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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/04/2026 has been entered.
Status of Application
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Claims 7-8, 11-15, and 33 have been withdrawn.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 § 103
Claims 1, 6, 10, 17, 19, 20, 22, 23, 25, 26, 37-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brockway et al. (WO 2018/053453 A1) [referenced via US 2019/0366381 A1] in view of Liu (US 2021/0324573 A1) and Lyu (NPL).
Regarding Claims 1, 6, and 25 Brockway teaches a heat exchanger component comprising a coating on a surface of a substrate (Paragraph 0081; Claim 1 of Brockway). Brockway teaches the coating comprise a first layer of a porous ceramic material comprising layered double hydroxide (Paragraph 0012) in contact with the substrate (Claim 6-7 of Brockway) and a second layer, top coat, without a gradient deposited on the ceramic material, where the top coat is to enhance or provide a desired property, such as anti-fouling. (Claim 5 of Brockway; Paragraph 0086). Brockway teaches the second layer can be a polymeric material. (Paragraph 0088, 0107, 0110-0118)
Brockway does not specifically teach the ceramic material has a contiguous interconnected porous ceramic network.
Liu teaches a self-cleaning coating (Abstract) comprising porous ceramic 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 Brockway to be interconnected for the improved properties of the coating, as taught by Liu.
Brockway 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, Brockway teaches the coating is spatially continuous across the entire area of the substrate. (Paragraph 0110-0118).
Regarding Claim 17, Brockway 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. (Paragraph 0110-0118).
Regarding Claim 19, Brockway teaches the same method forming the ceramic coating (Examples of Brockway; Paragraph 0155, 0171-0175 of instant Specification) Thus, it would be reasonable to one with ordinary skill in the art to expect the ceramic of Brockway would inherently have the same physical properties, such as binderless and crystallinity, as the claimed invention. “Where…the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on “inherency” under 35 USC 102, on “prima facie obviousness” under 35 USC 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same, and its fairness is evidenced by the PTO's inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products.
Regarding Claim 20, Brockway teaches the ceramic material can further include metal oxides. (Paragraph 0010)
Regarding Claim 22, Liu teaches the ceramic coating should have an interconnected continuous porous structure with a porosity of 20 to 98%, as discussed above. (Abstract). This overlaps the claimed range.
Regarding Claim 23, Brockway teaches second layer can comprise an epoxy. (Paragraph 0088).
Regarding Claim 26, Brockway teaches the substrate is a surface of a heat exchanger (Paragraph 0081).
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 40-41, Brockway teaches the ceramic material is nanostructured. (Claim 1 of Brockway).
Claim 28 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brockway, Liu, and Lyu, in further view of BRE (NPL).
Regarding Claim 28, Brockway teaches the substrate can be aluminum alloy (Paragraph 0047) and can be a heat exchanger component (Paragraph 0081). Brockway 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 Brockway for the improved heat transfer capabilities.
Regarding Claim 29, Brockway teaches the coating improves corrosion resistance (Paragraph 0035); 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(a) rejections have been withdrawn, due to Applicant’s amendments.
A new grounds of rejection has been made in view of Applicant’s amendments
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
Prosecution Insights