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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/12/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
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 1 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.
Claim 1 requires the limitation of “at least one capillary bridge having a height from 250 microns to 1200 microns and a pinning angle of 170° or less.” Furthermore, claim 1 requires “the surface comprising a microstructure pattern and a contact angle of at least 100°.” However, this limitation regarding the pinning angle appears to be retrieved from Tables 1-3 of the instant specification (PGPUB, Page 7). However, not all pinning angles in the range of 170° or less is taught. Specifically, the three tables illustrate contact angle values of 145° (Table 1), 97° (Table 2), and 67° (Table 3). As such, the only pinning values which may be considered as being commensurate in scope with the claim are those values of Table 1, being the only table with a contact angle of 100° or greater. The only values in that table are in the range of 76° to 166°. As such, applicant only has written support for the range of 76° to 166° and not values between 0° and 76° or 166° and 170°. Therefore, claim 1 is rejected for failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Additionally, claims 2-13, 15-16 and 18-19 are rejected based on their dependency from claim 1.
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.
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 1-8, 11-13, 15-16 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bluecher et al. (US 2020/0032112).
Regarding claim 1, Bluecher teaches adhesive surfaces including a microstructured surface which are adhered to a variety of target substrates (“a system for adhering a target surface to a microstructured surface”) (Paragraphs [0013]-[0014]). The microstructured surface is provided with a first set of pillars disposed on the top of a second set of pillars to form a hierarchical structure wherein the pillars may have dimensions which are microscopic and may be further provided on a sinusoidal substrate (“a substrate having a surface, the surface comprising a microstructure pattern” & “wherein the microstructure pattern comprises a plurality of hierarchical microfeatures having a repetitively varying height across at least a portion of the surface, each hierarchical microfeature having a top surface”) (Paragraph [0013]). The microfeatures become more adhesive when in the presence of water-oil emulsions such that the adhesion results from a Wenzel-Cassie effect combined with a capillary action (“the system further comprising a liquid disposed between the target surface and the substrate, wherein the liquid contacts the target surface and a top surface of one or more hierarchical microfeatures by the formation of a capillary bridge, the capillary bridge having a first end contacting the target surface and a second end contacting the microfeature top surface”) (Paragraphs [0027]-[0028]).
While Bluecher is silent with respect to the water-oil emulsions having a density which is 1.75 times that of water, the instant specification indicates that the preferred liquid is a water and oil mixture (PGPUB, Paragraph [0183]). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Bluecher teaches the preferred embodiment for the liquid and it would be obvious that the water-oil emulsions would have a density of 1.75 times or less the density of water.
Bluecher is silent with respect to the adhesive surfaces having a microstructure with a contact angle of at least 100°, at least one capillary bridge having a height from 250 microns to 1200 microns, and a pinning angle of 170° or more.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that identical adhesive systems would have identical properties. MPEP 2112.01: Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433.
In the instant case, the systems of claim 1 require the substrate having the substrate with the hierarchical microstructures provided with a repetitively varying height across at least a portion of the surface and the liquid which, as discussed above, is preferably a water and oil mixture.
This is taught by Bluecher as discussed above. As such, Bluecher teaches identical structures as applicant’s claimed invention and would, resultantly, have identical properties to that of applicant’s claimed invention, including, but not limited to, the adhesive surfaces having a microstructure with a contact angle of at least 100°, at least one capillary bridge having a height from 250 microns to 1200 microns, and a pinning angle of 170° or more.
PNG
media_image1.png
504
975
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Bluecher teaches the adhesive surfaces as discussed above with respect to claim 1. Bluecher further teaches the microfeatures having the structures provided in figure 6 (shown below) which are taught to provide a Cassie capillary state having considerably more adhesive (Paragraph [0097]).
Bluecher is silent with respect to the structures having a base having a first diameter and a top having a second diameter wherein the second diameter is 10% to 200% larger than the first diameter.
However, as illustrated in figure 6, the structures have a top (second) diameter which is larger than a base (first) diameter. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the invention to optimize the ---diameters of the structures of Hulseman and Bluecher as the invention is directed to forming adhesive surfaces through capillary bridges, as discussed above and the Applicant's invention is also directed towards the same. As such, the range of the second diameter being 10% to 200% larger than the first diameter as claimed is well within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art. Furthermore, because the structures aim to form adhesive Cassie capillary zones, the sizes of the diameters as claimed would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) See MPEP 2144.05 (II).
Regarding claim 3, Bluecher teaches the adhesive surfaces as discussed above with respect to claim 1. As discussed above, the surfaces include a water-oil emulsion, which one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize as teaching the liquid being a compound fluid having a first fluid component and a second fluid component such that the first fluid component has a higher surface tension than the second fluid component.
Furthermore, as discussed above, the structures of Bluecher are identical to that of the instant invention and would, therefore, have identical properties. This includes said first and second fluid components separate into at least two capillary bridges between the microstructured surface and the target surface.
Regarding claim 4, Bluecher teaches the adhesive surfaces as discussed above with respect to claim 3. As discussed above, Bluecher teaches a water-oil emulsion and applicant’s preferred liquid is a water and oil mixture. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the water-oil emulsions include two liquids which are immiscible.
Regarding claim 5, Bluecher teaches the adhesive surfaces as discussed above with respect to claim 4.
