DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This is in response to Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed on 03/16/2026 amending Claims 9 and 15 - 20. Claims 1 - 20 are examined
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 – 6, 9, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (2023/0213207A1, earliest effective filing date 12/31/2021) in view of Kissel et al. (9,249,333) in view of Shu et al. (CN108690556A).
Regarding Claim 1, Kim teaches, in Figs. 1 – 9, the invention as claimed, including a heating appliance (1 – Figs. 7 - 9) comprising: a housing (10) having interior walls (best seen in Figs. 8 and 9) with interior surfaces defining a cooking chamber (20 – Para. [0082] “a cooking chamber 20 arranged inside the case 10 and accommodating food”) for heating food; a microwave heating source configured to generate microwave radiation for heating the food (Para. [0087] teaches that the heating appliance/cooking apparatus could be a microwave which naturally would have had a microwave heating source configured to generate microwave radiation for heating the food); and a hybrid easy-to-clean coating (110, 200 – Para. [0051] “…to implement an easy-to-clean interior surface for cooking apparatus”.) on at least a portion of the interior surfaces (100).
Kim is silent on the hybrid easy-to-clean coating including a super hydrophobic component, wherein the hybrid easy-to-clean coating has a water contact angle of at least 150 degrees thereon.
Kissel teaches, in Fig. 2 and Col. 9, ll. 1 – 5, an easy-to-clean coating (Col. 7, ll. 15 – 20 “…polymer-aerogel composite coating 210 can be used for a wide variety of applications, including, but not limited to, self-cleaning surface…”) including a super hydrophobic component (Title, Col. 2, ll. 60 – 65, and Col. 9, ll. 1 – 5), wherein the hybrid easy-to-clean coating has a water contact angle of at least 150 degrees thereon (Col. 9, ll. 1 – 5 “polymer-aerogel composite film showed a water contact angle of about 159.40° and 159.30°”).
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Kim with the easy-to-clean coating including a super hydrophobic component, wherein the easy-to-clean coating has a water contact angle of at least 150 degrees thereon, taught by Kissel, because all the claimed elements, i.e., the heating appliance comprising: a housing having interior walls with interior surfaces defining a cooking chamber; a microwave heating source configured to generate microwave radiation for heating the food; a hybrid easy-to-clean coating on at least a portion of the interior surfaces, and the easy-to-clean coating including a super hydrophobic component, wherein the easy-to-clean coating has a water contact angle of at least 150 degrees thereon, were known in the art, and one skilled in the art could have substituted the easy-to-clean coating including a super hydrophobic component, wherein the easy-to-clean coating has a water contact angle of at least 150 degrees thereon, taught by Kissel, for the outer coating of Kim, with no change in their respective functions, to yield predictable results, i.e., the hybrid easy-to-clean coating including the super hydrophobic component having a water contact angle of at least 150 degrees would have facilitated self-cleaning because any liquid water that came into contact with the coated interior surfaces would have beaded up and flowed off the surface due to gravity. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(B).
Kim, i.v., Kissel, is silent on the hybrid easy-to-clean coating including a microwave absorbing component.
Shu teaches, on Machine Translation Pg. 4, first paragraph, a microwave absorbing component (The RGO/MWCNTs/NiFe2O4 ternary nanocomposite prepared by the invention has excellent microwave absorbing properties, and has the characteristics of thin thickness, low density, strong absorption, frequency bandwidth and easy modulating microwave absorbing property.) RGO was the acronym for “reduced graphene oxide”. MWCNT was the acronym for “multi-walled carbon nanotubes”. NiFe2O4 was the chemical formula for spinel-type nickel ferrite.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Kim, i.v., Kissel, with the microwave absorbing component comprising multi-walled carbon nanotubes and nickel ferrite, taught by Shu, because all the claimed elements, i.e., the heating appliance comprising: a housing having interior walls with interior surfaces defining a cooking chamber; a microwave heating source configured to generate microwave radiation for heating the food; a hybrid easy-to-clean coating on at least a portion of the interior surfaces, and the easy-to-clean coating including a super hydrophobic component, wherein the easy-to-clean coating has a water contact angle of at least 150 degrees, and the microwave absorbing component comprising multi-walled carbon nanotubes and nickel ferrite, were known in the art, in combination each one of the components would perform the same function as it did separately, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, with no change in their respective functions, to yield predictable results, i.e., a combination of the microwave absorbing component comprising multi-walled carbon nanotubes and nickel ferrite and the super hydrophobic component having a water contact angle of at least 150 degrees would have facilitated a hybrid self-cleaning coating that also reduced the electromagnetic interference (EMI) of the microwave heating appliance by absorbing the microwave radiation generated by the heating source. In other words, the microwave radiation generated by the heating source would not have interfered with devices located outside of the heating appliance cooking chamber because the hybrid easy-to-clean coating on the interior surfaces of said cooking chamber would have absorbed microwaves that reached said interior surfaces. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(A).
Re Claims 2 and 3, Kim, i.v., Kissel and Shu, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including (Claim 2) wherein the super hydrophobic component is a polymer-aero gel composite (As discussed in the Claim 1 rejection above, Kissel teaches, in Col. 7, ll. 15 – 20, “…polymer-aerogel composite coating 210 can be used for a wide variety of applications, including, but not limited to, self-cleaning surface…”) and (Claim 3) wherein the polymer-aero gel composite is a polysilicate aerogel (Kissel further teaches, in Abstract, “The polymer-aerogel composite coating can include a polymer and an ultra high water content catalyzed polysilicate aerogel,…”).
Re Claims 4 – 6, Kim, i.v., Kissel and Shu, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including (Claim 4) wherein the microwave absorbing component includes carbon nanotubes and a high temperature ferrite material, (Claim 5) wherein the carbon nanotubes are multi-walled carbon nanotubes [As discussed in the Claim 1 rejection above, Shu teaches, on Pg. 4, first paragraph, multi-walled carbon nanotubes (MWCNT)], (Claim 6) wherein the high temperature ferrite is Ni ferrite [As discussed in the Claim 1 rejection above, Shu teaches, on Pg. 4, first paragraph, Ni ferrite (NiFe2O4).], Mn ferrite, or combinations thereof.
Regarding Claim 9, Kim teaches, in Figs. 1 – 9, the invention as claimed, including a heating appliance (1 – Figs. 7 - 9) comprising: a housing (10) having interior walls (best seen in Figs. 8 and 9) with interior surfaces defining a cooking chamber (20 – Para. [0082] “a cooking chamber 20 arranged inside the case 10 and accommodating food”) for heating food, the interior walls including a base (bottom of 20 in Fig. 8), side walls (left and right side and back of 20 in Fig. 8), and a ceiling (top of 20 in Fig. 8); a microwave heating source configured to generate microwave radiation for heating the food (Para. [0087] teaches that the heating appliance/cooking apparatus could be a microwave which naturally would have had a microwave heating source configured to generate microwave radiation for heating the food); and a hybrid easy-to-clean coating (110, 200 – Para. [0051] “…to implement an easy-to-clean interior surface for cooking apparatus”.) on at least a portion of one or more of the interior walls (100).
Kim is silent on the hybrid easy-to-clean coating including a polymer aero-gel composite, wherein the hybrid easy-to-clean coating has a water contact angle of at least 150 degrees thereon.
Kissel teaches, in Fig. 2 and Col. 9, ll. 1 – 5, an easy-to-clean coating (Col. 7, ll. 15 – 20 “…polymer-aerogel composite coating 210 can be used for a wide variety of applications, including, but not limited to, self-cleaning surface…”) including a polymer aero-gel composite (Title, Col. 2, ll. 60 – 65, and Col. 9, ll. 1 – 5), wherein the hybrid easy-to-clean coating has a water contact angle of at least 150 degrees thereon (Col. 9, ll. 1 – 5 “polymer-aerogel composite film showed a water contact angle of about 159.40° and 159.30°”).
