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 .
Examiner Notes
Claims 42-53 and 62-69 are currently pending. Claim 53 is withdrawn. No claims have been amended.
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.
Claims 42-48, 52, 62-63, 65, and 69 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatton et al. (US 2013/0227972).
Regarding claims 42, 43 and 52, Hatton discloses a superhydrophobic surface (0054) comprising raised structures arranged in a pattern (frame) of interconnected structures including cavities having a shape of inverted, truncated pyramids (Fig. 7c), and including a surface coating on the inner surface (0049), the sidewalls of the inverted pyramids forming a surface free of angles that are less than or equal to 90o, overlapping the claimed angle α of 105o < α < 135o as claimed in claim 42 and of 115o to 125o as claimed in claim 43.
Regarding claim 44, Hatton teaches the raised structures having a width of 0.02 to 1000 µm and height of 0.1 to 1000 µm (0059), overlapping the claimed width of 5 µm to 1 mm and height of 1 µm to 1 mm.
Regarding claim 45, Hatton does not expressly teach a liquid-solid contact fraction f of less than 8%. However, Hatton teaches a patterned surface comprising the shape of an inverted pyramid and Hatton teaches that the surfaces are superhydrophobic with a preferable contact angle between the surface and a water droplet of 140o or more (0052). Consequently, a liquid-solid contact fraction f of less than 8% is expected from the prior art structure.
Regarding claim 46, Hatton teaches the cavities exhibiting a square base (Fig. 7c). Hatton does not expressly teach a liquid-solid contact fraction f of less than 8% calculated form equation II. However, Hatton teaches a patterned surface comprising the shape of an inverted pyramid and Hatton teaches that the surfaces are superhydrophobic with a preferable contact angle between the surface and a water droplet of 140o or more (0052). Consequently, a liquid-solid contact fraction f of less than 8% is expected from the prior art structure.
Regarding claim 47, Hatton teaches a square base having 4 sides (Fig. 7c).
Regarding claim 48, Hatton teaches the patterned surface comprising silicon, metals or glass (0045).
Regarding claim 62, Hatton teaches the raised structures having a height of 0.1 to 1000 µm (0059), overlapping the claimed height of 2 µm to 0.707 times the width (i.e., 3.535 or 707 µm).
Regarding the overlapping ranges discussed in claims 42-44 and 62, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90, In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, and In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379. MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 63, Hatton does not expressly teach a liquid-solid contact fraction f of 1.5 to 8%. However, Hatton teaches a patterned surface comprising the shape of an inverted pyramid and Hatton teaches that the surfaces are superhydrophobic with a preferable contact angle between the surface and a water droplet of 140o or more (0052). Consequently, a liquid-solid contact fraction f of less than 8% is expected from the prior art structure.
Regarding claim 65, Hatton teaches surface coating via e.g., plasma assisted chemical vapor deposition (0049) thus the coating would be chemically bonded to the surface.
Regarding claim 69, Hatton discloses the surface having superhydrophobicity (0054).
Hatton does not expressly teach the superhydrophobicity after 100 cycles of a Taber abrasion test performed following the ASTM D4060 standard using a Taber abrasion tester on a substrate with a size of 10.5 cm * 10.5 cm. However, patentability is not based upon method of measurement but whether or not the property would have been obvious in view of the prior art. As Hatton teaches the surface having the property it would be expected to be capable of exhibit the property after the testing conditions as claimed.
Claims 49, 50, and 65-67 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatton as applied to claim 42 above, and further in view of Greer et al. (US 2020/0025981).
Regarding claims 49 and 50, Hatton discloses the limitations of claim 42 as discussed above. Hatton does not teach the coating comprising hydrophobic nanostructures.
Greer, in the analogous field of superhydrophobic composite materials (0033) teaches a film with three-dimensional features and a coating of nanoparticles within or filling the gap between the features (Fig. 6, 0073). The nanoparticles including SiO2 and TiO2 without a polymeric coating (0041).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious for the hydrophobic coating of Hatton to include the nanoparticles as taught by Greer to provide surface hydrophobicity while also being wear tolerant.