As discussed above, the structures of Bluecher are identical to that of the instant invention and would, therefore, have identical properties. This includes a lateral displacement of the microstructured surface with respect to the target surface is resisted by a lateral restorative force generated by at least one of the two capillary bridges.
Regarding claim 6, Bluecher teaches the adhesive surfaces as discussed above with respect to claim 3.
As discussed above, the structures of Bluecher are identical to that of the instant invention and would, therefore, have identical properties. This includes the at least two capillary bridges mutually stabilize their capillary forces to generate a lateral restorative force that exceeds a lateral restorative force of the same two capillary bridges when exposed to a fluid of a single phase.
Regarding claim 7, Bluecher teaches the adhesive surfaces as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
As discussed above, the structures of Bluecher are identical to that of the instant invention and would, therefore, have identical properties. This includes a contact angle hysteresis of the microstructured surface is greater than 5 degrees as determined by sessile drop assay.
Regarding claim 8, Bluecher teaches the adhesive surfaces as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
As discussed above, the structures of Bluecher are identical to that of the instant invention and would, therefore, have identical properties. This includes the surface being capable of generating a suction force against the target surface of 10 mg/cm2 of apparent surface area.
Regarding claim 11, Bluecher teaches the adhesive surfaces as discussed above with respect to claim 1. As discussed above, the microfeatures become more adhesive when in the presence of water-oil emulsions such that the adhesion results from a Wenzel-Cassie effect combined with a capillary action (“he plurality of hierarchical microfeatures are configured to form a Wenzel-Cassie interface with the target surface”).
Regarding claim 12, Bluecher teaches the adhesive surfaces as discussed above with respect to claim 3. As discussed above, the microfeatures become more adhesive when in the presence of water-oil emulsions such that the adhesion results from a Wenzel-Cassie effect combined with a capillary action (“the plurality of hierarchical microfeatures are configured to form a Wenzel-Cassie interface with the target surface”).
Regarding claim 13, Bluecher teaches the adhesive surfaces as discussed above with respect to claim 12. As discussed above, the microfeatures become more adhesive when in the presence of water-oil emulsions such that the adhesion results from a Wenzel-Cassie effect combined with a capillary action (“the Wenzel- Cassie interface mutually reinforces the at least two capillary bridges”).
Regarding claim 15, Bluecher teaches the adhesive surfaces as discussed above with respect to claim 1. Bluecher further teaches the microstructures having heights from 25 to 250 microns (Paragraph [0062]).
Regarding claim 16, Bluecher teaches the adhesive surfaces as discussed above with respect to claim 15. Bluecher further teaches the dimensions of the microstructures having a lateral aspect ratio of from 0.1 to 10 (Paragraph [0065]).
Regarding claim 18, Bluecher teaches the adhesive surfaces as discussed above with respect to claim 1. As discussed above, the microfeatures become more adhesive when in the presence of water-oil emulsions such that the adhesion results from a Wenzel-Cassie effect combined with a capillary action. Bluecher further teaches the capillary effects form hydrophilic and hydrophobic zones (“the liquid generates a hydrophilic capillary bridge contacting the target surface and microfeature top surface, and a hydrophobic capillary bridge contacting the target surface and the surface of the substrate”) (Paragraph [0028]).
Regarding claim 19, Bluecher teaches the adhesive systems as discussed above with respect to claim 1. As discussed above, Bluecher teaches adhesive systems for attaching a microstructure to a target substrate using a water-oil emulsion. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the water-oil emulsion contacting the target substrate would teach “the target surface comprises a lubricant infused surface wherein the lubricant forms at least one capillary bridge between the target surface and the surface of the substrate.”
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bluecher et al. (US 2020/0032112), hereafter (‘112), in view of Bluecher et al. (US 2020/0155292), hereafter (‘292).
Regarding claims 9-10, Bluecher (‘112) teaches the adhesive surfaces as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Bluecher (‘112) is silent with respect to the microstructured surface being configured to induce Schallamach waves, as required by claim 9, and eigen wrinkles, as required by claim 10.
Bluecher (‘292) teaches microstructured surfaces which induce Wenzel-Cassie adhesion states (Paragraphs [0013]-[0014]). The surface further includes additional adhesion mechanisms in order to increase adhesion of the surfaces (Paragraph [0076]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the adhesion surfaces of Bluecher (‘112) to further include Schallamach waves and eigen wrinkles in order to increase the adhesion of the surfaces as taught by Bluecher (‘292).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-7, filed 03/11/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C 112 rejection of claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. On pages 6-7, applicant argues that the amendments to claim 1, specifically, the cancellation of the rejected limitations, renders the 35 U.S.C. 112 rejection moot. The examiner concedes and the rejection of 12/11/2025 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-10, filed 03/11/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive.
On pages 7-10, applicant argues that the amendments to claim 1 shifting the invention from the microstructured surface to a system which now requires a contact angle of at least 100°, at least one capillary bridge having a height from 250 microns to 1200 microns, a pinning angle of 170° or more, and the liquid having a density of 1.75 times or less the density of water overcomes the rejection of Hulseman, Bluecher, Bluecher, and Bluecher.
The examiner concedes, in that none of the cited references teaches the limitations as argued by the applicant. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Bluecher (‘112) as discussed above.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL P DILLON whose telephone number is (571)270-5657. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 8 AM to 5 PM.
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, MARIA V EWALD can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
/DANIEL P DILLON/Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights