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 .
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.
Claims 1-14, 17-18, 23, 25-26 and 34 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.
The term “substantially” in claims 1, 8, and 34 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For example, it is not clear if 0.1% aluminum metal is substantially free, or if instead 1% is substantially free.
All claims not specifically addressed are rejected due to their dependence on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 8, 11, 23, 26, and 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mazany et al. (US20140227511, hereinafter referred to as Mazany).
Regarding claim 1, Mazany discloses a composition for coating a refractory body, the composition comprising: an oxidizable component (see Mazany at the Abstract, disclosing a composition comprising one carrier fluid, precursors of a phosphate glass, and a plurality of filler nanoparticles having a mean aspect ratio of at least about 100. The composition can be applied to a composite substrate to form an oxidation protection coating including at least one phosphate glass barrier layer with a plurality of filler nanoparticles.); and a phosphate frit comprising phosphorous oxide (see Mazany at the Abstract, disclosing a phosphate glass), wherein the composition is substantially aluminum metal free (see Mazany at the Abstract, which does not disclose aluminum metal).
Regarding claim 8, Mazany discloses the phosphate frit is substantially free of silicon oxide (see Mazany at the Abstract, which does not disclose silicon oxide).
Regarding claim 11, Mazany discloses the composition comprises a glass frit, different from the phosphate frit (see Mazany at [0027], disclosing an oxidation protection coating including at least one glass barrier layer, and an optional undercoating disposed below the glass barrier layer. The glass barrier layer(s).).
Regarding claim 23, Mazany discloses the oxidizable component comprises a metal or metalloid (see Mazany at [0021], disclosing boron nitride (BN) nanoparticles. Examiner notes boron is a metalloid.).
Regarding claim 26, Mazany discloses the oxidizable component comprises a carbide (see Mazany at [0018], disclosing metal carbides).
Regarding claim 34, Mazany discloses a refractory body coating (see Mazany at [0047], disclosing a refractory) comprising: an oxidizable component (see Mazany at the Abstract, disclosing an oxidization protection coating); and a phosphate frit comprising phosphorus oxide (see Mazany at the Abstract, disclosing a phosphate glass), wherein the coating is substantially aluminum metal free (see Mazany at the Abstract, which does not disclose aluminum metal).
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.
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(s) 2-7, and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mazany.
Regarding claim 2, Mazany makes obvious the composition comprises up to 90 wt.% of the phosphate frit (see Mazany at [0045], disclosing the weight ratio of high aspect ratio filler nanoparticles to phosphate glass particulate solids is in a range from about 10:1 to about 500:1, which overlaps with the claimed range.) In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05)..
Regarding claim 3, Mazany makes obvious the composition comprises 2 to 90 wt.% of the phosphate frit (see Mazany at [0045], disclosing the weight ratio of high aspect ratio filler nanoparticles to phosphate glass particulate solids is in a range from about 10:1 to about 500:1, which overlaps with the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 4, Mazany makes obvious the composition comprises 2 to 9 wt.% of the phosphate frit (see Mazany at [0045], disclosing the weight ratio of high aspect ratio filler nanoparticles to phosphate glass particulate solids is in a range from about 10:1 to about 500:1, which overlaps with the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 5, Mazany makes obvious the composition comprises 60 to 90 wt.% of the phosphate frit (see Mazany at [0045], disclosing the weight ratio of high aspect ratio filler nanoparticles to phosphate glass particulate solids is in a range from about 10:1 to about 500:1, which overlaps with the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 6, Mazany makes obvious the phosphate frit comprises 30 to 70 wt.% of phosphorous oxide (see Mazany at [0035], disclosing the phosphate glass precursor composition comprises from about 20 mol % to about 80 mol % of P2O5, which overlaps with the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 7, Mazany makes obvious the phosphate frit comprises up to 50 wt.% aluminum oxide (see Mazany at [0033], disclosing suitable glass network modifiers include oxides of ... aluminum, which overlaps with the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 9, Mazany makes obvious the phosphate frit comprises 5 to 35 wt.% sodium oxide (see Mazany at [0032], disclosing suitable glass network modifiers include oxides of ... sodium, which overlaps with the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 10, Mazany makes obvious the phosphate frit comprises 0 - 5 wt.% of boron oxide (see Mazany at [0032], disclosing suitable glass network modifiers include oxides of ... boron, which overlaps with the claimed range.).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US4212924.
Examiner notes that claims 12-14, 17-18, and 25 are not rejected over prior art. The closest prior art is Mazany as detailed in the rejections above. Per claim 12, Mazany fails to disclose or make obvious the composition comprises 5 to 70 wt.% of the glass frit. Per claim 13, Mazany fails to disclose or make obvious the glass frit comprises a silicate frit. Per claim 14, Mazany fails to disclose or make obvious the silicate glass frit comprises a borosilicate frit. Per claim 17, Mazany fails to disclose or make obvious the glass frit comprises the borosilicate frit and a different, cobalt-containing, borosilicate frit. Per claim 18, Mazany fails to disclose or make obvious the composition comprises 30 to 50 wt.% of the borosilicate frit and 10 to 20 wt. % of the different, cobalt-containing, borosilicate frit. Per claim 25, Mazany fails to disclose or make obvious the metal or metalloid comprises silicon metalloid.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAMERON K MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-4616. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am - 5:00pm EST.
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, Amber Orlando can be reached at (571) 270-3149. 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.
CAMERON K MILLER
Examiner
Art Unit 1731
/CAMERON K MILLER/Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights