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 Amendments
The amendments filed on 02/05/2026 have been received, to which the Applicant is thanked.
Response to Arguments
The arguments have been fully considered, but have not been found to be persuasive.
In response to Applicants argument on pages 5-6 regarding newly amended claim language,
The examiner respectfully responds the Applicants arguments are directed to new amendments to the claim language, which have been addressed in the rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1, 5-6, & 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR20130099274), in view of Han et al (KR20220044420), hereinafter referred to as Han, (US 2023/0323058 will be used as a suitable translation).
Regarding claim 1, Lee (KR20130099274) shows an exterior material for a home appliance (Page 3, Lines 19-21 / Page 4, Lines 1-3), the exterior material comprising:
a plastic material (Page 3, Lines 6-7); and
coating layer (Page 2, Lines 1-7 – the coating layer comprises of a CNT graphene solution) formed on top of the plastic material (Page 3, Lines 5-6), the coating layer includes
at least one additive (Page 2, Lines 1-4 – the additive is Titanium Dioxide) by applying a coating solution (Page 2, Lines 1-2 – the coating solution is a CNT graphene solution) having a relative viscosity that includes the at least one additive (Page 2, Lines 1-4 – the solution comprises of a relative viscosity).
Regarding claim 1 and the limitation “a coating solution having a viscosity of about 10 to 100 g/cm s that includes at least one additive”, this is considered to be Optimization of Ranges. The courts have held that where general condition of claim is disposed in the Lee (Page 2, Lines 1-4 – the solution comprises of a relative viscosity) where Lee shows the coating solution having a relative viscosity that includes the at least one additive. It is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05 Sect II.A.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the viscosity of the coating solution of Lee to have a viscosity of about 10 to 100 g/cm s that includes the at least one additive for the predictable result and benefit of providing a low viscosity solution that makes for easy mixing.
However, while Lee shows the coating layer comprises of at least one additive, Lee lacks showing the coating layer includes both a wax-based additive and, a fluorine-based additive.
Han (KR20220044420), an additive based solution, is in the same field of endeavor as Lee which is an additive based solution.
Han teaches the coating layer includes both a wax-based additive and, a fluorine-based additive (¶0106 – the coating layer includes at least one additive from both waxes and fluorine-bases resins, and they may both be used alone or in combination of two or more, of which the coating layer does include a wax-based additive and a fluorine based additive).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the coating solution of Lee to incorporate the teachings of the coating solution of Han, which would provide a coating solution to improve wear and scratch resistance to the applied plastic material (¶0105).
Regarding claim 5, the elected option reads on claim 1, and the subject matter of claim 5 is furthering an option that was not selected above in claim 1, from which claim 5 depends, therefore the art rejection of claim 1 reads, on claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, the elected option reads on claim 1, and the subject matter of claim 6 is furthering an option that was not selected above in claim 1, from which claim 6 depends, therefore the art rejection of claim 1 reads, on claim 6.
Regarding claim 10, Lee shows wherein the coating layer has a relative edge tilt angle with respect to the plastic material of a relative range of degrees (Page 2, Lines 1-7, As the Applicant states the relative edge tilt angle is achieved by “adjusting a viscosity of the coating solution”, as does Lee show with the graphene solution composed of 1: 1 mixture of solution and graphene solution And 20% or less of the specific gravity is added to and mixed with the carbon composite coating agent and additive”, as does Lee show the coating layer comprises of a CNT graphene solution with a relative edge tile angle of a relative range of degrees as a result of adjusting the viscosity of the coating).
Regarding claim 10 limitation “wherein the coating layer has an edge tilt angle with respect to the plastic material of about 40 to 80 degrees”, this is considered to be Routine Optimization of Ranges. The courts have held that where general condition of claim is disposed in Lee (Page 2, Lines 1-7) where Lee shows the coating layer comprises of a CNT graphene solution with a relative edge tile angle of a relative range of degrees as a result of adjusting the viscosity of the coating. It is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05 Sect II.A)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the coating layer of Lee for the predictable result and benefit of absorbing light of all colors while reacting quickly to light (Page 2, Lines 16-17).
Regarding claim 11, Lee shows wherein the coating layer has a relative coefficient of friction (Page 2, Lines 1-7 – the coefficient of Friction is a unitless measure of the amount of friction existing between two surfaces; Lee shows the coating layer has a relative coefficient of friction between the coating layer and the at least one additive).
Regarding claim 11 limitation “wherein the coating layer has a coefficient of friction from about 0.001 to about 0.5 µ”, this is considered to be Routine Optimization of Ranges. The courts have held that where general condition of claim is disposed in Lee (Page 2, Lines 1-7) where Lee shows the coating layer has a relative coefficient of friction. It is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05 Sect II.A)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the coating layer of Lee for the predictable result and benefit of making the article be more resistant to shock (Page 3, Lines 19-21 / Page 4, Lines 1-2).
Claims 2, & 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR20130099274), (as evidenced by https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0955221914004725) in view of Han et al (KR20220044420), hereinafter referred to as Han, (US 2023/0323058 will be used as a suitable translation).
Regarding claim 2, Lee shows wherein the coating solution further includes graphene nanotubes (GNTs) (Page 2, Lines 1-7 – Sciencedirect.com above outlines the metes and bounds of the graphene Carbon nanotubes).
Regarding claim 7, Lee shows wherein the coating layer includes GNTs in a certain amount of wt% of the coating solution (Page 2, Lines 1-7 – the coating layer includes a coating solution with a relative wt% to the GNTs).
Regarding claim 7 limitation “wherein the coating layer includes GNTs in an amount of about 0.001 to 3.0 wt% of the coating solution”, this is considered to be Routine Optimization of Ranges. The courts have held that where general condition of claim is disposed in Lee (Page 2, Lines 1-7), where Lee shows the coating layer includes GNTs in a certain amount of wt% of the coating solution (Page 2, Lines 1-7 – the coating layer includes a coating solution with a relative wt% to the GNTs). It is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05 Sect II.A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the coating layer of Lee for the predictable result and benefit of absorbing light of all colors while reacting quickly to light (Page 2, Lines 16-17).
Regarding claim 8, Lee shows wherein the coating layer includes GNTs in a certain amount of wt% resulting in a certain transmittance % (Page 2, Line 1-7 – the coating layer includes GNTs in a solution having a certain wt% resulting in a certain transmittance %).
Regarding claim 8 limitation “wherein the coating layer includes GNTs in an amount of about 0.001 to 0.09 wt% resulting in a transmittance of about 80% or more”, this is considered to be Routine Optimization of Ranges. The courts have held that where general condition of claim is disposed in Lee (Page 2, Lines 1-7), where Lee shows the coating layer includes GNTs in a certain amount of wt% resulting in a certain transmittance % (Page 2, Line 1-7 – the coating layer includes GNTs in a solution having a certain wt% resulting in a certain transmittance %). It is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05 Sect II.A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the coating layer of Lee for the predictable result and benefit of absorbing light of all colors while reacting quickly to light (Page 2, Lines 16-17).
Regarding claim 9, Lee shows wherein the GNTs have an aspect ratio of about 1:1 (Page 2, Lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 9 limitation “wherein the GNTs have an aspect ratio of about 1:1500 or more”, this is considered to be Routine Optimization of Ranges. The courts have held that where general condition of claim is disposed in Lee (Page 2, Lines 1-7), where Lee shows the GNTs have an aspect ratio of about 1:1 (Page 2, Lines 1-2). It is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05 Sect II.A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the coating layer of Lee for the predictable result and benefit of absorbing light of all colors while reacting quickly to light (Page 2, Lines 16-17).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR20130099274), in view of Han et al (KR20220044420), hereinafter referred to as Han, (US 2023/0323058 will be used as a suitable translation), in further view of Kang et al (KR100757103), hereinafter referred to as Kang.
Regarding claim 3, Lee shows elements of the claimed invention as stated above in claim 1 including the additive.
However, Lee lacks showing wherein the wax-based additive is included in an amount of about 2 to 15 wt% of the coating solution.
Kang (KR100757103), an additive based solution, is in the same field of endeavor as Lee which is an additive based solution.
Kang teaches wherein the wax-based additive is included in an amount of about 2 to 15 wt% of the coating solution (Page 4, Lines 6-8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the wt% of the coating solution of Lee to incorporate the teachings of the wt% of Kang, which would provide a coating that would decompose not only harmful substances in the wax, but also harmful substances in the air (Page 4, Lines 1-2).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR20130099274), in view of Han et al (KR20220044420), hereinafter referred to as Han, (US 2023/0323058 will be used as a suitable translation), in further view of Jee et al (KR1020210024431), hereinafter referred to as Jee (US 2022/0267632 will be used as a suitable translation).
Regarding claim 12, Lee shows elements of the claimed invention as stated above in claim 1 including the coating layer.
However, Lee lacks showing wherein the coating layer has a surface energy of about 40 Dyne/cm or less.
Jee (KR1020210024431), a composite structure for a device, is in the same field of endeavor as Lee which is a composite structure for a device.
Jee teaches wherein the coating layer has a surface energy of about 40 Dyne/cm or less (¶0146, Lines 9-16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the coating layer of Lee to incorporate the teachings of the coating layer of Jee, which would provide a reduced electrostatic adsorbs ion (¶0146, Lines 9-16).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR20130099274), (as evidenced by https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0955221914004725) / (as evidenced by https://grolltex.com/electronic-graphene-properties-explained/), in view of Han et al (KR20220044420), hereinafter referred to as Han, (US 2023/0323058 will be used as a suitable translation).
