resin, polyurethane resin, modified organic silicon resin (paragraph 0004). The published CN document further teaches a middle layer of fiber reinforced plastic (paragraph 0004). The published CN document teaches an outer hydrophobic layer made from polyfluoroexpoxy resin (paragraph 0007). See figure 2 of the published CN document. The Examiner is of the position that the CN reference renders claim 1 obvious.
Regarding the claimed thickness of the fiber reinforced plastic layer, the cited CN reference does not expressly teach this limitation. The Examiner is of the position that since the CN reference essentially teaches the same anti-corrosion multi-layer composite used in the claimed capacity a person of ordinary skill in the art would form the fiber reinforced plastic layer with an appropriate thickness based on desired use. It has been held that the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable that might be characterized as routine experimentation is not patentable. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Allowable Subject Matter
9. Claims 2-5, 7-8 and 15-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LYNDA SALVATORE whose telephone number is (571)272-1482. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
/LYNDA SALVATORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights