Patent Application 18041092 - MARINE COATING FORMULATIONS - Rejection
Patent Application 18041092 - MARINE COATING FORMULATIONS
Title: MARINE COATING FORMULATIONS
Application Information
- Invention Title: MARINE COATING FORMULATIONS
- Application Number: 18041092
- Submission Date: 2025-05-21T00:00:00.000Z
- Effective Filing Date: 2023-02-09T00:00:00.000Z
- Filing Date: 2023-02-09T00:00:00.000Z
- National Class: 106
- National Sub-Class: 015050
- Examiner Employee Number: 68043
- Art Unit: 1731
- Tech Center: 1700
Rejection Summary
- 102 Rejections: 0
- 103 Rejections: 1
Cited Patents
The following patents were cited in the rejection:
Office Action Text
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 Objections
Claim16 objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 16, the word “regenerates” should be replaced with “regenerate”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-15 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.
In claim 1, line 9, the phrase “the mixture…” has no antecedent basis.
In claim 2, the phrase “at least 10 wt.%, and 30-75%” establishes a broad and narrow range within the same claim rendering the limitation indefinite.
In claim 2, the phrase “depending on the coating application” is indefinite in that it is unclear if the percentage limitations are actually required.
In claim 3, the phrase “typically in the range…” is indefinite. The word “typically” makes it unclear as to whether the limitation is actually required.
In claim 4, the phrase “typically in the range…” is indefinite. The word “typically” makes it unclear as to whether the limitation is actually required.
In claim 8, the phrase “such as…” is indefinite as it is unclear if the limitations following “such as” are actually required.
In claim 8, line 10, the phrase “the substrate” has no antecedent basis.
In claim 9, the phrase “such as…” (line 6) is indefinite as it is unclear if the limitations following “such as” are actually required.
In claim 10, the phrase “such as…” is indefinite as it is unclear if the limitations following “such as” are actually required.
In claim 12, the phrase “the tertiary flocculants” has no antecedent basis.
The claims not specifically mentioned are rejected based on their dependency on rejected claims.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 3 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
The limitations recited in claim 3 are already included in claim 1 and thus claim 3 does not further limit claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim(s) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loth et al. (WO 2012/170832 A1) in view of Chilukuri et al. (2017/0051156) and Zhu et al. (2004/0241427).
Loth et al. teaches a formulation comprising:
Up to about 50 wt.% of a porous [048] nano-active material comprising a powder material with an average particle size in the range of 1-300 microns, which may be silica, alumina or zinc oxide [047, 048],
a polyurethane polymer binder [037] to bind all ingredients and additives together,
(c1) pigments [034],
(c2) booster antifoulants, e.g. biocides [034],
(c3) booster anticorrosion materials [034],
(c4) solvents [050],
(c5) polymerization activators [034], and
(c6) fillers [048 discloses mixtures of fillers].
Note that the recitations of the mixture providing an antifouling and anticorrosion coating to
maritime infrastructure or vessels, and the other application limitations recited in claims 8,11,15 and 16 constitute intended uses and do not further limit the formulation. Further, the percentage limitations to the set coating are also intended use limitations as claim 1 is directed to a formulation, not a set coating on a substrate. The limitations regarding indentations in claims 15 and 16 are related to intended use, i.e. the formulation “applied” in a particular manner and function after that application. These, limitations thus do not further limit the formulation itself.
Loth et al. does not disclose the anti-corrosion material is a lanthanide. Chilukuri et al. discloses that it is known to use a lanthanide as a corrosion inhibitor. See claim 10. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art as of the effective filing date, to modify Loth et al. with the lanthanide material of Chilukuri et al. in view of the generic disclosure of Loth et al.
Loth et al. does not disclose the claimed pore surface area. Zhu et al. teaches alumina nanoparticles with the claimed surface area. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art as of the effective filing date, to modify Lot et al. with particles having the claimed surface area of Zhu et al. in view of the generic teaching therein.
With respect to claims 6 and 7, the Loth et al. discloses particular materials for the nanomaterial. Absent a disclosure of purity, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the materials would only contain small amounts of routine impurities. Thus, the claimed purity amounts would have been met by the disclosure of Loth et al.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER A FIORILLA whose telephone number is (571)272-1187. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 6am-4pm.
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.
/CHRISTOPHER A FIORILLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
