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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07/16/2026 amending Claims 1, 9, and 14 has been entered.
Drawings
Fig. 2B is objected to objected to under 37 CFR 1.84 because the text in the figure is unreadable. Per 37 CFR 1.84(p)(3) “Numbers, letters, and reference characters must measure at least .32 cm. (1/8 inch) in height. They should not be placed in the drawing so as to interfere with its comprehension. Therefore, they should not cross or mingle with the lines. They should not be placed upon hatched or shaded surfaces. When necessary, such as indicating a surface or cross section, a reference character may be underlined and a blank space may be left in the hatching or shading where the character occurs so that it appears distinct.”. Appropriate correction is required.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 1 – 8 are 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. Amended Claim 1, l. 11 recites “the hybrid easy-to-clean coating is as a unitary coating”. The original written description failed to describe that the hybrid easy-to-clean coating was a unitary coating”. A text search of the Original Specification failed to find the word “unitary”. None of the original claims recited the word “unitary”. A text search of the Original Specification failed to find the word “single”. None of the original claims recited the word “single”. On Pg. 5, second paragraph of the 07/16/2026 reply, Applicant cites Specification Paragraphs [0019] and [0023] – [0032] as supporting the amended claims. A review of those paragraphs failed to find the word “unitary”. Furthermore, Specification Paragraph [0031] disclosed a plurality of layers of hybrid easy-to-clean coating deposited on the inner surfaces of the interior walls. Specification Paragraph [0031] disclosed “Furthermore, the interior walls 115 may include one or more layers of the hybrid easy-to-clean coating 200 thereon. As such, any suitable number of layers of the hybrid easy-to-clean coating 200 may be deposited on the inner surfaces. The layers may deposited by any suitable method, and may be cured independently or collectively on the interior walls 115.” Therefore, the original written description failed to explicitly disclose that the claimed invention was limited to a single, i.e., unitary, layer of hybrid easy-to-clean coating. Claims 2 – 8 depend from Claim 1 and are rejected for the same reasons.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4, ll. 1 - 2 recites the limitation "the microwave absorbing component ". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 4 recites “The heating appliance of claim 1, wherein the microwave absorbing component includes carbon nanotubes and a high temperature ferrite material”. Claim 1, ll. 7 - 8 recites “microwave absorbing material including high temperature ferrite and carbon nanotube”. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 10 recites “The heating appliance of claim 9, wherein the hybrid easy-to-clean coating further includes a two-system based pre-polymerized polymer binder”. Claim 9, ll. 8 - 9 recites “a microwave absorbing two-system based pre-polymerized polymer binder”. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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) in view of Khizar et al. (11,225,747).
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 polymer aero-gel superhydrophobic material, wherein the hybrid easy-to-clean coating is as a unitary coating forming a surface that 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 super hydrophobic component (Title, Col. 2, ll. 60 – 65, and Col. 9, ll. 1 – 5), wherein the hybrid easy-to-clean coating is a coating forming a surface (when applied to a substrate like a wall) that 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 super hydrophobic component, wherein the easy-to-clean coating is a coating forming a surface (when applied to a substrate like a wall) that 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 super hydrophobic component, wherein the easy-to-clean coating is a coating forming a surface that 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 super hydrophobic component, wherein the easy-to-clean coating is a coating forming a surface that 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 a polymer aero-gel super hydrophobic component, wherein the easy-to-clean coating is a coating forming a surface that has 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 material including high temperature ferrite and carbon nanotubes.
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. Applicant’s Specification Para. [0006] “In at least another further embodiment, the high temperature ferrite is Ni ferrite, Mn ferrite, or combinations thereof.” Therefore, Shu’s nickel ferrite or Ni ferrite was a high temperature 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 material including high temperature ferrite and carbon nanotubes, 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 microwave absorbing material including high temperature ferrite and carbon nanotubes, 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 material including high temperature ferrite and carbon nanotubes and the polymer aero-gel super hydrophobic material having a water contact angle of at least 150 degrees would have facilitated a hybrid self-cleaning unitary 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 or living organism located outside of the heating appliance cooking chamber because the hybrid easy-to-clean coating applied on every interior surface of said cooking chamber would have absorbed microwaves that reached said interior surfaces which meant that no microwaves would have escaped outside of said cooking chamber. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(A).
Kim, i.v., Kissel and Shu, is silent on the hybrid easy-to-clean coating including a microwave absorbing 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 microwave absorbing material including high temperature ferrite and carbon nanotubes and a polymer aero-gel superhydrophobic material, wherein the hybrid easy-to-clean coating is as a coating forming a surface that has a water contact angle of at least 150 degrees thereon, and a two-system based pre-polymerized polymer binder used to bind together the other 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 superhydrophobic material to form a unitary coating when applied to a substrate like the walls of a cooking chamber of a microwave oven. Kim teaches, in Para. [0051] “as shown in Fig. 1, the coated layer is directly painted on the base material…to implement an easy-to-clean interior surface for cooking apparatus”. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(A).
