DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Amendments to the claims, filed on 11/28/25, have been entered in the above-identified application.
Any rejections made in the previous action, and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 3, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao et al (CN 108720547 A).
Regarding claims 1 and 7, Cao teaches a non-stick coating composition (i.e., powder composition which is a powder mixture comprising a polymer resin such PFA powder (e.g., first hot-melt fluorine resin that is a perfluoro resin) and a hard compound powder such as silicon carbide (i.e., conductive filler) (page 4).
In addition, Cao teaches based on the weight of the mixed powder, the content of the hard compound powder is 2-50 wt %. (page 5). This range substantially overlaps that of the instant claims. It has been held that overlapping ranges are sufficient to establish prima facie obviousness. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Cao, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP § 2144.05).
Furthermore, Cao teaches adjusting the amount of the hard compound powder to optimize surface hardness, scratch resistance, and corrosion resistance (page 5); so it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to adjust the amount of hard compound powder in the mixture to optimize the surface hardness, scratch resistance, and corrosion resistance of the final coating or film. "[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).
Cao further teaches the polymer resin may also be a PTFE powder (e.g., hot-melt second fluorine resin that is a perfluoro resin) (page 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to use a mixture of the PFA resin particles and the PTFE resin particles, since it is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose (MPEP § 2144.06 I). Furthermore, this would have suggested or otherwise rendered obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of invention a composition that is 50:50 of the PFA resin particles and the PTFE resin particles (i.e., wherein the ratio of said first hot-melt fluorine resin particles to said second hot-melt fluorine resin particles is 1 to 60 : 40 to 99 wt%).
Cao further teaches the powder composition further comprises a lubricant (e.g., graphite and/or charge controlling agent particles); wherein the lubricant is present in an amount of 0.5 to 3 wt% of the slurry (i.e., total amount of said powder coating composition) (page 5) which lies within the range of the instant claims.
Cao gives examples wherein the PFA powder has a diameter of 15 µm and a modified diameter of the modified PFA powder is 46 µm and 52 µm; and wherein the PTFE powder has a diameter of 28 µm and a modified diameter of the modified PTFE powder is 46 µm and 52 µm (page 6-7, 9); so Cao suggests diameters that lie within the ranges of the instant claims.
Regarding claim 3, Cao gives examples wherein the PFA powder has a diameter of 15 µm and a modified diameter of the modified PFA powder is 46 µm and 52 µm; and wherein the PTFE powder has a diameter of 28 µm and a modified diameter of the modified PTFE powder is 46 µm and 52 µm (page 6-7, 9); so Cao would have suggested or otherwise rendered obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of invention an embodiment wherein the average particle diameter of the second hot-melt fluorine resin particles is larger than the average particle diameter of the first hot-melt fluorine resin particles.
Regarding claim 8, Cao teaches the thickness of the coating may be 30 to 500 µm (page 3). This range substantially overlaps that of the instant claims. It has been held that overlapping ranges are sufficient to establish prima facie obviousness. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Cao, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP § 2144.05).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the instant claims have been considered but are moot due to the new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) in view of a new prior art of record. The Applicant is directed to the 35 USC § 103 section above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN L VAN SELL whose telephone number is (571)270-5152. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur, Generally 7am-6pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, M. Veronica Ewald can be reached at 571-272-8519. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
NATHAN VAN SELL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1783
/NATHAN L VAN SELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783