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Kim with the easy-to-clean coating including a polymer aero-gel composite, wherein the easy-to-clean coating has a water contact angle of at least 150 degrees thereon, taught by Kissel, because all the claimed elements, i.e., the heating appliance comprising: a housing having interior walls with interior surfaces defining a cooking chamber; a microwave heating source configured to generate microwave radiation for heating the food; a hybrid easy-to-clean coating on at least a portion of the interior surfaces, and the easy-to-clean coating including a polymer aero-gel composite, wherein the easy-to-clean coating has a water contact angle of at least 150 degrees thereon, were known in the art, and one skilled in the art could have substituted the easy-to-clean coating including a polymer aero-gel composite, wherein the easy-to-clean coating has a water contact angle of at least 150 degrees thereon, taught by Kissel, for the outer coating of Kim, with no change in their respective functions, to yield predictable results, i.e., the hybrid easy-to-clean coating including the polymer aero-gel composite having a water contact angle of at least 150 degrees would have facilitated self-cleaning because any liquid water that came into contact with the coated interior surfaces would have beaded up and flowed off the surface due to gravity. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(B).
Kim, i.v., Kissel, is silent on the hybrid easy-to-clean coating including a high temperature ferrite and carbon nanotubes.
Shu teaches, on Machine Translation Pg. 4, first paragraph, a microwave absorbing component comprising a high temperature ferrite and carbon nanotubes (The RGO/MWCNTs/NiFe2O4 ternary nanocomposite prepared by the invention has excellent microwave absorbing properties, and has the characteristics of thin thickness, low density, strong absorption, frequency bandwidth and easy modulating microwave absorbing property.). RGO was the acronym for “reduced graphene oxide”. MWCNT was the acronym for “multi-walled carbon nanotubes”. NiFe2O4 was the chemical formula for spinel-type nickel ferrite.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Kim, i.v., Kissel, with the microwave absorbing component comprising multi-walled carbon nanotubes and nickel ferrite, taught by Shu, because all the claimed elements, i.e., the heating appliance comprising: a housing having interior walls with interior surfaces defining a cooking chamber; a microwave heating source configured to generate microwave radiation for heating the food; a hybrid easy-to-clean coating on at least a portion of the interior surfaces, and the easy-to-clean coating including a polymer aero-gel composite, wherein the easy-to-clean coating has a water contact angle of at least 150 degrees, and the microwave absorbing component comprising multi-walled carbon nanotubes and nickel ferrite, were known in the art, in combination each one of the components would perform the same function as it did separately, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, with no change in their respective functions, to yield predictable results, i.e., a combination of the microwave absorbing component comprising multi-walled carbon nanotubes and nickel ferrite and the polymer aero-gel composite having a water contact angle of at least 150 degrees would have facilitated a hybrid self-cleaning coating that also reduced the electromagnetic interference (EMI) of the microwave heating appliance by absorbing the microwave radiation generated by the heating source. In other words, the microwave radiation generated by the heating source would not have interfered with devices located outside of the heating appliance cooking chamber because the hybrid easy-to-clean coating on the interior surfaces of said cooking chamber would have absorbed microwaves that reached said interior surfaces. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(A).
