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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-3, 5-11, 13, 15-17, 19-21 in the reply filed on 6/9/2026 is acknowledged.
Examiner’s Comment
Claim 3 recites “the antimicrobial agent” in lines 1 and 2. It appears that the claim should recite “the antimicrobial composition” in line 1.
Claim 5 recites “according to claim 4” in line 1. Claim 4 has been cancelled. It appears that the claim 5 should depend from claim 1. Claim 5 also recites “based on the total weight” in line 2. It appears that the claim should recite “based on a total weight”.
Claim 7 recites “according to claim 1 to 6”. It appears that the claim should recite “according to claim 1”. Claim 7 also recites “based on the total” in line 2. It appears that the claim should recite “based on a total”.
Claim 8 recites “according to claim 1 to 7”. It appears that the claim should recite “according to claim 1”.
Claim 10 recites “according to claim 1 to 9”. It appears that the claim should recite “according to claim 1”.
Claim 11 recites “according to claim 1 to 10”. It appears that the claim should recite “according to claim 1”.
Claim 13 recites “according to claim 1 to 12”. It appears that the claim should recite “according to claim 1”. Claim 13 also recites “the reaction product” in line 2. It appears that the claim should recite “a reaction product”.
Claim 17 recites “the antimicrobial agent” in line 2. It appears that the claim should recite “the antimicrobial composition” in line 2.
Claim 20 recites “the total weight” in line 3. It appears that the claim should recite “a total weight”.
Claim 21 recites “the reaction product” in line 2. It appears that the claim should recite “a reaction product”.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-11, 15-17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US Patent Application No. 2022/0177711) in view of Liu et al. (CN 115353792, see machine translated version).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Wang et al. teach a building panel (page 1, paragraph [0003]) comprising a fibrous substrate (page 2, paragraphs [0025], [0026]) and a coating applied to the substrate (page 1, paragraph [0003]), the coating comprising a blend of an antimicrobial composition (page 1, paragraph [0003]); a binder (page 1, paragraph [0003]); and a pigment (page 1, paragraph [0003]).
Wang et al. fail to teach wherein the antimicrobial composition comprises boro-phosphate ester zinc compound. However, Liu et al. teach an antibacterial coating (paragraph [0001]) comprising boro-phosphate ester zinc compound (paragraphs [0005], [0006], [0012]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the boro-phosphate ester zinc compound of Liu et al. in the coating of Wang et al. in order to provide an antibacterial, weather resistant, multi-functional integrated intumescent transparent fire retardant coating (Liu et al., paragraph [0005]).
Regarding claim 3, Wang et al. fail to teach wherein the antimicrobial agent is substantially free of a blend of phosphate ester, borate ester, and metal oxide as physically blended components. However, Liu et al. teach an antibacterial coating (paragraph [0001]) comprising boro-phosphate ester zinc compound (paragraphs [0005], [0006], [0012]), wherein the coating is substantially free of a blend of phosphate ester, borate ester, and metal oxide as physically blended components (entire document).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the boro-phosphate ester zinc compound of Liu et al. in the coating of Wang et al. in order to provide an antibacterial, weather resistant, multi-functional integrated intumescent transparent fire retardant coating (Liu et al., paragraph [0005]).
Regarding claim 5, Wang et al. teach wherein the antimicrobial composition is present in an amount ranging from about 0.5 wt% to about 20.0 wt% which reads on Applicant’s claimed range of about 7 wt% to about 13 wt% based on the total weight of the coating (page 3, paragraph [0048], page 4, paragraph [0055]).
Regarding claim 6, Wang et al. teach the coating is present on the substrate in an amount ranging from about 26 g/m2 to about 450 g/m2 which reads on Applicant’s claimed range of about 50 g/m2 to about 500 g/m2 (page 3, paragraph [0044], page 6, paragraph [0095]).
Regarding claim 7, Wang et al. teach wherein pigment is present in an amount ranging from about 70 wt% to about 95 wt% which reads on Applicant’s claimed range of about 40 wt% to about 80 wt% based on the total weight of the coating (page 4, paragraph [0058]).
Regarding claim 8, Wang et al. teach wherein the fibrous substrate (page 2, paragraph [0026]) is a porous substrate (page 2, paragraph [0026]) and the building panel is an acoustical ceiling panel (page 2, paragraph [0019]).
Regarding claim 9, Wang et al. teach wherein the fibrous substrate (page 2, paragraph [0026]) comprises inorganic fiber (page 2, paragraph [0028]).
Regarding claim 10, Wang et al. teach wherein the antimicrobial composition if free of biocides other than zinc borate (page 4, paragraph [0054]).
Regarding claim 11, Wang et al. teach wherein the antimicrobial composition is free of triazole compounds (page 4, paragraph [0054]).