Regarding claim 13, Lee shows wherein the coating layer has a charge mobility from about 50,000 to about 200,000 cm2/Vs (Page 2, Lines 1-7 – as Lee shows graphene nanotubules, as does such a graphene coating layer that has a charge mobility from about 50,000 to about 200,000 cm2/Vs, as evidenced by Grolltex.com above, graphene has a charge mobility from about 15,000 to about 200,000).
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR20130099274), in view of Han et al (KR20220044420), hereinafter referred to as Han, (US 2023/0323058 will be used as a suitable translation), in further view of Oh et al (US 2021/0341169), hereinafter referred to as Oh.
Regarding claim 14, Lee (KR20130099274) shows an electronic device (Page 3, Lines 19-21 Page 4, Lines 1-3 – the device can be any IT device or electronic device that generate heat using batteries or electricity) comprising:
a main body (Page 3, Lines 19-21 Page 4, Lines 1-3 – the Examiner is using the broadest reasonable interpretation to understand any device is to have a physical body),
wherein the main body includes an exterior material (Page 3, Lines 6-7 – the exterior material of the main body is a plastic material), the exterior material that includes:
a plastic material (Page 3, Lines 6-7); and
coating layer (Page 2, Lines 1-7 – the coating layer comprises of a CNT graphene solution) formed on top of the plastic material (Page 3, Lines 5-6), the coating layer includes at least
one additive (Page 2, Lines 1-4 – the additive is Titanium) by applying a coating solution (Page 2, Lines 1-2 – the coating solution is a CNT graphene solution) having a relative viscosity that includes the at least one additive (Page 2, Lines 1-4 – the solution comprises of a relative viscosity).
Regarding claim 14 and the limitation “a coating solution having a viscosity of about 10 to 100 g/cm s that includes the at least one additive”, this is considered to be Optimization of Ranges. The courts have held that where general condition of claim is disposed in the Lee (Page 2, Lines 1-4 – the solution comprises of a relative viscosity) where Lee shows the coating solution having a relative viscosity that includes the at least one additive. It is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05 Sect II.A.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the viscosity of the coating solution of Lee to have a viscosity of about 10 to 100 g/cm s that includes the at least one additive for the predictable result and benefit of providing a low viscosity solution that makes for easy mixing.
However, while Lee shows the coating layer comprises of at least one additive, Lee lacks showing the coating layer includes both a wax-based additive and, a fluorine-based additive.
Han (KR20220044420), an additive based solution, is in the same field of endeavor as Lee which is an additive based solution.
Han teaches the coating layer includes both a wax-based additive and, a fluorine-based additive (¶0106 – the coating layer includes at least one additive from both waxes and fluorine-bases resins, and they may both be used alone or in combination of two or more, of which the coating layer does include a wax-based additive and a fluorine based additive).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the coating solution of Lee to incorporate the teachings of the coating solution of Han, which would provide a coating solution to improve wear and scratch resistance to the applied plastic material (¶0105).
However, the combination of Lee and Han lacks showing the electronic device is an air conditioner comprising: a main body provided with a suction port and a discharge port; a motor driver comprising a motor; and a controller configured to control the motor driver.
Oh (US 2021/0341169), an electronic device with a main body, is in the same field of endeavor as Lee which is an electronic device with a main body.
Oh teaches an air conditioner (Fig. 2) comprising: a main body (10, Fig. 2) provided with a suction port (19, Fig. 2) and a discharge port (41a, Fig. 3); a motor driver (30, Fig. 3) comprising a motor (33, Fig. 3); and a controller (160, Fig. 8) configured to control the motor driver (Fig. 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the deodorizing properties of the electronic device of Lee to incorporate the teachings of the electronic device of the air conditioner of Oh, which would provide a device with the ability to perform a drying process of the interior of the air conditioner after performing a cooling process in order to removed condensed moisture from the device that could cause unwanted bacterial growth (¶0005).
Regarding claim 15, Lee shows wherein the coating layer further includes graphene nanotubes (GNTs) (Page 2, Lines 1-7).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is 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.
Regarding claim 4, the closest prior art of record is Lee (KR20130099274) and Kang et al (KR100757103), however these references do not disclose wherein the wax-based additive is included in a powder form having a diameter of about 5 to 100 pm and has a melting point of about 1200C or lower. The Examiner finds no reasonable rationale that would have made it obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lee as it would employ hindsight reasoning to overcome the criticality on this limitation related by the instant application.
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 RYAN L FAULKNER whose telephone number is (469)295-9209. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9-7, Every other F: Flex.
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, Michael Hoang can be reached at 571-272-6460. 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.
/RYAN L FAULKNER/Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/AVINASH A SAVANI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights