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 .
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 10-14, 22, 26 and 28-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Selwyn et al (US20160186321).
Selwyn ‘321 is directed to the treatment of fibrous materials using atmospheric pressure plasma polymerization. The method includes depositing a monomer comprising at least one fluorocarbon monomer with chemical additives, as required, at atmospheric pressure onto the paper or knitted, woven or non-woven substrate; exposing the monomer on a single surface of the fibrous material to an inert gas, atmospheric-pressure plasma, thereby causing polymerization of the monomer species; and repeating this sequence using multiple sequential deposition and plasma discharge steps to create a layered surface having durability against abrasion for both water-based laundry methods and dry-cleaning methods, and normal wear, without affecting the feel, drape, appearance or breathability of the substrate material (ABST).
Selwyn ‘321 the present invention includes plasma polymerization of films thicker than 50 nm on the textile substrates [0069]. Selwyn ‘321 teaches the gap between fibers in a woven or knitted fabric is on the order of 100 micron and adding an additional film thickness of greater than 70 nm has a negligible effect on the air permeability of the treated fabric [0038].
Selwyn ‘321 teaches the method for finishing a substrate to have a chosen characteristic, the substrate being coated with a monomeric precursor to a polymer having the chosen characteristic, hereof, includes the step of: exposing the coated substrate the products generated in an atmospheric pressure inert gas plasma, whereby the monomeric precursor is polymerized, thereby forming a finish having the chosen characteristic [0023].
Selwyn ‘321 teaches the chosen characteristic hydrophobic [0026] and water repellency [0034], [0052].
Selwyn ‘321 teaches the monomer is polymerized by plasma in an atmospheric pressure plasma [0057].
Selwyn ‘321 teaches a method wherein an inert gas plasma is suited for monomers that polymerize from free radical reactions as is common for the acrylate chemistry [0058].
Selwyn ‘321 teaches plasma induced polymerization may be repeated a chose number of times for generating multiple coats of polymer [0060]. The thickness is greater than 50 nm on textile substrates [0069].
Selwyn ‘321 teaches the thickness of the coating overlaps the claimed range and therefore In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Whether the monomer is polymerized before or after application to the substrate is considered a product by process limitation where the end result is a polymer on the surface of the substrate.
It should be noted that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same or an obvious variant from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though a different process made the prior product. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964,966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The burden has been shifted to the Applicant to show unobvious differences between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 218 USPQ 289,292 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to employ a plasma polymerization process motivated to produce a thin water repellent coating on a textile.
As to claim 11, Selwyn ‘321 teaches the substrate can be a woven or non-woven fibrous substrate (ABST), [0016].
As to claims 12 and 13, Selwyn ‘321 teaches multiple coats of polymer each formed on the previous coating for greater durability [0060] which is equated with a first and second water-repellent coating.
As to claim 14, Selwyn ‘321 teaches the process of the invention has the effect of propagate through a relatively thick film, the process has a penetrating effect atypical of most plasma process [0053]. Selwyn ‘321 teaches a method that the coating penetrates at least a portion of the substrate.
As to claim 22, Selwyn ‘321 teaches a hydrophobic coating [0056].
As to claim 26, Selwyn ‘321 teaches the plasma polymerization region cures or polymerizes or cross-links the chemical applied by the evaporator/applicator [0061]. Selwyn ‘321 teaches hydrophobic coatings and multiple layers of coatings to provide more durability [0060].
As to claim 28, Selwyn ‘321 shows the apparatus in Fig. 1 wherein the fabric travels in one direction. The claim limitation to the coating is applied to the substrate in more than one coating direction is a product by process limitation. As Selwyn ‘321 teaches the same structure, Selwyn ‘321 meets the claim limitation. It should be noted that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same or an obvious variant from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though a different process made the prior product. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964,966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The burden has been shifted to the Applicant to show unobvious differences between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 218 USPQ 289,292 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
As to claim 29, Selwyn ‘321 teaches the coated fabric has durability against abrasion (ABST); [0035]; [0038]; and improved abrasion resistance [0069].
