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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-18 in the reply filed on 7/17/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 19-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7/17/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claims 1-4, 7-14, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quenard, WO 2022018088 A1 in view of Seals, US 2020/0370183 A1 and Lupescu, “Electron spectroscopy studies of the steel/enamel interface”, 1997 and alternatively in view of Gunthner, “Conversion behavior and resulting mechanical properties of polysilazane-based coatings”, 2012 and, for claim 8, as evidenced by Shackelford, “CRC Materials Science and Engineering Handbook”, 2015.
The following citations for Quenard, WO 2022018088 A1 are in reference to the machine translation provided by Espacenet.
Regarding claims 1, 2, and 14, Quenard teaches a method for preparing a corrosive-resistant product (preparing a coating that overcomes the drawbacks of previous solutions for corrosion-prevention, 0011 and 0013, suggesting the coating will be for corrosion-prevention), comprising:
coating a metal substrate with a pre-ceramic polymer composition comprising at least one silicone resin, at least one glass frit dispersed in the silicone resin, and optionally at least one solvent, wherein the metal substrate is at least partially coated (preparing a coating from (a) a silicon-based preceramic polymer precursor such as a polysiloxane precursor, (b) a glass frit composition containing zinc oxide, and (c) boron nitride, with solvent, 0013 and 0041, and coating a metal substrate such as steel with the coating by brushing, pouring, dipping, spraying, etc., 0016 and 0043, and where after coating, the pre-polymer precursor is converted into a pre-ceramic polymer, 0044, such that it will provide coating the metal substrate with the pre-ceramic polymer composition including at least one silicone resin having a dispersed glass frit); and
subjecting the coated metal substrate to thermal treatment to induce crosslinking and pyrolysis of the at least one silicone resin to prepare a polymer-derived ceramic (after coating, heat treating the substrate at a temperature enabling the conversion of the pre-ceramic pre-polymer precursor into a preceramic polymer and the conversion of the resulting pre-ceramic polymer into a ceramic, 0044, where the heat treatment consists in enabling the polymerization of the precursor of pre-ceramic polymer, for example at 200°C under air or under a neutral atmosphere and then in a pyrolysis carried out at temperature between 650 and 750°C, 0050, where the pre-ceramic precursor includes polysiloxanes, polysilazanes, etc. as required by claims 3 and 4, 0022-0023, such that the silicone resin is expected to also undergo crosslinking and pyrolysis to form the polymer-derived ceramic since the material meets the claimed requirements).
They do not teach that the metal oxides from the substrate diffuse into the coating.
Seals teaches a protective surface treatment in the form of a coating for steel or another metal or metal alloy capable of providing oxidation resistance in an inert furnace or air-containing furnace (abstract). They teach that steel surfaces typically are composed of molecular levels of iron oxide, iron oxyhydroxide, and/or iron rust, [Fe2O3∙nH2O and FeO(OH)], which react with the boric acid to form iron borate (0070 and Fig. 1A-B). They teach degreasing the surface and removing oxides, but that the presence of a slightly oxidized or uniform oxidized-covered surface can aid in the formation of a protective surface (0176). They teach that an example of oxidized or slightly oxidized iron-containing surface contains rust, hydrated iron (III) oxides and iron (III) oxide-hydroxide, shown as Fe2O3∙nH2O and FeO(OH) (0176).
Lupescu teaches that the presence of oxides on the surface of metal such as steel improve the adhesion of a glass coating containing Si-O bonds (abstract, pg. 73-74, section I, and pg. 78, section 4). They teach that for good adherence, the presence of fayalite, which forms the Fe-O-Si chemical bond is desired (pg. 74, section 1 and pg. 78, Section 4).
From the teachings of Seals and Lupescu, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the steel surface so that it has oxide species such as Fe2O3∙nH2O and FeO(OH) because Seals teaches that such oxides are known to be present at the surface of steel, where they can aid in forming a protective coating and Lupescu teaches that oxides on a steel surface improve adhesion of an Si-O-based coating such that it will be expected to also improve the adhesion of the pre-ceramic silicon polymer coating on the steel surface. Therefore, the substrate will be a steel surface having iron oxides or oxyhydroxides as required by claim 2, where the heat treatment is performed at a temperature of between 650 and 750°C so as to be within the range of claim 14, such that the process is also expected to result in diffusing metal oxides from the metal substrate into a coating matrix and forming a metal-oxide-impregnated polymer-derived ceramic for a corrosion-resistant product. According to MPEP 2112.01 I, “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)”.
Alternatively, they do not specifically teach that the precursor crosslinks.
Gunthner teaches that coating systems of PHPS with glass particles as filler materials provide excellent corrosion and oxidation resistance to underlying metals (abstract). They teach that coatings based on PDCs can be divided into three steps: (i) synthesis of polymer precursors, (ii) shaping followed by crosslinking of the precursors to an infusible network and (iii) conversion into an amorphous or crystalline ceramic by pyrolysis (pg. 1883, section 1).
From the teachings of Gunthner, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the preceramic polymer will crosslink in the pyrolysis process because Gunthner teaches that PDCs undergo crosslinking to form an infusible network.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Quenard in view of Seals and Lupescu and alternatively in view of Gunthner suggest the method of claim 1. Quenard further teaches that the at least one silicone resin comprises polysiloxane, polycarbosilane, polysilazane, polyborosilane, or polyborosiloxane (0022).
Regarding claims 7, 10, 11, and 13, Quenard in view of Seals and Lupescu and alternatively in view of Gunthner suggest the method of claim 1. Quenard further provides an example of mixing 23 wt.% of a preceramic polymer precursor, 43 wt.% solvent, 28 wt.% glass frit, and 6 wt.% boron nitride (0084). Therefore, the amount of glass frit is within the ranges of claims 10 and 11, where the solids include the boron nitride, the glass frit, and the polymer precursor. According to MPEP 2131.03, “[W]hen, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is ‘anticipated’ if one of them is in the prior art.”
While the range of solvent and silicone resin is not within the claimed ranges, they teach that the coating, not including solvent, includes 20-60 wt. % preceramic polymer precursor, 30-70 wt.% of the glass frit composition, and 5-40 wt.% boron nitride (0040). They also teach that the solvent is included for dispersing the material in a solution or suspension to provide a homogeneous mixture (0041-0042). From this, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimize the concentration of the coating components to be within the claimed range because Quenard teaches that the solvent is used to provide a homogeneous mixture, where the base coating without solvent includes ranges overlapping the claimed ranges such that the concentration of the solvent and the relative components is expected to be optimizable by routine experimentation with the desired of forming the homogeneous mixture. According to MPEP 2144.05 II A, “Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Alternatively, Quenard further teaches the composition comprises 20-60 wt. % preceramic polymer precursor, 30-70 wt.% of the glass frit composition, and 5-40 wt.% boron nitride (0040). They teach applying a coating suspension and then drying the coating followed by polymerization and pyrolysis (0084). Therefore, after drying (removing the solvent), the coating composition will include the at least one silicone resin, the at least one glass frit, and the solvent in an amount overlapping or within the claimed range. According to MPEP 2144.05, “in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” According to MPEP 2131.03, “[W]hen, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is ‘anticipated’ if one of them is in the prior art.”
Regarding claim 8, Quenard in view of Seals and Lupescu and alternatively in view of Gunthner suggest the method of claim 1. Quenard further teaches that the at least one glass frit comprises an alkali oxide such as B203, Na2O, or K20 (0027), where B2O3 has a melting temperature below 450°C as evidenced by Shackelford (pg. 1). Therefore, the melting temperature of at least one glass frit has a melting point within the claimed range. According to MPEP 2131.03, “[W]hen, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is ‘anticipated’ if one of them is in the prior art.”
Regarding claim 9, Quenard in view of Seals and Lupescu and alternatively in view of Gunthner suggest the method of claim 1. Quenard further teaches that the at least one glass frit comprises ZnO (0025) and an alkali oxide such as B203, Na2O, or K20 (0027), and it may further comprise Al203, SiO2, Na2O, K2O, and/or zirconium oxide (0031).
Regarding claim 12, Quenard in view of Seals and Lupescu and alternatively in view of Gunthner suggest the method of claim 1. Quenard further teaches that the solvent is Diestone® or methyl ethyl ketone (0042).
Regarding claim 17, Quenard in view of Seals and Lupescu and alternatively in view of Gunthner suggest the method of claim 1. Quenard further teaches that after pyrolysis the preceramic polymers will lead to silicon oxycarbide (0022). They teach during heat treatment the material is converted to an amorphous ceramic (0019), so as to provide a SiOC glassy ceramic.