Re Claims 2 and 3, Kim, i.v., Kissel, Shu, and Khizar, 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, Shu, and Khizar, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including (Claim 4) [Refer to the 112(d) rejection above.] 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] “as shown in Fig. 1, the coated layer is directly painted on the base material…to implement an easy-to-clean interior surface for cooking apparatus”.) bonded to 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. Applicant’s Specification Para. [0006] “In at least another further embodiment, the high temperature ferrite is Ni ferrite, Mn ferrite, or combinations thereof.” Therefore, Shu’s nickel ferrite or Ni ferrite was a high temperature 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 high temperature 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 high temperature 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 high temperature 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 or living organism located outside of the heating appliance cooking chamber because the hybrid easy-to-clean coating applied on every interior surface of said cooking chamber would have absorbed microwaves that reached said interior surfaces which meant that no microwaves would have escaped outside of said cooking chamber. 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.
Kim, i.v., Kissel and Shu, is silent on the hybrid easy-to-clean coating including a microwave absorbing 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 high temperature ferrite, carbon nanotubes, and a polymer aero-gel superhydrophobic material, wherein the hybrid easy-to-clean coating is as a coating forming a surface that has a water contact angle of at least 150 degrees thereon, and a two-system based pre-polymerized polymer binder used to bind together the other 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 easy-to-clean coating would have facilitated binding together all the different components of the hybrid easy-to-clean coating into a homogeneous easy-to-clean coating with uniformly dispersed high temperature ferrite, carbon nanotubes, and polymer aero-gel superhydrophobic material to form the hybrid easy-to-clean coating facilitating a reduced adhesion of food particles thereon as compared to the interior surface (interior walls without said hybrid easy-to-clean coating), while remaining bonded to the interior surface during microwave radiation exposure, e.g., after the hybrid easy-to-clean coating was applied and dried to the interior surfaces of the walls of the cooking chamber of a microwave oven. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that the hybrid easy-to-clean coating of Kim, i.v., Kissel, Shu, and Khizar, as discussed above, would have had reduced adhesion of food particles thereon as compared to the interior surface (interior walls without said hybrid easy-to-clean coating), while remaining bonded to the interior surface during microwave radiation exposure because it has been held that, “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); MPEP 2112.01. Applicant’s Specification Para. [0032] disclosed that “The hybrid easy-to-clean coating 200 reduces adhesion of food particles to the cavity walls 130 (via the water contact angle), while remaining bonded to the walls 130 in the presence of microwave radiation over the life span of the appliance 100 (via the microwave absorption capabilities)”. Since the hybrid easy-to-clean coating of Kim, i.v., Kissel, Shu, and Khizar, as discussed above, would have had the claimed water contact angle and the claimed microwave absorption capabilities, said hybrid easy-to-clean coating would have had the same functional capabilities of reduced adhesion of food particles thereon as compared to the interior surface (interior walls without said hybrid easy-to-clean coating), while remaining bonded to the interior surface during microwave radiation exposure.
Re Claim 10, [Refer to the 112(d) rejection above.] Kim, i.v., Kissel, Shu, and Khizar, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including wherein the hybrid easy- to-clean coating further includes a two-system based pre-polymerized polymer binder, refer to the Claim 9 rejection above.
Re Claim 11, Kim, i.v., Kissel, Shu, and Khizar, 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, Shu, and Khizar, 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) in view of Khizar et al. (11,225,747) 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, 8, and 12, Kim, i.v., Kissel, Shu, and Khizar, 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, Shu, and Khizar, 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 polymer aero-gel composite 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).
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 consisting essentially of: [MPEP2111.03(III) stated “For the purposes of searching for and applying prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103, absent a clear indication in the specification or claims of what the basic and novel characteristics actually are, "consisting essentially of" will be construed as equivalent to "comprising." See, e.g., PPG Industries v. Guardian Industries, 156 F.3d 1351, 1355, 48 USPQ2d 1351, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ("PPG could have defined the scope of the phrase ‘consisting essentially of’ for purposes of its patent by making clear in its specification what it regarded as constituting a material change in the basic and novel characteristics of the invention.") The transition phrase "consisting essentially of" is construed as equivalent to "comprising" because the original Specification and claims failed to include what the basic and novel characteristics of the claimed invention actually are. Dependent Claims 18 and 20 recite additional materials that were not recited in independent Claim 14. Specification Para. [0023] disclosed “The hybrid easy-to-clean coating 200 may also include an antimicrobial material, auxiliary ingredients, and/or fillers. The auxiliary and/or fillers may be, for example, volume fillers, corrosion inhibitors, particles that provide shielding action against oxidation at high temperatures (i.e., up to 500 degrees C), thickeners, dispersants for aiding in deposition or film formation, and the like, and combinations thereof”. Specification Para. [0024] disclosed “The microwave absorbing material binder of the hybrid easy-to-clean coating 200 may be any suitable binder…”. Specification Para. [0025] disclosed “The microwave absorbing material may be any suitable microwave absorbing material...”. Specification Para. [0026] disclosed “The super hydrophobic easy-to-clean material may be any suitable material…”. Specification Para. [0029] disclosed “In an embodiment, the hybrid easy-to-clean coating 200 has a composition of 15 to 45 wt% of microwave absorbing material binder, 0.5 to 10 wt% of microwave absorbing material, 30 to 75 wt% of super hydrophobic easy-to-clean material, 0.01 to 20% wt of antimicrobial material, and 0.01 to 2 wt% of other auxiliary ingredients”. Consequently, the original Specification and claims failed to include what the basic and novel characteristics of the claimed invention actually are.] 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/16/2026 have been fully considered. To the extent possible they have been addressed in the rejections above at the appropriate locations, and furthermore they were found not persuasive for the following reasons
Applicant argues on Pg. 7, second paragraph continuing on to Pg. 9 that the Office Action “…does not explain why a skilled artisan would have selected these particular references, extracted these particular teachings, and combined them into the claimed structure before Applicant's invention” (emphasis added by Applicant). These arguments are not persuasive. In KSR, the Supreme Court particularly emphasized “the need for caution in granting a patent based on the combination of elements found in the prior art,” Id. at 415, 82 USPQ2d at 1395, and discussed circumstances in which a patent might be determined to be obvious. Importantly, the Supreme Court reaffirmed principles based on its precedent that “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” Id. at 415-16, 82 USPQ2d at 1395. In Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., the Supreme Court derived . . . the conclusion that when a patent simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious.” Id. at 417, 82 USPQ2d at 1395-96 (Internal quotations omitted.) When considering obviousness of a combination of known elements, the operative question is thus “whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.” Id. at 417, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. Furthermore, 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). Applicant’s Specification failed to disclose any unexpected results. Instead, Applicant’s invention simply arranges old elements (microwave absorbing material including high temperature ferrite and carbon nanotubes, a polymer aero-gel superhydrophobic material, and a microwave absorbing two-system based pre-polymerized polymer binder) with each performing the same function it had been known to perform (the high temperature ferrite and carbon nanotubes naturally absorb microwaves, the polymer aero-gel superhydrophobic material naturally produces a water contact angle of at least 150 degrees, and the two-system based pre-polymerized polymer binder naturally binds the microwave absorbing material and the polymer aero-gel superhydrophobic material into a homogenous fluid mixture that could be applied to a solid surface by painting or spraying. After application and curing the homogenous fluid mixture would have formed a solid hybrid easy-to-clean coating bonded to the solid surface) and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement (Applicant’s Specification failed to disclose any unexpected results); consequently, the combination is obvious. In other words, Applicant’s claimed invention basically read a list and selected known compounds to meet known requirements. MPEP2144.07 stated “The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (Claims to a printing ink comprising a solvent having the vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol so that the ink would not dry at room temperature but would dry quickly upon heating were held invalid over a reference teaching a printing ink made with a different solvent that was nonvolatile at room temperature but highly volatile when heated in view of an article which taught the desired boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of a solvent for printing inks and a catalog teaching the boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol.)”. Applicant’s claimed microwave absorbing material including high temperature ferrite and carbon nanotubes, polymer aero-gel superhydrophobic material, and microwave absorbing two-system based pre-polymerized polymer binder were simply selecting known materials based on their suitability for the materials intended use and therefore the claimed combination was obvious. The rejections are maintained.
In response to applicant's argument on Pg. 7, second paragraph continuing on to Pg. 11 that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Applicant argued that the reasoning to combine the claimed components, e.g., microwave absorbing material including high temperature ferrite and carbon nanotubes, a polymer aero-gel superhydrophobic material, and a microwave absorbing two-system based pre-polymerized polymer binder, was gleaned only from Applicant’s disclosure and is therefore improper hindsight. Examiner disagrees. In KSR, the Supreme Court particularly emphasized “the need for caution in granting a patent based on the combination of elements found in the prior art,” Id. at 415, 82 USPQ2d at 1395, and discussed circumstances in which a patent might be determined to be obvious. Importantly, the Supreme Court reaffirmed principles based on its precedent that “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” Id. at 415-16, 82 USPQ2d at 1395. In Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., the Supreme Court derived . . . the conclusion that when a patent simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious.” Id. at 417, 82 USPQ2d at 1395-96 (Internal quotations omitted.) When considering obviousness of a combination of known elements, the operative question is thus “whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.” Id. at 417, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. Furthermore, 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). Consequently, the reconstruction was not improper hindsight. 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