Kim, i.v., Kissel and Shu, discussed above, is silent on said hybrid self-cleaning coating having a microwave absorptivity of 70 to 100%. As discussed above, Shu teaches, on Machine Translation Pg. 4, first paragraph, “The RGO/MWCNTs/NiFe2O4 ternary nanocomposite prepared by the invention has excellent microwave absorbing properties, and has the characteristics of thin thickness, low density, strong absorption, frequency bandwidth and easy modulating microwave absorbing property.” Shu further teaches, on Pg. 2, second to last paragraph, “Preparation of reduced graphene oxide/multiwalled carbon nanotubes/nickel ferrite with local three-dimensional conductive network structure by a simple one-step hydrothermal method combining magnetic loss-type NiFe2O4 nanoparticles with dielectric loss type RGO and MWCNTs (RGO/ MWCNTs/NiFe2O4) ternary nanocomposite absorbing materials can effectively absorb electromagnetic waves in different wavelength bands by adjusting the content of MWCNTs in the composite and the thickness of the coating.” Shu further teaches, on Pg. 3, first paragraph, “The bandwidth and absorbing performance are easy to control, and the preparation process is simple and green”. Shu further teaches, in Figs. 3 – 5 on Pg. 4, middle of page, the reflection loss in decibels (dB) versus frequency of different coating samples at different thicknesses ranging from 1 mm to 5 mm. Shu further teaches, on Pg. 6, last paragraph continuing on to Pg. 7, “Excellent absorption performance, the maximum absorption intensity of product S2 is -50.2dB. By adjusting the content of MWCNTs in the composite material and the thickness of the coating, the electromagnetic wave can be effectively absorbed in different wavelength bands.”
Therefore, the microwave absorptivity was recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). In this case, the recognized result is that the higher the percentage of microwave absorptivity of a material the lower the percentage of the incident microwaves reflected by the material. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that the coating absorbed a percentage of the incident microwaves (as measured by the reflection loss in decibels (dB), a -10 dB reflection loss was equivalent to about 90% absorption and a -20 dB reflection loss was equivalent to about 99% absorption), were disclosed in the prior art by Shu, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the said hybrid self-cleaning coating taught by Kim, i.v., Kissel and Shu, to have microwave absorptivity of 70 to 100%. At 100% absorption said hybrid self-cleaning coating would have absorbed all incident microwave energy, allowing none to reflect back into the cooking chamber. It has been held that “[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); MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). In Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) the Supreme Court held that “a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent". It was held that "It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.", In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929); MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). Modifying the hybrid self-cleaning coating to have a microwave absorptivity ranging from 70 to 100% was only a change of degree.
Re Claim 11, Kim, i.v., Kissel and Shu, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including wherein the high temperature ferrite is Ni ferrite [As discussed in the Claim 9 rejection above, Shu teaches, on Pg. 4, first paragraph, Ni ferrite (NiFe2O4).], Mn ferrite, or combinations thereof.
Re Claim 13, Kim, i.v., Kissel and Shu, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including wherein the polymer aero-gel composite is a polysilicate aerogel (Kissel further teaches, in Abstract, “The polymer-aerogel composite coating can include a polymer and an ultra high water content catalyzed polysilicate aerogel,…”).
Claims 7, 8, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (2023/0213207A1, earliest effective filing date 12/31/2021) in view of Kissel et al. (9,249,333) in view of Shu et al. (CN108690556A) as applied to Claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Toreki et al. (9,808,548) in view of Sahoo et al., “Probing the cellular damage in bacteria induced by GaN nanoparticles using confocal laser Raman spectroscopy”, Journal of Nanoparticle Research, Vol. 15, article number 1841, (2013), hereinafter “Sahoo”.
Re Claims 7 and 8, Kim, i.v., Kissel and Shu, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except, (Claim 7) wherein the hybrid easy-to-clean coating further includes an antimicrobial component, (Claim 8) wherein the antimicrobial component is metallic Zn nanoparticles, metallic GaN nanoparticles, or combinations thereof, and (Claim 12) wherein the hybrid easy-to-clean coating includes antimicrobial component of metallic Zn nanoparticles, metallic GaN nanoparticles, or combinations thereof.