Regarding claim 18, Quenard in view of Seals and Lupescu and alternatively in view of Gunthner suggest the method of claim 1, where it is suggested that the oxides on the steel surface include Fe2O3∙nH2O and FeO(OH) as required by claim 2. Therefore, since they provide the process of claims 1 and 2, where the oxides on the surface that are diffused into the coating include iron oxides and iron oxyhydroxides, the metal-oxide-impregnated into the PDC is considered to include at least one of the listed oxides. According to MPEP 2112.01 I, “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)”.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quenard in view of Seals and Lupescu and alternatively in view of Gunthner as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Holman, US 2022/0267216 A1.
Regarding claim 5, Quenard in view of Seals and Lupescu and alternatively in view of Gunthner suggest the process of claim 1. Quenard further teaches that the at least one silicone resin comprises polysiloxane, polycarbosilane, polysilazane, polyborosilane, or polyborosiloxane (0022). They teach that after pyrolysis the preceramic polymers will lead to silicon oxycarbide (0022). They teach during heat treatment the material is converted to an amorphous ceramic (0019), so as to provide a SiOC glassy ceramic.
They do not teach using poly(methylphenylsiloxane).
Holman teaches methods for synthesis of polymer derived ceramic materials including silicon oxycarbide (abstract). They teach that the one or more preceramic polymers comprise methylphenylsiloxane (0013). They teach that the preceramic polymer comprises one or more polymeric compounds which through pyrolysis under appropriate conditions are converted to ceramic compounds having high thermal and chemical stability (0021). They teach that ceramic resulting from the pyrolysis of preceramic polymers are generally known as PDCs which comprise materials including SiOC (0021). They teach that they are amorphous and may comprise polysiloxanes which transform to SiOC type ceramics (0021). They teach that the preceramic polymers comprise methylphenylsiloxane which may be crosslinked (0021).
From the teachings of Holman, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used methylphenylsiloxane as the preceramic polymer material because Holman teaches that such a material is suitable for forming an amorphous ceramic comprising SiOC through pyrolysis as desired by Quenard.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quenard in view of Seals and Lupescu and alternatively in view of Gunthner as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Berger, US 2024/0140876 A1.
Regarding claim 6, Quenard in view of Seals and Lupescu and alternatively in view of Gunthner suggest the process of claim 1. Quenard further teaches that the at least one silicone resin comprises polysiloxane, polycarbosilane, polysilazane, polyborosilane, or polyborosiloxane (0022).
They do not teach the viscosity of the resin.
Berger teaches a polymer-derived composition and method for providing a ceramic-based precursor coating on a metal surface (abstract). They teach that the composition comprises one or more preceramic polymers admixed with one or more metal particulates (abstract). They teach that the composition is integrally disposed on and within the metal surface of a metal part through pressure-assisted pyrolysis of a metal particulate-filled preceramic polymer to provide a corrosion-resistant and oxidation-resistant metal surface (abstract). They teach that the precursor coating composition is applied and dried onto the metal surface and the coated steel material is then hot stamped under a time and pressure sufficient to pyrolyze the precursor coating composition to form a protective coating on the steel surface (abstract). They teach that pre-ceramic resins useful for making the compositions have a viscosity of at least about 400 cps or even greater than about 450 cps at about 25°C (0118). They teach that the preceramic polymers comprise one or more of polysiloxanes, polycarbosiloxanes, borosilanes, etc. (0015).
From the teachings of Berger, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected a preceramic polymer to have a viscosity in the range of 450 cps or greater at 25°C because Berger teaches that such a viscosity is suitable for a preceramic polymer used in a coating for protecting a steel surface from corrosion such that it will be expected to provide a suitable viscosity range. Therefore, the viscosity of the resin overlaps the claimed range. According to MPEP 2144.05, “in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quenard in view of Seals and Lupescu and alternatively in view of Gunthner as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dukes, US 2017/0368668 A1.
Regarding claim 15, Quenard in view of Seals and Lupescu and alternatively in view of Gunthner suggest the process of claim 1. Quenard teaches pyrolyzing in an inert atmosphere (0044).
They do not teach performing the heat treatment in air.
Dukes teaches silicon based high temperature coatings having silicon, oxygen, and carbon containing polymer derived ceramic liquids that form filled and unfilled coatings (abstract). They teach that pyrolysis may take place in reducing atmospheres, oxidative atmospheres, low oxygen, gas rich, inert, nitrogen, argon, air, and combinations thereof (0258). They teach pyrolyzing at 600°C to about 2300°C (0257). They teach that the substrates include steel (0048).
