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 Status
Applicants’ August 3, 2026 response to the April 1, 2026 Non Final Rejection is acknowledged. Claims 1, 4-10 and 12-15 are pending, claim 1 is independent. Any rejections and/or objections, made in the previous Office Action, and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. Specifically, “The present disclosure is directed to” and “Also disclosed” is language that can be implied.
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.
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 recites the limitation "the first coating" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 recites the limitation "the second coating layer" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 recites the limitation "the third coating layer" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 4-12 are allowed and claims 13-15 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter and an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the closest prior art to the instant claims is Mayo et al. (US 2021/0363358 A1), hereinafter Mayo (of record). Mayo teaches a metal substrate ([0141]), coating the substrate with a curable film-forming coating ([0007]); the curable film forming coating composition includes at least 30% by weight zinc particles based on total solids weight of the coating composition ([0018]), aluminum particles ([0020]), an alkaline earth metal compound ([0023]) and an organic film-forming binder ([0036]) that can include one or more of addition polymers, polyolefins or polysulfides ([0039]; i.e. a first and second organic film forming binders), the composition is cured on a substrate ([0139]; layer formed) and the coating composition may be applied as a primer (first) and second and third coating layers ([0144]). Mayo further teaches at least 20% by weight aluminum particles ([0020]), the coating composition may be applied as a primer (first) and second and third coating layers ([0144]) and at least 6 weight % to no more than 50 weight % alkaline earth metal compound ([0031]), which may consist of magnesium oxide ([0023]) and the coating composition may be applied as a primer (first) and second and third coating layers ([0144]).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, (MPEP 2144.05 I). The proportions disclosed by the prior art overlap applicants claimed proportions and therefore establish a prima facie case of obviousness, where one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to select from the proportions disclosed by the prior art, including those proportions, which satisfy the presently claimed requirements (MPEP 2144.05 I). As of the writing of this Office Action, no objective evidence of criticality to the claimed ranges has been presented.
Mayo does not teach or suggest, alone or in combination with the prior art, the mid-coat has a composition different from the base coat composition, a top coat composition different from the basecoat composition and the mid-coat composition; wherein the coated metal substrate has a scribe corrosion reduced by at least 15% as measured according to ASTM B117 compared to a coated metal substrate that does not comprise a mid-coat layer comprising aluminum particles and an alkaline earth metal compound.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ amendments and related Remarks with respect to claim rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of July 02, 2026 has been withdrawn. Specifically, that the first (base) and second (mid) coats are different compositions is
Applicant's arguments filed August 03, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive regarding the objections. Only one of the objections was addressed, implied language remains and is objected to above.
Examiner notes the amendment to claim 1, necessitated the further rejections made herein in the dependent claims.
For these reasons, and for those reasons as advanced in the rejections above, the present claims are not found to distinguish over the prior art and this action is made FINAL.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE CHRISTY whose telephone number is (303)297-4363. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 7am-4pm MT.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-0604. 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.
/KATHERINE A CHRISTY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights