DETAILED ACTION
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 2-3, 5-6 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.
With regard to claim(s) 2-3, the term "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
With regard to claim(s) 3, “initial treatment” lack(s) antecedent basis.
With regard to claim(s) 5, “previous surface coating” lack(s) antecedent basis. Additionally, the applicant has defined three cases for use. It is unclear if “previous surface coating” applies under the condition of “first-time application”.
With regard to claim(s) 6, “abrasive blasting” lack(s) antecedent basis.
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 1-4, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lochtefeld (8,550,926) in view of Hofacker et al. (6,756,464) and Evans (12,110,373).
Lochtefeld (8,550,926) is replete with reference(s) to polyurethane coatings of a water slide, as it applies it across a plurality of layers; column 9, last paragraph, inter alia. Incidentally, none of those layers are precluded as applying to applicant’s claim language. Lochtefeld (8,550,926) is/are silent on explicit recitation of water-based two-component resin applied to the recited thickness range. It is the position of the examiner that the overwhelmingly common uses of polyurethane as a coating are water-based two-component systems comprising a resin and hardener. So common as to smack of invoking Official Notice. However, the examiner meets all limitation(s) with applied teachings for rigor.
Accordingly, the applicant is relying on the recited thickness range for patentability. As the applicant has failed to show criticality or unexpected results, the recited thickness range is/are taken as a matter of design choice.
Likewise, the examiner applies an appropriate teaching none-the-less.
Hofacker et al. (6,756,464) teach(es) a two-component resin system; abstract.
Evans (12,110,373) teach(es) water-based polyurethane applied as a coating to 50 micron. Please see the title; abstract & claim(s) 1; inter alia.
With regard to claim(s) 4, Hofacker et al. (6,756,464) disclose(s) resin comprising glass. Please see claim(s) 10; inter alia.
With regard to claim(s) 7, Hofacker et al. (6,756,464) disclose(s) a rheology modifier comprising a curing component, as well as hardener comprising polyisocyanate; abstract.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Lochtefeld (8,550,926) to provide water-based two-component polyurethane resin comprising a rheology modifier, and polyisocyanate hardener employing glass to a thickness of 50 micron in order to meet common standards as taught by Hofacker et al. (6,756,464) and Evans (12,110,373).
Claims 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lochtefeld (8,550,926) in view of Hofacker et al. (6,756,464) and Evans (12,110,373) as applied to claims 1-4, 7 above, and further in view of Hoehne et al. (10,851,263).
Lochtefeld (8,550,926) in view of Hofacker et al. (6,756,464) and Evans (12,110,373) is/are silent on initial coating removal technique.
Again, it is entirely common in industry to remove old coatings via the recited blasting or grinding. Additionally, Hoehne et al. (10,851,263) explicitly recites grinding; column 3, first full paragraph.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Lochtefeld (8,550,926) in view of Hofacker et al. (6,756,464) and Evans (12,110,373) to apply grinding in order to accommodate practical considerations as taught by Hoehne et al. (10,851,263).
Claims 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lochtefeld (8,550,926) in view of Hofacker et al. (6,756,464) and Evans (12,110,373) as applied to claims 1-4, 7 above, and further in view of Arima et al. (2023/0106407).
Lochtefeld (8,550,926) in view of Hofacker et al. (6,756,464) and Evans (12,110,373) is/are silent on a polyisocyanate hardener comprising HDI.
Arima et al. (2023/0106407) disclose(s) an HDI hardener; abstract.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Lochtefeld (8,550,926) in view of Hofacker et al. (6,756,464) and Evans (12,110,373) to apply an HDI hardener in order to increase effectiveness as taught by Arima et al. (2023/0106407).
Conclusion
The examiner invites the applicant to telephone upon review of this Office Action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wu et al (2025/0145853) disclose(s) two-component polyurethane resin applied as a coating to 15 micron.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH A DILLON JR whose telephone number is (571)272-6913. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday; 8AM-6:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mike McCullough can be reached on (571)272-7805. The fax phone numbers for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned are (703)305-7687 for regular communications and (703)308-0552 for After Final communications.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is (703)308-1134.
/JOSEPH A DILLON JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3653
Prosecution Insights