DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-8, in the reply filed on 5/13/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 9-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5/13/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 5, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KR 101974642. Because KR 101974642 is not in English, the machine-translated English equivalent is cited below and is attached.
KR ‘642 teaches a porous membrane structure produced by curing a polymer resin coated onto a mold surface, said curing occurring via spraying steam. See ¶17. A film of the polymer is applied by coating a solution of the polymer (¶20). Examples of the mold are made from polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), which is hydrophobic (¶27). The steam is sprayed as water vapor at a temperature of 100ºC to 120ºC and a pressure of 90 to 110 kPa, which fall within the ranges of instant claim 5. Examples of the polymer resin include polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS), polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA), polyurethane, polyester, polyimide, polycarbonate and epoxy resin (¶31). This meets instant claim 3. Micropores are formed in the surface of the polymer resin sprayed with steam (see ¶37). The porous membrane is separated from the surface of the mold on which is it applied. This meets “separating the polymer from the substrate”. See ¶42. The porous polymer is surface treated with a hydrophobic coating solution, which meets instant claim 8. Thus, KR ‘642 teaches coating a thermosetting polymer (examples being polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS), polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA), polyurethane, polyester, polyimide, polycarbonate and epoxy resin (¶31)) onto a hydrophobic substrate (a PTFE mold; see ¶27), curing the coated thermosetting polymer by spraying steam onto it at a temperature of 100ºC to 120ºC and a pressure of 90 to 110 kPa, which forms pores in the polymer coating thereby forming a porous polymer structure (see ¶25), and separating the porous polymer structure from the (PTFE) mold, i.e. from the hydrophobic mold substrate (¶25).
As PTFE is in a list of only three exemplified types of molds, one of ordinary skill in the art would at once envisage use of PTFE mold, which is hydrophobic.
As identical steps using identical components are used to produce an identical product in the invention of KR ‘642, the identical steps and components will produce an identical product having the same properties as the instantly claimed porous polymer structure, including a smooth surface. The burden is shifted to Applicants to provide factually supported evidence which demonstrates the contrary. MPEP 2112 states “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KR 101974642 as evidenced by Yasuda et al., “Contact Angle of Water on Polymer Surfaces,” Langmuir 1994, 10, 2435-2439.
KR ‘642 teach the method and porous polymer as described in this action above, the rejection of which is incorporated herein by reference. As evidenced by Yasuda et al., PTFE, which is a substrate used in KR ‘642, necessarily have a water contact angle which meets instant claim 2. See abstract of Yasuda et al.
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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 101974642. Because KR 101974642 is not in English, the machine-translated English equivalent is cited below and is attached.
KR 101974642 teaches the method and porous membrane structure as described in this action above, the rejection of which is incorporated herein by reference. KR 101974642 teaches that the thickness of the polymer resin applied is not particularly limited. ¶30. The polymer resin coating is described as ‘ultrathin’ (¶8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, given the teachings of KR ‘642, to apply a thermoset polymer having a thickness which meets instant claim 7 in order to provide coating which has sufficient thickness to improve superhydrophobicity and durability but which is still ultrathin thereby providing cost savings by using less polymer.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 101974642 and further in view of KR 2012/0052775. Because KR 101974642 and KR 2012/0052775 are not in English, the machine-translated English equivalents are cited below and are attached.
KR 101974642 teaches the method and porous membrane structure as described in this action above, the rejection of which is incorporated herein by reference. While KR 101974642 teaches that the thickness of the polymer resin applied is not particularly limited (¶30), KR ‘462 does not teach a specific thickness.
However, KR 2012/0052775 teaches forming a porous polymer by spraying steam onto thermosetting polymer (¶39). Examples of the thermosetting polymer include polyester resin, polyimide resin, epoxy resin, polydimethylsiloxane resin, and polyurethane resin (¶17). The applied steam is at a temperature of 110-120ºC and a pressure of 70-80 kPa (¶39). The thermosetting polymer is coated onto a surface at a thickness of, for example, 0.5 to 1.5 cm, which is from 5 to 15 mm (see ¶18). This overlaps the range of instant claim 7. It is well settled that where the prior art describes the components of a claimed compound or compositions in concentrations within or overlapping the claimed concentrations a prima facie case of obviousness is established. See In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 1343, 74 USPQ2d 1951, 1953 (Fed. Cir 2005); In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329, 65 USPQ 2d 1379, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (CCPA 1990); In re Malagari, 499 F.2d 1297, 1303, 182 USPQ 549, 553 (CCPA 1974). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, based on the teachings of KR ‘775 which meets the instant claims limitation of instant claim 7 because “a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art…” Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See MPEP 2123.
Both KR ‘775 and KR ‘642 relate to the field of porous thermoset polymer coatings produced using, for example, polydimethylsiloxane, polyurethane, polyester polyimide or epoxy resin (¶12 of KR ‘462 and ¶17 of KR ‘775) which impart superhydrophobic properties (see the paragraph bridging pages 5-6 of KR ‘775 and ¶8-9 of KR ‘642), wherein the coatings are produced by spin coating and cured using vapor (see the citations above). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to apply a coating having the thickness described in KR ‘775, which overlaps the thickness of the instant claims, in the invention of KR ‘762 in order to provide a coating which is easily applicable and which provides the benefits of energy saving and heat transfer while also providing superhydrophobic properties (see page 6, last 3 lines of KR ‘775).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The closest prior art references are those discussed above. Neither KR 101974642 nor KR 2012/0052775 teach inclusion of at least one strengthener selected from the group consisting of silica, nanocarbon, metal particles, and metal oxide particles added to the thermosetting polymer. It would not have been obvious, based on KR 101974642 or KR 2012/0052775, to add silica, nanocarbon, metal particles, and metal oxide particles added to the thermosetting polymer. Additionally, neither KR 101974642 nor KR 2012/0052775 teach a step of drying the thermosetting polymer after curing with steam/vapor. It would not have been obvious, based on KR 101974642 or KR 2012/0052775, to dry the thermosetting polymer after curing it with steam.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to K. B BOYLE whose telephone number is (571)270-7338. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 am to 5pm, Monday - Friday.
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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at (571) 272-1302. 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.
/K. BOYLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Prosecution Insights