Toreki teaches, in Col. 3, ll. 50 – 60 and Col. 11, ll. 20 – 25, that metallic Zn nanoparticles were known to have high antimicrobial efficacy and were suitable for use in coatings for home appliances. Sahoo teaches, in Abstract, Pg. 2, second column, last paragraph, Pg. 5, second column, first paragraph, and Pg. 12, second column, first paragraph, that metallic GaN nanoparticles have been embedded into surface coatings to create antimicrobial surfaces for implants and catheter devices.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Kim, i.v., Kissel and Shu, with the antimicrobial component is metallic Zn nanoparticles or metallic GaN nanoparticles, taught by Toreki and Sahoo, because all the claimed elements, i.e., the heating appliance comprising: a housing having interior walls with interior surfaces defining a cooking chamber; a microwave heating source configured to generate microwave radiation for heating the food; a hybrid easy-to-clean coating on at least a portion of the interior surfaces, and the easy-to-clean coating including a super hydrophobic component, wherein the easy-to-clean coating has a water contact angle of at least 150 degrees, and antimicrobial component is metallic Zn nanoparticles or metallic GaN nanoparticles, were known in the art, in combination each one of the components would perform the same function as it did separately, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, with no change in their respective functions, to yield predictable results, i.e., integrating metallic Zn nanoparticles and/or metallic GaN nanoparticles into the hybrid easy-to-clean coating would have facilitated providing antimicrobial properties to the interior surfaces of said cooking chamber coated with the hybrid easy-to-clean coating. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(A).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (2023/0213207A1, earliest effective filing date 12/31/2021) in view of Kissel et al. (9,249,333) in view of Shu et al. (CN108690556A) as applied to Claim 9 above, and further in view of Khizar et al. (11,225,747).
Re Claim 10, Kim, i.v., Kissel and Shu, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except, wherein the hybrid easy-to-clean coating further includes a two-system based pre-polymerized polymer binder.
Khizar teaches, in Abstract, Col. 6, ll. 44 – 50, Col. 9, ll. 25 – 30, and Col. 9, ll. 44 – 51, an easy-to-clean coating (100) for household appliances having a two-system based pre-polymerized polymer binder.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Kim, i.v., Kissel and Shu, with the two-system based pre-polymerized polymer binder, taught by Khizar, because all the claimed elements, i.e., the heating appliance comprising: a housing having interior walls with interior surfaces defining a cooking chamber; a microwave heating source configured to generate microwave radiation for heating the food; a hybrid easy-to-clean coating on at least a portion of the interior surfaces, and the easy-to-clean coating including a polymer aero-gel composite, wherein the easy-to-clean coating has a water contact angle of at least 150 degrees, and a two-system based pre-polymerized polymer binder used to bind together the components of a coating, were known in the art, in combination each one of the components would perform the same function as it did separately, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, with no change in their respective functions, to yield predictable results, i.e., integrating the two-system based pre-polymerized polymer binder into the hybrid self-cleaning coating would have facilitated binding together all the different components of the hybrid self-cleaning coating into a homogeneous coating with uniformly dispersed high temperature ferrite, carbon nanotubes, and polymer aero-gel composite. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(A).
Claims 14 – 17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al. (CN105731973A, cited in 02/15/2023 IDS) in view of Khizar et al. (11,225,747) in view of Shu et al. (CN108690556A) in view of Kissel et al. (9,249,333).
Regarding Claim 14, Zhao teaches, in Abstract, the invention as claimed, including a hybrid easy-to-clean coating for a microwave appliance, the coating comprising: 5-55wt% of a microwave absorbing polymer (10-40wt% of microwave absorbing material binder); 0.3-15wt% of a microwave absorbing material (5-10wt% of microwave absorbing material); and 20-85wt% of a material (50-80wt% of easy-to-clean material). MPEP2144.05(I) stated “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.)”
Zhao is silent on said microwave absorbing polymer being a two-system based pre-polymerized polymer.
