DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1 and 3-7 in the reply filed on 5/11/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the pending claims do not define multiple independent and distinct inventions. Rather, applicant argues all claims are directed to a single, unified inventive concept and are linked by the same core technical features: a chemically reactive coating system that penetrates surface defects in silica- containing materials and forms covalent bonds with the substrate, thereby healing defects and improving strength and fracture toughness. Applicant further argues all claims are unified by the following technical features: A hybrid inorganic-organic coating composition; A controlled hydrolytic system; Interaction with silica-containing substrates; Formation of covalent bonds with the substrate structure; Penetration into surface defects (micro-cracks;) and
Healing of defects and resulting strength increase. Said argument is noted but is not persuasive as counsel’s argument is not commensurate in scope with the pending claims. The claims do not require the “technical features” argued by applicant including a coating which penetrates surface defects in silica- containing materials and forms covalent bonds with the substrate, thereby healing defects
Applicant further argues, tor restriction to be proper, the alleged groups must be Independent and Distinct. Applicant argues neither requirement is met. With regards to independence, applicant argues the claimed coating composition is inherently defined by its preparation. The use of the coating inherently depends on its structure and chemistry. The claims are interdependent, not independent. With regards to the inventions being distinct, Applicant argues all claims rely on the same technical mechanism: chemical integration of the coating into the substrate via covalent bonding leading to defect healing. There is no materially different inventive concept across the groups. Said argument is noted but is not persuasive; restriction in a national stage application does not require the Office to establish that the inventions are independent and distinct.
Claims 2 and 8-26 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 5/11/2026.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed 5/9/2024; 10/2/2025; 5/12/2026 have been fully considered. Initialed copies of said IDSs are enclosed herein.
Drawings
The drawings (Figures 5a, 5b, 7, 8, 9 and 10) are objected to for failing to comply with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.84(b) (1). Specifically, tographs, including photocopies of photographs, are not ordinarily permitted in utility and design patent applications. The Office will accept photographs in utility and design patent applications, however, if photographs are the only practicable medium for illustrating the claimed invention. If the subject matter of the application admits of illustration by a drawing, the examiner may require a drawing in place of the photograph. Additionally, the photographs must be of sufficient quality so that all details in the photographs are reproducible in the printed patent
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2022/253803 (herein referred to as LeGrand)
LeGrand teaches a method for preparing coatings for improving glass strength and fracture
toughness of glass, the method comprises mixing:
a) a composition comprising 5-95 wt.% of one or more alkoxysilane(s) (page 17, lines 15+)of the
general formula RxSi(X)₄₋ₓ, wherein X is O-R3 (page 13, lines 1+). LeGrand teaches R is an organic
radical (page 10, line 10) , R¹ is independently selected from C₁-₁₈ alkyl, or isomers (page 13)
or polyvalences thereof, and X is an integer from 0 to 3 (page 10, line 15).Said composition does not contain metal or metalloid oxides and is therefore understood to read on the claimed “with up to 40 wt.% one or more metal or metalloid oxide(s) and/or one or more metal or metalloid alkoxide(s)” limitation. Furthermore, said composition comprises a first solvent (page 18, line 13) which may be an alcohol (page 18, lines 23+). The silane components may be partially hydrolyzed, said composition is understood to read on the claimed “up to 20 wt.% water” limitation since said composition and up to
95 wt.% of an alcohol. THE composition may further comprise a catalyst (page 18, line 15) and up to 1 wt.% of a catalyst, With regards to the claims amounts of components, LeGrand does not specifically teach the amount of each component that should be present in the composition. However, LeGrand teaches the catalyst should be present in amounts sufficient to catalyze the composition and drop the pH below 7, water should be present in sufficient amounts to partially hydrolyze the alkoxysilane, and the silane should be present as the majority component in the composition (see examples). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to optimize the amounts of components in the first composition disclosed in LeGrand in order to ensure catalyzation of the reaction, partial hydrolysis, and sufficient silane such that it comprises more than 50wt% of the composition.
b)a composition comprising 100 wt.% of one or more metal or metalloid alkoxide(s) (page 18, line 17). Said composition is understood to read on the claimed “ up to 80 wt.% of an
alcohol, up to 20 wt.% water and up to 1 wt.% of a catalyst” limitations since the reference is silent to said components being present in the second composition; and
c) a composition comprising a second solvent; said composition is understood to read on the claimed “: up to 50wt% one of more… up to 100 wt.% water and up to 100 wt.% of an alcohol” limitations since the third composition of LeGrand does not require said components.
With regards to claim 3, LeGrand teaches the catalyst is nitric acid (page 15, line 15).
With regards to claim 4, LeGrand teaches R may be selected from C₁-₁₈ alkyl, C₁-₁₈ heteroalkyl, C₁-₁₈ alkoxy, C2-18 alkene, phenyl, R²-(CH₂)ₙ⁻, and R²-O-(CH₂)ₙ, or isomers or polyvalences thereof (page 7, lines 4+); and R¹ may be selected from the group comprising a C₁-1₈ alkyl, or isomers or polyvalences thereof (page 13).
With regards to claim 5, LeGrand teaches the one or more alkoxysilane(s) is selected from ß-
glycidoxypropyltrimethoxysilane, y-glycidoxypropyltrimethoxysilane, methyltrimethoxysilane,
dimethyldimethoxysilane, and ethyltrimethoxysilane (page 12, lines 1+).
With regards to claim 6, LeGrand teaches the one or more metal or
metalloid alkoxide(s) are selected from oxides and/or alkoxides of boron, aluminum,
gallium, indium, thallium, silicon, germanium, tin, lead, titanium, zirconium, hafnium,
vanadium, niobium, tantalum, chromium, molybdenum, tungsten, copper, silver, gold,
palladium, platinum, zinc, cobalt, rhodium, iridium, selenium, tellurium, and
polonium (page 6, lines 7+).
With regards to claim 7, LeGrand teaches the one or more alkoxysilane is ß-glycidoxypropyltrimethoxysilane or γ-glycidoxypropyltrimethoxysilane (page 12) and the one or more metal or metalloid alkoxide is selected from boron alkoxides, titanium alkoxides and silicon alkoxides or mixtures thereof (page 6, lines 7+).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN R KRUER whose telephone number is (571)272-1510. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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 at (571) 272-1123. 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.
KEVIN R. KRUER
Examiner
Art Unit 1787
/KEVIN R KRUER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights