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 .
Status of Application
Applicant’s amendments filed on 09/11/2025 have been entered.
Claims 1, 6-8, 10-15, 17, 19-20, 22-23, 25-26, 28-29, 33, and 37-41 are currently pending.
Claims 7-8, 11-15, and 33 have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 41 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 41, there is no recitation of the nanostructure within the originally filed Specification
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 1, 6, 10, 17, 20, 23, 25-26 and 37-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McDermott et al. (US 2010/0252241 A1) in view of Liu (US 2021/0324573 A1) and Lyu (NPL).
Regarding Claim 1, 6 and 25, McDermott teaches a heat exchanger component (Abstract) comprising a coating on the surface of a substrate, the component, with a first layer of a porous ceramic material on the surface of the component (Abstract; Paragraph 0016) and a second layer of a polymeric material without a gradient deposited over the ceramic material of the first layer. (Paragraph 0080).
McDermott does not specifically teach the ceramic material has a contiguous porous interconnected ceramic network and a gradient in the first layer.
Liu teaches a self-cleaning coating (Abstract) comprising porous titanium oxide coating layer and a polymeric coating. (Claim 1 and Liu). Liu teaches the ceramic coating should have an interconnected continuous porous structure with a porosity of 20 to 98%. (Abstract). Liu teaches having an interconnected continuous porous structure with a porosity of 20 to 98% of ensuring pollutants will contact the ceramic coating and increase the air filling rate, reduce the air circulation resistance, and facilitate the removal of pollutants. (Paragraph 0010)
Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to have the ceramic coating of McDermott be interconnected for the improved properties of the coating, as taught by Liu.
McDermott and Liu do not specifically teach the first layer of ceramic comprises a chemical or physical property gradient.
Lyu teaches a ceramic membrane having a porosity gradient from the top of the ceramic towards the substrate (Fig 1; Page 3; Abstract). Lyu teaches having this porosity gradient improves the antifouling performance of the ceramic coating (Abstract). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to have the ceramic coating of McDermott to have a porosity gradient as taught by Lyu for improved anti-fouling properties.
Regarding Claim 10, McDermott teaches the coating is continuous across substantially the entire area of the substrate surface. (Claim 1 of McDermott).
Regarding Claim 17, McDermott teaches the first layer is coated on at least a portion of the substrate surface and the second layer is coated on top of the first layer and across substantially the entire area of the substrate surface. (Claim 1 of McDermott).
Regarding Claim 20, McDermott teaches the ceramic comprises a metal oxide. (Claim 3 of McDermott).
Regarding Claim 23, McDermott teaches second layer can comprise a quaternary ammonium group (Paragraph 0083).
Regarding Claim 26, McDermott teaches the substrate is a surface of a heat exchange (Abstract).
Regarding Claims 37-39, Liu teaches the porosity can be 20 to 98% (Abstract), which overlaps the claimed range, as discussed above. This overlaps the claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05).
Regarding Claim 40, McDermott teaches the ceramic material can be titanium oxide, a structured ceramic. (Claim 4 of McDermott).
Regarding Claim 41, McDermott teaches the structured ceramic has nanostructure. (Paragraph 0100).
Claim 19 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McDermott, Liu, and Lyu, in further view of Sharma (US 2010/0062931 A1)
Regarding Claim 19, McDermott teaches the ceramic coating a binderless ceramic material, such as titanium dioxide. (Abstract; Paragraph 0016; Claim 3 of McDermott). McDermott teaches the ceramic coating can have crystalline domains. (Paragraph 0064). McDermott does not specifically teach the ceramic coating has a crystallinity of greater than about 20%.
Sharma teaches anatase titanium dioxide, completely crystalline, is preferred for porous coatings due to its hydrophilic and/or self-cleaning nature (Paragraph 0006; Claim 1 of Sharma). Thus, it would have been obvious to ne with ordinary skill in the art to have titanium dioxide of McDermott be entirely crystalline.
Regarding Claim 22, Liu teaches the porosity of the ceramic can be 20 to 98% (Abstract), which overlaps the claimed range, as discussed above. This overlaps the claimed ranges.
Claim 28 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McDermott, Liu, and Lyu, in further view of BRE (NPL).
Regarding Claim 28, McDermott teaches an aluminum heat exchanger (Paragraph 0117). McDermott does not specifically teach a brazed aluminum heat exchanger.
BRE teaches a brazed aluminum heat exchangers provide the advantage of improved heat transfer capabilities over non-brazed heat exchangers. (Page 1). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to use a brazed aluminum heat exchanger in McDermott for the improved heat transfer capabilities.
Regarding Claim 29, McDermott teaches the coating improves corrosion resistance (Paragraph 0016); therefore, the substrate comprises greater resistance to environmental damage in comparison to a substrate with no coating.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered.
The prior §112(b) rejections have been withdrawn, due to Applicant’s amendments.
A new grounds of rejection has been made in view of Applicant’s amendments
Conclusion
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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-0358. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday: 9:30am-3:30pm, 8:30PM-10:30PM.
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.
/Michael Zhang/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781