Khizar teaches, in Abstract, Col. 6, ll. 44 – 50, Col. 9, ll. 25 – 30, and Col. 9, ll. 44 – 51, an easy-to-clean coating (100) for household appliances having a two-system based pre-polymerized polymer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Zhao, with the two-system based pre-polymerized polymer, taught by Khizar, because all the claimed elements, i.e., the hybrid easy-to-clean coating for a microwave appliance, the coating comprising: 10-40wt% of microwave absorbing polymer, 5-10wt% of microwave absorbing material, and 50-80wt% of easy-to-clean material, and easy-to-clean coating for household appliances having a two-system based pre-polymerized polymer binder used to bind together the components of a coating, were known in the art, and one skilled in the art could have substituted the two-system based pre-polymerized polymer, taught by Khizar, for the microwave absorbing polymer of Zhao, with no change in their respective functions, to yield predictable results, i.e., integrating the two-system based pre-polymerized polymer into the hybrid self-cleaning coating would have facilitated binding together all the different components of the hybrid self-cleaning coating into a homogeneous coating with uniformly dispersed high temperature ferrite and polymer aero-gel composite. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(B).
Zhao, i.v., Khizar, is silent on said microwave absorbing material including a high temperature ferrite.
Shu teaches, on Machine Translation Pg. 4, first paragraph, a microwave absorbing component comprising a high temperature ferrite and carbon nanotubes (The RGO/MWCNTs/NiFe2O4 ternary nanocomposite prepared by the invention has excellent microwave absorbing properties, and has the characteristics of thin thickness, low density, strong absorption, frequency bandwidth and easy modulating microwave absorbing property.). RGO was the acronym for “reduced graphene oxide”. MWCNT was the acronym for “multi-walled carbon nanotubes”. NiFe2O4 was the chemical formula for spinel-type nickel ferrite.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Zhao, i.v., Khizar, with the microwave absorbing material including a high temperature ferrite, taught by Shu, because all the claimed elements, i.e., the hybrid easy-to-clean coating for a microwave appliance, the coating comprising: 10-40wt% of microwave absorbing polymer, 5-10wt% of microwave absorbing material, and 50-80wt% of easy-to-clean material, and the microwave absorbing component comprising a high temperature ferrite (nickel ferrite = NiFe2O4) and carbon nanotubes, were known in the art, and one skilled in the art could have substituted the high temperature ferrite and carbon nanotubes, taught by Shu, for the microwave absorbing component of Zhao, i.v., Khizar, with no change in their respective functions, to yield predictable results, i.e., integrating the high temperature ferrite and carbon nanotubes into the hybrid easy-to-clean coating would have facilitated absorbing microwave radiation which would have reduced the electromagnetic interference (EMI) emitted by a microwave. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(B).
Zhao, i.v., Khizar and Shu, is silent on said easy-to-clean material being a polymer aero-gel composite material.
Kissel teaches, in Fig. 2 and Col. 9, ll. 1 – 5, an easy-to-clean coating (Col. 7, ll. 15 – 20 “…polymer-aerogel composite coating 210 can be used for a wide variety of applications, including, but not limited to, self-cleaning surface…”) including a polymer aero-gel composite (Title, Col. 2, ll. 60 – 65, and Col. 9, ll. 1 – 5), wherein the hybrid easy-to-clean coating has a water contact angle of at least 150 degrees thereon (Col. 9, ll. 1 – 5 “polymer-aerogel composite film showed a water contact angle of about 159.40° and 159.30°”). Kissel further teaches, in Abstract, “The polymer-aerogel composite coating can include a polymer and an ultra high water content catalyzed polysilicate aerogel,…”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Zhao, i.v., Khizar and Shu, with the polymer aero-gel composite material, taught by Kissel, because all the claimed elements, i.e., the hybrid easy-to-clean coating for a microwave appliance, the coating comprising: 10-40wt% of microwave absorbing polymer, 5-10wt% of microwave absorbing material, and 50-80wt% of easy-to-clean material, and the easy-to-clean material being a polymer aero-gel composite material, were known in the art, and one skilled in the art could have substituted the polymer aero-gel composite material, taught by Kissel, for the easy-to-clean material of Zhao, i.v., Khizar and Shu, with no change in their respective functions, to yield predictable results, i.e., integrating the polymer aero-gel composite material into the hybrid easy-to-clean coating would have facilitated self-cleaning because any liquid water that came into contact with the coated interior surfaces would have beaded up and flowed off the surface due to gravity. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(B).