From the teachings of Duke, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have performed the heat treatment in air because Dukes teaches that such an atmosphere is suitable for PDCs as an alternative to inert atmospheres using steel substrates at temperature overlapping the range of Quenard such that it will be expected to provide a suitable atmosphere for the pyrolysis.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quenard in view of Seals and Lupescu and alternatively in view of Gunthner as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hopkins, US 2015/0175750 A1.
Regarding claim 16, Quenard in view of Seals and Lupescu and alternatively in view of Gunthner suggest the process of claim 1. Quenard teaches forming silicon oxycarbide material after pyrolysis (0022).
They do not teach the amount of free carbon.
Hopkins teaches a polysilocarb formulation that is cured and pyrolyzed (abstract). They teach that the pyrolyzed polysilocarb ceramic materials contain about 30 wt. % to about 60 wt.% silicon, from about 5 wt.% to about 40 wt.% oxygen, and from about 3 wt.% to about 25 wt.% carbon, wherein 20-80 wt.% of the carbon is silicon-bound-carbon and 80 wt.% to about 20 wt.% is free carbon (abstract). They teach that the formulation is formed from precursors including silanes and polysiloxanes (0008). They teach that the polysilocarb derived ceramic composite can provide corrosion resistance (0277).
From the teachings of Hopkins, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the SiOC material to have about 20-80wt. % free carbon and 20-80wt.% carbon bound to silicon because Hopkins teaches that such a material is suitable for corrosion resistance when formed by a polymer derived ceramic such as silanes and polysiloxanes such that it will be expected to provide a suitable amount of free carbon and silicon-bound-carbon in the SiOC material. Therefore, the x range and y range will be within the claimed ranges so as to provide the percentage of free carbon and silicon bound carbon. According to MPEP 2131.03, “[W]hen, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is ‘anticipated’ if one of them is in the prior art.”
Further, since Quenard in view of Seals, Lupescu, Hopkins, and alternatively in view of Gunthner suggest the claimed process using materials and conditions meeting the claimed ranges, where the material is a SiOC ceramic, the material is also expected to meet the limitations of claim 16. According to MPEP 2112.01 I, “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)”.
Claims 1, 3, 9, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schutz, “Characterisation of novel precursor-derived ceramic coatings with glass filler particles on steel substrates”, 2012 in view of Gunthner, “Conversion behavior and resulting mechanical properties of polysilazane-based coatings”, 2012.
Regarding claims 1, 3, 14, and 15, Schutz teaches a method for preparing a corrosive-resistant product (providing a ceramic coating that protects steel from corrosion, abstract), comprising:
coating a metal substrate with a pre-ceramic polymer composition comprising at least one silicone resin, at least one glass frit dispersed in the silicone resin, and optionally at least one solvent, wherein the metal substrate is at least partially coated (coating steel surfaces with a coating prepared from a pre-ceramic polymer as a precursor such as polysilazane PHPS and borosilicate filler particles that are dispersed into the suspension, pg. 320, section 2); and
subjecting the coated metal substrate to thermal treatment to induce pyrolysis of the at least one silicone resin to prepare a polymer-derived ceramic (heat treating in air at 700°C for 1 hour which forms a ceramic layer such that it is understood to undergo pyrolysis, pg. 320, section 2).
They do not teach that the PHPS crosslinks during the process.
Gunthner teaches that coating systems of PHPS with glass particles as filler materials provide excellent corrosion and oxidation resistance to underlying metals (abstract). They teach that coatings based on PDCs can be divided into three steps: (i) synthesis of polymer precursors, (ii) shaping followed by crosslinking of the precursors to an infusible network and (iii) conversion into an amorphous or crystalline ceramic by pyrolysis (pg. 1883, section 1). They teach that in the PHPS system has a higher hardness than ABSE in the temperature region up to 700°C due to its inorganic nature resulting in a rapid crosslinking and less mass change during pyrolysis (pg. 1889, section 3.3).
From the teachings of Gunthner, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the PHPS PDC of Schutz will crosslinking during heating because Gunthner indicates that PHPS undergoes rapid crosslinking and pyrolysis, where PDCs are also known to undergo crosslinking.