As to claim 30, Selwyn ‘321 teaches multiple coats of the plasma polymer and Selwyn ‘321 teaches the inert gas can be argon (claim 31); [0054].
As to claim 31, Selwyn ‘321 teaches the coating is applied to one side, single side hydrophobic treatments, [0026] of the fabric [0035], and can be applied on one or both sides of the fabric [0056].
As to claim 32, Selwyn ‘321 teaches the coating can be greater than 70 nm [0038]; and thicker than 50 nm [0069].
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Selwyn et al (US20160186321) and in further view of Mikhael et al (US20070093076).
As to claim 15, Selwyn ‘321 differs and does not teach the claimed coating compounds.
Mikhael teaches a hydrophobic coating is applied to a substrate including fabric substrates [0047] and cured. Then a plasma post-treatment in helium and tetrafluoromethane is applied [0014]; [0043]. The coating provides functional properties such as chemical, abrasion and moisture resistance [0036] and hydrophobic properties [0042]. Hydrophobic is equated with water repellent.
Mikhael teaches the plasma coating can be a tetrafluoromethane [0077] as claimed which would provide for residuals.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to employ a tetrafluoromethane plasma coating motivated to produce a hydrophobic and abrasive surface on a fabric.
Claim 21 are 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Selwyn et al (US20160186321) in view of Selwyn et al (US20200060366).
As to claim 21, Selwyn ‘321 differs and does not teach the claimed residues.
Selwyn ‘366 is directed to a textured water repellant fabric. Selwyn ‘366 teaches a water repellent coating is formed by impregnating with a curable coating that is applied to one surface and is curable to form a crosslinked, hydrophobic flexible polymer [0013] and partially curing to form a crosslinked polymer coating [0014]. The partially cured fabric can be additionally cured or polymerized by exposure to plasma or low oxygen plasma [0122], [0191].
Selwyn ‘366 teaches the coating can be one of a polysiloxanes including hexamethyldisiloxane [0077]. Selwyn ‘366 teaches carriers can provide certain functional attributes to the cured composition [0075] and can improve the hydrophicity [0076] and can include [0077] Especially preferred carriers include polysiloxane oils, waxes and alcohol carriers. Especially preferred polysiloxane oils include octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane, decamethylcyclopentasiloxane, and linear or branched polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) oil such as hexamethyldisiloxane, octamethyltrisiloxane, decamethyltetrasiloxane, dodecamethylpentasiloxane [0077].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to employ a siloxane oil carrier motivated to improve the hydrophobic properties of the coating.
As to claim 23-25, Selwyn ‘321 differs and does not teach a non-uniform coating. Selwyn ‘321 does teach helium or other inert gas in the plasma treatment [0059] (claim 25).
Selwyn ‘366 teaches the coating has raised projections which is equated with non-uniform. The raised projections can provide channels through which water can flow (ABST).
Selwyn ‘366 teaches the hydrophobic coating is flexible [0013].
Selwyn ‘366 teaches a low oxygen plasma treatment [0126]. It should be noted that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same or an obvious variant from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though a different process made the prior product. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964,966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The burden has been shifted to the Applicant to show unobvious differences between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 218 USPQ 289,292 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide a non-uniform flexible coating motivated to provide channels for water to flow.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Selwyn et al (US20160186321) in view of Hsueh et al (US 20110045200).
As to claim 27, Selwyn ‘321 differs and does not teach a hydrophilic plasma treatment on the hydrophobic coating to apply the second can be applied to the water repellent coating.
Hsueh is directed to a hydrophobic polymer fabric made through two stages of modification using plasmas. A hydrophobic coating is equated with water repellency and Hsueh teaches coating provides for contact angles that keep water from penetrating the substrate [0022]. Hsueh teaches atmospheric plasma treatments (ABST), [0003].
Hsueh is directed to a hydrophobic polymer fabric made through two stages of modification using plasmas. Hsueh teaches two coatings, a first of grafted fluorocarbon monomer layer 12 and a second grafted fluorocarbon function group layer 13 [0015].
Hsueh teaches the activating and roughening the surface of the substrate and thus obtains a high hydrophilic surface [0003], [0016], [0025]. The hydrophobic surface is produced by graft of fluorocarbon monomers on the treated hydrophilic surface.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to treat a surface with plasma to roughen and make hydrophilic for grafting a hydrophobic material to the surface motivated to produce a hydrophobic fabric.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments, with respect to the 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 112(b) to of claims 10, 12, 26 and 27 and dependent claims have been withdrawn. The claims are clearer that there is at least the surface of plasma polymerization but also can include more than one coating layer.
Applicant's amendments and arguments filed 12/2/2025 have been fully considered but they are persuasive. The 35 USC 102/103 rejections of claims 10-14, 21-26 and 28-31 over Selwyn ‘366, claims 10, 11, 15, 22, 28 and 29 over Mikhael and claims 10, 12-14 over Hsueh are withdrawn.
New grounds of rejections are presented under 35 USC 103 over Selwyn ‘321 (claims 10-14, 22, 26, 28-32); Selwyn ‘321 in view of Selwyn ‘366 (claims 21, 23-25) and Selwyn ‘321 in view of Mikhael (claims 15), Selwyn ‘321 in view of Hsueh (claim 27).
Applicant argues that the claims have been amended to state that the plasma polymerized upper surface has a thickness between 20-1000 nm and this can’t be achieved by conventional application methods such as disclosed by Selwyn.
Applicants arguments with respect to Selwyn ‘366 applying the coating by spraying, rolling, brushing and immersion is not capable of the claimed thickness are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection. Selwyn ‘366 is silent with regard to thickness.
Applicant argues that Hsueh merely discloses the polymer fabric with peroxide is immersed in the solution of fluorocarbon compound for 3 to 5 minutes for a first stage of graft fluorocarbon monomers.
Applicant is arguing product by process limitations and the claims are directed to a product. Applicants arguments are not persuasive. Hsueh teaches a plasma coating 13 that has a thickness of 5-200 nm and therefore would meet the claimed limitations of surface coating having thickness of 20-1000 nm. However Selwyn ‘321 teaches the claimed thickness of an atmospheric plasma coating.
Applicant argues the reference Mikhael and cites the reference with regard to a precursor material is introduced into the treatment space to coat the substrate film or web by vapor deposition or atomized spraying.
Applicants arguments are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection and withdrawn 102/103 rejection over Mikhael. Mikhael is now relied upon for claim 15 residual polymerized residues in combination with Selwyn ‘321. Applicant is arguing product by process limitations. In the absence of evidence that the process produces an unexpected result, the rejections are maintained.
With regard to Applicants statement that Mikhael uses plasma to assist with deposition (no curing precursor) followed by a curing method (not plasma). Applicants arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claims. The claims do not requiring the curing method is or is not plasma. Claim 26 recites the first water repellent coating is a cured hydrophobic coating. The first coating is not required to be a plasma coating according to the claims. The claims require the upper surface of the water repellent coating to be a plasma polymerized surface. The specification describes the first water repellent coating has the thickness of 20-1000nm. Additional coatings (second coating) are 10-100 nm.
Applicant states that the plasma polymerized upper surface has a thickness of 20-1000nm. The claims, as amended, recite “wherein the water-repellent coating has a thickness of between 20nm to 1000nm”. This is interpreted to be the entire coating thickness and not limited to a first coating, e.g. specification [0091]. If Applicant considers the amendment thickness to reflect the upper surface thickness or the entire thickness, clarification is required. At this time, there are no 112(a) or (b) rejections applicable as there is support in the specification for the thickness and while the specification points to the first coating is 20-1000nm, it is not so limiting and the claims are not indefinite.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Roby et al WO 03037156
Hossain et al (US 20180046223)
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 JENNIFER A STEELE whose telephone number is (571)272-7115. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
/JENNIFER A STEELE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789