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 .
Response to Amendment
Amendments to the claims, filed on 2/11/26, have been entered in the above-identified application.
Any rejections made in the previous action, and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lyons et al (US 2013/0251948 A1) in view of Lagarón Cabello et al (US 2020/0032422 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lyons teaches a hydrophobic structure (e.g., superhydrophobic surface) comprising a resin substrate (i.e., polymer sheet); wherein the resin forming the substrate comprises polyolefin and the upper surface of the substrate comprises inorganic nanoparticles that have been silane (i.e., a known hydrophobic treatment) treated to be less hydrophilic (i.e., hydrophobic fine particles) (abstract, para 47-52, 65-66, 89; fig 5). Therefore, Lyons teaches a hydrophobic structure comprising a resin substrate that includes a superhydrophobic mixture layer at a surface thereof; wherein the superhydrophobic mixture layer includes a mixture of a hydrophobic part and the resin of the surface of the resin substrate; wherein the hydrophobic part includes hydrophobic fine particles formed by subjecting inorganic fine particles to a hydrophobic treatment.
Lyons further teaches the nanoparticles have an average diameter ranging from about 1 nm to about 1000 nm; and further suggests small ranges, e.g., an average diameter of at least about 3 nm to at most about 300 nm (para 50, 65). These ranges substantially overlap that of the instant claims. It has been held that overlapping ranges are sufficient to establish prima facie obviousness. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Lyons, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP § 2144.05).
Lyons fails to teach wherein the hydrophobic part includes a mixture of a fluororesin powder and wherein the superhydrophobic mixture layer has a surface roughness Sa of 1 µm or more and 10 µm or less.
Lagarón Cabello teaches hydrophobic or superhydrophobic surfaces comprising polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) particles (e.g., PTFE microparticles or powder); wherein the PTFE microparticles on the polymer layer improves the hydrophobic properties of the surface; and/or silica particles (e.g., nanosilica); wherein the silica particles may be modified with organosilanes (i.e., inorganic particles subjected to a hydrophobic treatment); and the particles have a size between 0.001 nm and 100 μm (para 46, 48-56, 66, 67, 95, 99).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the PTFE nanoparticles or powder Lagarón Cabello with the silane treated inorganic nanoparticles of Lyons, since, it is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose (MPEP § 2144.06 I); and, since it is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use (MPEP § 2144.07). This combination comes with the additional motivation of PTFE microparticles or powder that improves the hydrophobic properties of the surface.
Regarding the surface roughness, Lyons teaches it was known in the art at the time of invention that adjusting the roughness of the surface affects its hydrophobicity or superhydrophobic properties (para 63, 68-69, 74, 83-84); and, Lagarón Cabello teaches that adjusting the roughness of the surface affects its hydrophobicity or superhydrophobicity (para 48); so, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to adjust the roughness of the superhydrophobic mixture layer to optimize its superhydrophobic properties.
Regarding claims 9-11, Lyons teaches the substrate (i.e., resin substrate) comprises polyolefin (para 48); Lagarón Cabello teaches the substrate may be a polyolefin and the use of a PTFE powder (para 22, 55, 95); so Lyons as modified by Lagarón Cabello would have suggested or otherwise rendered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention wherein the fluororesin powder, e.g., PTFE, includes a resin that is different from the resin of the resin substrate).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the instant claims have been considered but are moot due to the new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of a new combination of prior art of record. The Applicant is directed to the 35 USC § 103 section 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 NATHAN L VAN SELL whose telephone number is (571)270-5152. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur, Generally 7am-6pm.
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, M. Veronica 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.
NATHAN VAN SELL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1783
/NATHAN L VAN SELL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights