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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I, encompassing claims 1-8 and 16, in the reply filed on October 16, 2015 is acknowledged.
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1-6, 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swarit (“Formation and control of secondary nanostructures in electro-hydrodynamic patterning of ultra-thin films”; pages 241-251; Elsevier; 2017) in view of Omar Al-Khayat (“Patterned polymer coatings increase the efficiency of dew harvesting”; pages A-I; ACS; 2017 - referred to as Omar hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Swarit discloses a structure comprising:
a substrate/electrode (page 243, Section 2.1);
a fluid thin polymeric film formed on the substrate/electrode (page 243, Section 2.1);
first structures/primary pillars formed on the fluid thin film by primary electrohydrodynamic instability (an electric field destabilizes the polymeric film which results in formation of first structures, i.e. primary pillars – page 244, Section 4.1 to page 245, section 4.3); and
second structures/secondary pillars formed between the first structures and formed by secondary electrohydrodynamic instability (secondary pillars are formed by the application of a second electric field – page 245, section 4.3; page 247, col. 1, first paragraph. Figures 4(e) and 6(e-g) show patterns of the first and second structures/pillars).
Swarit discloses wherein the primary and secondary pillars are made of a polymer (page 244, section 4.1 to page 245, section 4.3; figures 6-9), but fails to explicitly teach a hybrid structure, wherein the first structures have hydrophobicity, and the second structures have hydrophilicity.
Omar discloses micropatterned and nanopatterned polymer surfaces consisting of hydrophilic bumps (made of a poly-4-vinylpyridine film) between a hydrophobic region, made of polystyrene, in order to increase water capture efficiency (abstract; page A under Introduction; page B under Experimental Section; page E, col. 1, paragraph 1 to page F, col. 1, second paragraph; page G, section “Water-Harvesting Efficiency of Patterned Coatings”; figure 1).
The structure of Swarit comprises primary and secondary polymeric pillar formations that lead to ordered nano-patterns for a wide variety of applications in many technologically important areas, such as hydrophobic, self-cleaning surfaces, nanotechnology and microfluidic mixing, among others (abstract; page 241 under Introduction).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to form a hybrid structure having hydrophobic and hydrophilic regions as the primary and secondary polymeric pillars of Swarit because as taught by Omar, this structure increases water capture efficiency of the structure, and one would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
Regarding claim 2, the hybrid structure of Omar has anisotropic hydrophilicity (page B, col. 1, second paragraph to col. 2, second paragraph; page C, col. 2, first paragraph to page D, col. 2, first paragraph).
Regarding claim 3, Omar further teaches wherein water vapor in contact with the hybrid structure due to the anisotropic hydrophilicity is formed into droplets on the surface of the second structures, and the droplets are arranged along the first structures (page B, col. 1, second paragraph to col. 2, second paragraph; page C, col. 2, first paragraph to page D, col. 2, first paragraph).
Regarding claim 4, Swarit discloses wherein the first structures and the second structures are formed by a voltage applied to the substrate and the fluid thin film (abstract; page 244, Section 4.1 to page 245, section 4.3).
Regarding claim 5, Swarit further teaches that the pattern height of the pillars can be defined by adjusting the application of the electric field (page 243, section 2.1; page 245, col. 2, paragraph 2). Therefore, the teachings of Swarit correlate to the claimed limitation of “wherein the first structures and the second structures have a geometrical array pattern, and the height of the cross-sectional geometrical array of the geometrical array structure of the first structures has a value greater than the height of the cross-sectional geometrical array of the geometrical array structure of the second structures”. Figures 6-9 on page 246 also show different heights for primary and secondary structures.
Regarding claim 6, Swarit discloses wherein the pattern height of the pillars can be defined by adjusting the application of the electric field (page 243, section 2.1; page 245, col. 2, paragraph 2). One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to determine the optimum height of the geometrical array structure of the first and second structures by routine experimentation. MPEP 2144.05.II.A.
Regarding claim 8, Omar discloses micropatterned and nanopatterned polymer surfaces consisting of hydrophilic bumps (made of a poly-4-vinylpyridine film) between a hydrophobic region, made of polystyrene, in order to increase water capture efficiency (abstract; page A under Introduction; page B under Experimental Section; page E, col. 1, paragraph 1 to page F, col. 1, second paragraph; page G, section “Water-Harvesting Efficiency of Patterned Coatings”; figure 1).
Regarding claim 16, Omar discloses a hybrid structure, as discussed in claim 1 above, according to claim 1, to facilitate fog collection (page A, col. 1 under Introduction).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swarit in view of Omar as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lawrence, et al. (US Patent Application Publication no. 2004/0109981).
Regarding claim 7, Swarit in view of Omar teaches all the features discussed above, but fails to disclose wherein an angle between a direction of the first structures and a direction of gravity is 0° to 450.
Lawrence discloses a surface for promoting droplet formation, the surface comprising hydrophilic and hydrophobic regions/structures (abstract; paragraphs 45-55) wherein an angle between a direction of the structures and a direction of gravity is between 0 to 90 degrees (paragraphs 12, 22, 28) in order to allow droplets forming of the surface to roll down for collection.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to select a desired angle of direction of the structures of the modified Swarit, as taught by Lawrence, in order to allow droplets forming of the surface to roll down for collection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZULMARIAM MENDEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-9805. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4:30p.
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, James Lin can be reached at 571-272-8902. 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.
/ZULMARIAM MENDEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794