Regarding claims 15 and 16, Wang et al. teach a coating composition (page 1, paragraph [0003]) comprising a liquid carrier (page 6, paragraph [0089]); an antimicrobial composition (page 1, paragraph [0003]); a binder (page 1, paragraph [0003]); and a pigment (page 1, paragraph [0003]).
Wang et al. fail to teach wherein the antimicrobial composition comprises boro-phosphate ester zinc compound. However, Liu et al. teach a coating composition comprising boro-phosphate ester zinc compound (paragraphs [0001], [0005], [0006], [0012]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the boro-phosphate ester zinc compound of Liu et al. in the coating composition of Wang et al. in order to provide an antibacterial, weather resistant, multi-functional integrated intumescent transparent fire retardant coating (Liu et al., paragraph [0005]).
Regarding claim 17, Wang et al. fail to teach wherein the antimicrobial agent is substantially free of a blend of phosphate ester, borate ester, and metal oxide as physically blended components. However, Liu et al. teach an antibacterial coating (paragraph [0001]) comprising boro-phosphate ester zinc compound (paragraphs [0005], [0006], [0012]), wherein the coating is substantially free of a blend of phosphate ester, borate ester, and metal oxide as physically blended components (entire document).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the boro-phosphate ester zinc compound of Liu et al. in the coating composition of Wang et al. in order to provide an antibacterial, weather resistant, multi-functional integrated intumescent transparent fire retardant coating (Liu et al., paragraph [0005]).
Regarding claim 19, Wang et al. teach wherein the antimicrobial composition is present in an amount ranging from about 0.5 wt% to about 20.0 wt% which reads on Applicant’s claimed range of about 0.5 wt% to about 15 wt% based on the total weight of the coating composition (page 3, paragraph [0048], page 4, paragraph [0055]).
Regarding claim 20, Wang et al. do not disclose wherein pigment is present in an amount ranging from about 25 wt% to about 55 wt% based on the total weight of the coating composition. However, where in the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges in amount involve only routine skill in the art, absence a showing of criticality. MPEP 2144.05 II. One would have been motivated to modify the amount of pigment in the coating composition of Wang et al. in order to modify the color of the coating composition (Wang et al., page 4, paragraphs [0058], [0059]).
Claims 13 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US Patent Application No. 2022/0177711) in view of Liu et al. (CN 115353792, see machine translated version), in further view of Alderson (US Patent Application No. 2022/0400671).
Wang et al. and Liu et al. are relied upon as disclosed above.
Regarding claim 13, Wang et al. fail to teach wherein the boro-phosphate zinc compound is the reaction product of zinc oxide, boric acid salt, phosphoric acid and alkoxylate. However, Liu et al. teach an antibacterial coating (paragraph [0001]) comprising boro-phosphate ester zinc compound (paragraphs [0005], [0006], [0012]), wherein the boro-phosphate zinc compound is the reaction product of zinc oxide (page 4, paragraph [0052]) and boric acid salt (page 4, paragraph [0052]). Alderson teaches an antimicrobial composition (page 1, paragraph [0007]) comprising alkoxylated alkyl phosphoric acid esters (page 1, paragraph [0014]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the boro-phosphate ester zinc compound of Liu et al. in the coating of Wang et al. in order to provide an antibacterial, weather resistant, multi-functional integrated intumescent transparent fire retardant coating (Liu et al., paragraph [0005]); and use the alkoxylated alkyl phosphoric acid ester of Alderson et al. in the compound of Wang et al. in order to provide an composition effective against bacterial spores and environmentally friendly (Alderson et al., page 1, paragraph [0006]).
Regarding claim 21, Wang et al. fail to teach wherein the boro-phosphate zinc compound is the reaction product of zinc oxide, boric acid salt, phosphoric acid and alkoxylate. However, Liu et al. teach an antibacterial coating (paragraph [0001]) comprising boro-phosphate ester zinc compound (paragraphs [0005], [0006], [0012]), wherein the boro-phosphate zinc compound is the reaction product of zinc oxide (page 4, paragraph [0052]) and boric acid salt (page 4, paragraph [0052]). Alderson teaches an antimicrobial composition (page 1, paragraph [0007]) comprising alkoxylated alkyl phosphoric acid esters (page 1, paragraph [0014]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the boro-phosphate ester zinc compound of Liu et al. in the coating of Wang et al. in order to provide an antibacterial, weather resistant, multi-functional integrated intumescent transparent fire retardant coating (Liu et al., paragraph [0005]); and use the alkoxylated alkyl phosphoric acid ester of Alderson et al. in the compound of Wang et al. in order to provide an composition effective against bacterial spores and environmentally friendly (Alderson et al., page 1, paragraph [0006]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHINESSA GOLDEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5543. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday; 8:00 - 4:00 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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached on 571-272-1490. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/Chinessa T. Golden/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788 7/22/2026
Prosecution Insights