As to diffusion, Schutz teaches that needle-like structures grow from the substrate into the coating, where the needles contain Ni, Fe, Cr, Mo, and Mn possibly as oxides (pg. 323, section 3.2). They teach that the bonding strength and the adhesion of glassy coatings to metal substrates are related to the oxides and ions participating in the interface formation (pg. 320, section 2.1). They teach that surface adhesion of the coating might be due to the chemical bonding of the precursor based coating to the substrate, by means of forming of a diffusion layer and by additionally anchoring with the metal oxide needles or dendrites (pg. 324, section 4). They teach that a thin NiO precoat that is formed will accelerate the diffusion of iron ions into the coating and promote decarburization of the steel by generating carbon oxide gases (pg. 324, section 4). Since Schutz in view of Gunthner provides the process of claim 1, using a polysilazane as required by claim 3, heating to a temperature within the range of claim 14 in air as required by claim 15, where they indicate that metals from the surface are diffused into the coating possibly as oxides, where a thin NiO precoat formed in ceramisation promotes the diffusion of iron into the coating, the process is also expected to result in the diffusion of metal oxides from the substrate into the coating so as to prepare a metal-oxide-impregnated polymer-derived ceramic. According to MPEP 2112.01 I, “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)”.
Regarding claim 9, Schutz in view of Gunthner suggest the process of claim 1. Schutz further teaches that the glass filler includes alumina (pg. 320, section 2.1).
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Schutz in view of Gunthner suggest the process of claim 1. They do not teach including a solvent and since including a solvent is optional in claim 1, they are also considered to meet the requirements of claims 12 and 13.
Claims 2 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schutz in view of Gunthner as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Seals, US 2020/0370183 A1.
Regarding claims 2 and 18, Schutz in view of Gunthner suggest the process of claim 1. Schutz teaches that the substrate is steel (pg. 320, section 2.1).
They do not teach that the species of the metal oxides that diffuse.
Seals teaches a protective surface treatment in the form of a coating for steel or another metal or metal alloy capable of providing oxidation resistance in an inert furnace or air-containing furnace (abstract). They teach that steel surfaces typically are composed of molecular levels of iron oxide, iron oxyhydroxide, and/or iron rust, [Fe2O3∙nH2O and FeO(OH)], which react with the boric acid to form iron borate (0070 and Fig. 1A-B). They teach degreasing the surface and removing oxides, but that the presence of a slightly oxidized or uniform oxidized-covered surface can aid in the formation of a protective surface (0176). They teach that an example of oxidized or slightly oxidized iron-containing surface contains rust, hydrated iron (III) oxides and iron (III) oxide-hydroxide, shown as Fe2O3∙nH2O and FeO(OH) (0176).
From the teachings of Seals, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the steel surface will include oxide species such as Fe2O3∙nH2O and FeO(OH) because Seals teaches that such oxides are known to be present at the surface of steel. Therefore, the metal oxides are expected to include iron oxides and iron oxyhydroxides because Seals indicates that such oxides are known to be on the surface of steel and Schutz teaches using a steel substrate and performing the claimed process and therefore, the PDC is also expected to comprise at least one of FeO, Fe2O3, Fe3O4, FeOOH or a combination thereof. According to MPEP 2112.01 I, “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)”.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schutz in view of Gunthner as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Berger, US 2024/0140876 A1.
Regarding claim 6, Schutz in view of Gunthner suggest the process of claim 1. Schutz further teaches using polysilazane as the silicone resin (pg. 320, section 2.1).
They do not teach the viscosity of the resin.
Berger teaches a polymer-derived composition and method for providing a ceramic-based precursor coating on a metal surface (abstract). They teach that the composition comprises one or more preceramic polymers admixed with one or more metal particulates (abstract). They teach that the composition is integrally disposed on and within the metal surface of a metal part through pressure-assisted pyrolysis of a metal particulate-filled preceramic polymer to provide a corrosion-resistant and oxidation-resistant metal surface (abstract). They teach that the precursor coating composition is applied and dried onto the metal surface and the coated steel material is then hot stamped under a time and pressure sufficient to pyrolyze the precursor coating composition to form a protective coating on the steel surface (abstract). They teach that pre-ceramic resins useful for making the compositions have a viscosity of at least about 400 cps or even greater than about 450 cps at about 25°C (0118). They teach that the preceramic polymers comprise one or more of polysiloxanes, polycarbosiloxanes, polysilazanes, etc. (0013 and 0015).
From the teachings of Berger, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected a preceramic polymer to have a viscosity in the range of 450 cps or greater at 25°C because Berger teaches that such a viscosity is suitable for a preceramic polymer used in a coating for protecting a steel surface from corrosion such that it will be expected to provide a suitable viscosity range. Therefore, the viscosity of the resin overlaps the claimed range. According to MPEP 2144.05, “in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINA D MCCLURE whose telephone number is (571)272-9761. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30-5:00 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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
/CHRISTINA D MCCLURE/Examiner, Art Unit 1718