Re Claim 15, Zhao, i.v., Khizar, Shu, and Kissel, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including wherein the coating comprises 15-45wt% of microwave absorbing two-system based pre-polymerized polymer, refer to Claim 14 rejection above. MPEP2144.05(I) stated “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.)”.
Re Claim 16, Zhao, i.v., Khizar, Shu, and Kissel, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including wherein the coating comprises 0.5-10wt% of high temperature ferrite, i.e., the microwave absorbing material, refer to Claim 14 rejection above. MPEP2144.05(I) stated “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.)”.
Re Claim 17, Zhao, i.v., Khizar, Shu, and Kissel, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including wherein the coating comprises 30-75wt% of polymer aero-gel composite material, i.e., easy-to-clean material, refer to Claim 14 rejection above. MPEP2144.05(I) stated “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.)”.
Re Claim 19, Zhao, i.v., Khizar, Shu, and Kissel, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including wherein the polymer aero-gel composite material is a polysilicate aerogel, refer to Claim 14 rejection above.
Re Claim 20, Zhao, i.v., Khizar, Shu, and Kissel, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including wherein the microwave absorbing material further includes carbon nanotubes, refer to Claim 14 rejection above.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al. (CN105731973A, cited in 02/15/2023 IDS) in view of Khizar et al. (11,225,747) in view of Shu et al. (CN108690556A) in view of Kissel et al. (9,249,333) as applied to Claim 14 above, and further in view of Toreki et al. (9,808,548) in view of Sahoo et al., “Probing the cellular damage in bacteria induced by GaN nanoparticles using confocal laser Raman spectroscopy”, Journal of Nanoparticle Research, Vol. 15, article number 1841, (2013), hereinafter “Sahoo”.
Re Claim 18, Zhao, i.v., Khizar, Shu, and Kissel, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, and Zhao further teaches, in Abstract, 1-2wt% of auxiliary. Zhao teaches, on machine translation Pg. 5, fourth paragraph from bottom, that the auxiliary included a dispersing agent. Applicant’s Para. [0023] disclosed that the auxiliary and/or filler may be a dispersing agent. Therefore, the combination of Zhao, i.v., Khizar, Shu, and Kissel, teaches further comprising 0.0 1-2wt% of filler.
Zhao, i.v., Khizar, Shu, and Kissel, as discussed above, is silent on further comprising 0.01-20%wt of antimicrobial material.
Toreki teaches, in Col. 3, ll. 50 – 60 and Col. 11, ll. 20 – 25, that metallic Zn nanoparticles were known to have high antimicrobial efficacy and were suitable for use in coatings for home appliances. Sahoo teaches, in Abstract, Pg. 2, second column, last paragraph, Pg. 5, second column, first paragraph, and Pg. 12, second column, first paragraph, that metallic GaN nanoparticles have been embedded into surface coatings to create antimicrobial surfaces for implants and catheter devices.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Zhao, i.v., Khizar, Shu, and Kissel, with the antimicrobial component is metallic Zn nanoparticles or metallic GaN nanoparticles, taught by Toreki and Sahoo, because all the claimed elements, i.e., hybrid easy-to-clean coating for a microwave appliance, the coating comprising: 5-55wt% of a microwave absorbing two-system based pre-polymerized polymer; 0.3-15wt% of a microwave absorbing material including a high temperature ferrite; 20-85wt% of a polymer aero-gel composite material, and 0.0 1-2wt% of filler, and a coating comprising antimicrobial material, were known in the art, in combination each one of the components would perform the same function as it did separately, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, with no change in their respective functions, to yield predictable results, i.e., integrating antimicrobial materials, e.g., metallic Zn nanoparticles and/or metallic GaN nanoparticles, into the balance of the hybrid easy-to-clean coating would have facilitated providing antimicrobial properties to the interior surfaces of said cooking chamber coated with the hybrid easy-to-clean coating. For example, if the weight percentage of the microwave absorbing two-system based pre-polymerized polymer, microwave absorbing material including a high temperature ferrite, and polymer aero-gel composite material summed up to 80% then the balance of 20% weight would be made up by the antimicrobial material. Conversely, if the weight percentage of the microwave absorbing two-system based pre-polymerized polymer, microwave absorbing material including a high temperature ferrite, and polymer aero-gel composite material summed up to 99.99% then the balance of 0.01% weight would be made up by the antimicrobial material. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(A).