Regarding claim 65, Greer teaches bonding of the nanoparticles via chemical of physical bonds (0034).
Regarding claim 66, Greer teaches the nanoparticles having a diameter of between 200 and 400 nm (0093), overlapping the claimed average particle size of 250 nm or less.
Regarding claim 67, Greer teaches that nanoparticles may include TiO2 nanorods (0055) and that the nanoparticles have a diameter of between 200 and 400 nm (0093), overlapping the claimed diameter of 100 nm or less.
Regarding the overlapping ranges discussed in claims 66 and 67, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90, In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, and In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379. MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 51 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatton as applied to claim 42 above, and further in view of Shaw (US 2015/0274990).
Regarding claim 51, Hatton discloses the limitations of claim 42 as discussed above. Hatton does not teach an anti-abrasion coating layer.
Shaw, in the analogous field of hydrophobic coatings (0002) teaches a transition layer (20) comprising abrasion resistant metal oxide particles (0018).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious for the surface of Hatton to include an anti-abrasion coating as taught by Shaw, to provide abrasion resistance to the surface (0020).
Claim 68 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatton as applied to claim 42 above, and further in view of Bower et al. (US 2012/0300282).
Regarding claim 68, Hatton discloses the limitations of claim 42 as discussed above. Hatton does not teach the hydrophobic structures on the cavity facing sidewalls comprising random roughness wherein the random roughness comprises patterns of grooves and ridges with a width of 1 to 100 nm.
Bower, in the analogous field of hydrophobic surface elements (0001), teaches a surface comprising a random nanoscale texture of roughness (0022) the random texture comprising a pattern of groove and ridges (e.g., Fig. 4).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious for the coating of Hatton to comprise a random roughness as taught by Bower, to provide a two-tier hierarchical superhydrophobic surface (0099).
Bower does not expressly teach that the width of the roughness is 1 to 100 nm, however, Bower teaches that the nanoscale texture is configured to allow for dissipation of a plastron region in a first/second pixel optical state into a plurality of plastron sub-regions in a second/first pixel optical state (0023). Thus, it would have been obvious to have optimized the texture including with a width of 1 to 100 nm, for the intended application, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 64 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Applicant has persuasively argued that Hatton teaches away from a fully filled cavity and requires some patterning of the surface to achieve a surface which does not accumulate an ice layer (Hatton: 0044). Hence, it would not have been obvious to fully fill the cavities as taught by Greer (Fig. 6).
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that “filling the cavities” amounts to a structure in which the entirety of the cavity is filled and the coating layer of Hatton would not read on the structure of a fully filled cavity.
The examiner does not agree that “filling the cavities” equates to a fully filled cavity. Indeed, if the cavities were viewed as being fully filled, claim 64 would not further limit the subject matter of claim 42 as the fill being to the base of the cavities would already be present in the structure. It is maintained that the claims do not claim a “filled cavity” the claims recite the hydrophobic structure “filling the cavities” suggesting that the material is provided in the cavities but not yet fully filled.
Applicants arguments with regards to the rejection of claim 64 over Hatton in view of Greer have been fully considered and they are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant argues that it would not have been obvious to combine Bower with Hatton as none of the attributes taught in Bower are sought after or needed in Hatton who is directed to de-icing methods.
The courts have made clear that the teaching, suggestion, or motivation test is flexible and an explicit suggestion to combine the prior art is not necessary. While Hatton does not expressly teach wanting a two-tier hierarchical superhydrophobic surface, it does not make the combination with Bower unobvious.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Deng et al. (CN 111454000A) teaching a super-amphiphobic film and coating.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ALICIA WEYDEMEYER whose telephone number is (571)270-1727. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-4.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at 571-270-1547. 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.
/ALICIA J WEYDEMEYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781