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on Pgs. 5 – 7 that primary reference Kim teaches away from the proposed modification. This argument is not persuasive because it has been held that “the prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed….” In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004); MPEP 2145(X)(D)(1). Applicant’s arguments failed to cite where Kim explicitly criticized, discredited, or otherwise discouraged the proposed modification. Consequently, Kim’s disclosure of an alternative coating does not constitute a teaching away from the proposed modification.
Applicant further argues on Pg. 6, first paragraph that “The coating described in Kim would avoid microwave absorbing fillers to prevent coating degradation and thermal damage, thus teaching away from the examiner's combination.” Applicant further argues on Pg. 6, second paragraph that “Accordingly, the microwave absorbance in this coating of Kim would render the coating inoperable as it would not be a durable coating and would change the surface energy of Kim, and further Kim teaches away from such modification because it would alter the surface energy.” Applicant further argues on Pg. 6, third paragraph that “It furthers that Kim does not consider the bond degradation over time, thus it would not have been obvious to make a modification because the drawback is not considered.” These arguments are not persuasive because the arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness.”); MPEP 2145. Applicant further argues on Pg. 7, second paragraph that “Accordingly, Applicant submits that not only are the references not obvious to combine, but doing so would render the teachings inoperable”. Applicant further argues on Pg. 7, third paragraph that “Thus, it would not be an obvious change to swap or add a polymer aerogel composite given the change in surface energy of such an alteration”. Applicant has failed to cite factual evidence in the record to support the attorney arguments. The rejections are maintained.
Applicant argues on Pg. 7, last paragraph that secondary reference Toreki is non-analogous art. In response to applicant's argument that secondary reference Toreki is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, secondary reference Toreki is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in this case, metallic nanoparticles that were known to have high antimicrobial efficacy and were suitable for use in coatings for home appliances. The Supreme Court held that "[r]eading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening of a jigsaw puzzle. It is not invention." Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 335 (1945); MPEP2144.07. Applicant’s claimed invention is just a mixture of known compounds selected to meet known requirements and is therefore an obvious invention. The rejections are maintained.
Applicant argues on Pg. 8, third paragraph that primary reference Zhao teaches away from the proposed modification. This argument is not persuasive because it has been held that “the prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed….” In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004); MPEP 2145(X)(D)(1). Applicant’s arguments failed to cite where Zhao explicitly criticized, discredited, or otherwise discouraged the proposed modification. Consequently, Zhao’s disclosure of an alternative easy-to-clean aspect does not constitute a teaching away from the proposed modification. A coating with a super hydrophobic component, i.e., water contact angle of at least 150 degrees, would have been easy-to-clean because liquid water that contacted said coating would have “beaded-up” into near-perfect spheres and rolled off or down coated vertical surfaces like walls thereby self-cleaning the walls or making the walls easier to clean. The rejections are maintained.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LORNE E MEADE whose telephone number is (571)270-7570. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5 EST.
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, Phutthiwat Wongwian can be reached at 571-270-5426. 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.
/LORNE E MEADE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights