DETAILED ACTION
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5-11 were rejected in the Office Action mailed 12/05/2025.
Applicants filed a Request for Continued Examination, and amended claim(s) 1, 3, 6 and 8, and canceled claim 5 on 03/03/2026.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 6-29 are pending, and claim(s) 12-29 are withdrawn.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 6-11 are rejected.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/03/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 6 and 8 are 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 6, line 2, recites a range “20 wt.% to 90 wt.% of the binder”. However, it is unclear how this range further limits claim 1, given claim 1, line 4 recites “greater than or equal to 10 wt.% to less than or equal to 80 wt.% of a binder”.
Claim 8, line 2, recites a range “about 20 wt.% to about 90 wt.% of the solvent” (emphasis added). However, it is unclear how this range further limits claim 1, given claim 1, line 6 recites “greater than or equal to 10 wt.% or less than or equal to 90 wt.% of solvent”.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3 and 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie et al., CN 114752302A (Xie) (provided in IDS received on 02/15/2024) in view of Martin et al., WO 2018/085376A2 (Martin) and Lawin et al., WO 2008/106494A1 (Lawin).
The examiner has provided a machine translation of Xie et al., CN 114752302A. The citation of the prior art set forth below refers to the machine translation.
Regarding claims 1-2 and 10, Xie teaches a high-transparency super-hydrophobic spray coating; wherein the high-transparency super-hydrophobic spray coating comprises binder and a nano-filler dispersion; nano-filler dispersion comprises nanometer filler, hydrophobic modifier (the nanometer filler and the hydrophobic modifier read upon the hydrophobic compound) and a second solvent (Xie, Abstract);
wherein the nano-filler is selected from one or more of silicon dioxide, zinc oxide, titanium dioxide oxide, aluminium oxide (Xie, page 2, 5th paragraph).
Xie further teaches standing the target substrate sprayed with high transparency super-hydrophobic spraying slurry with normal temperature air (i.e., room temperature) (Xie, page 7, 1st paragraph), reading upon wherein the coating composition is processable at room temperature.
Further regarding claims 1 and 6, as applied to claim 1, Xie teaches the binding agent comprising 1-90 parts of polysiloxane, 0.1 - 90 parts of polysilazane, 0.02 - 10 parts of flatting agent, and 1 - 200 parts of first solvent; the nanometer filler dispersion comprises nanometer filler 1-90 parts, hydrophobic modifier 1-90 parts, the second solvent 1-2000 parts (Xie, Abstract).
Therefore, the binding agent (reading upon the binder) correspond to: 0.097 wt.% to 99.23 wt.% of high-transparency super-hydrophobic spray coating (i.e., (1+0.1+0.02+1)/( 1+0.1+0.02+1+90+90+2000)*100=0.097 wt.%; (90+90+10+200)/( 90+90+10+200+1+1+1)*100=99.23 wt.%), which encompasses the range of the presently claimed.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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).
Further regarding claim 1, Xie does not explicitly disclose the binder comprising a fluoroethylene vinyl ether.
With respect to the difference, Martin teaches repellant coatings that can exhibit selecting wetting properties, e.g., superhydrophobicity (Martin, Abstract). Martin specifically teaches the polymer binder can comprise any suitable binder polymer (Martin, page 2, line 18); a functional material disposed on the polymer binder (Martin, page 3, lines 7-8); the functional material can comprise, for example, a fluoropolymer (Martin, page 3, lines 16-20).
As Martin expressly teaches, the functional material can modulate the surface chemistry (and by extension physical properties) of the repellent coating. Thus, by incorporating a functional material, various properties of the repellent coating, including the hydrophobicity of the coating, can be tuned (Martin, page 11, lines 15-20).
Martin is analogous art as Martin is drawn to repellant coatings that can exhibit selecting wetting properties, e.g., superhydrophobicity.
In light of the motivation of including a functional material, such as a fluoropolymer, in the binder, as taught by Martin, it therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include a fluoropolymer in the binding agent of the high-transparency super-hydrophobic spray coating of Xie, in order to modulate the surface chemistry (and by extension physical properties) of the coating, and tune various properties of the coating, including the hydrophobicity of the coating.
Lawin teaches superhydrophobic coatings (Lawin, [002]). Lawin specifically teaches suitable examples of hydrophobic monomers useful to prepare fluorinated polymeric binders include tetrafluoroethylene and vinylidene fluoride (Lawin, [042]).
Lawin is analogous art as Lawin is drawn to superhydrophobic coatings (Lawin, [002]).
In light of the disclosure of Lawin, it therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use tetrafluoroethylene or vinylidene fluoride to prepare the fluoropolymer of Xie in view of Martin, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 3, as applied to claim 1, Xie teaches the binding agent comprising 1-90 parts of polysiloxane, 0.1 - 90 parts of polysilazane, 0.02 - 10 parts of flatting agent, and 1 - 200 parts of first solvent; the nanometer filler dispersion comprises nanometer filler 1-90 parts, hydrophobic modifier 1-90 parts, the second solvent 1-2000 parts (Xie, Abstract).
Therefore, the nanometer filler and hydrophobic modifier (reading upon the hydrophobic compound) correspond to: 0.08 wt.% to 98.3 wt.% of high-transparency super-hydrophobic spray coating (i.e., (1+1)/(90+90+10+200+2000)*100=0.08 wt.%; (90+90)/(1+0.1+0.02+1+90+90+1)*100=98.3 wt.%), which encompasses the range of the presently claimed.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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).
Regarding claim 7, as applied to claim 1, Xie further discloses the second solvent can be e.g., ethanol, acetone (Xie, page 10, claim 8).
Regarding claim 8, as applied to claim 1, Xie teaches the binding agent comprising 1-90 parts of polysiloxane, 0.1 - 90 parts of polysilazane, 0.02 - 10 parts of flatting agent, and 1 - 200 parts of first solvent; the nanometer filler dispersion comprises nanometer filler 1-90 parts, hydrophobic modifier 1-90 parts, the second solvent 1-2000 parts (Xie, Abstract).
Therefore, the amount of first solvent and second solvent (together reading upon a solvent) correspond to: 0.53 wt.% to 99.96 wt.% of high-transparency super-hydrophobic spray coating (i.e., (1+1)/(90+90+10+1+90+90+1)*100=0.53 wt.%; (200+2000)/(1+0.1+0.02+200+1+1+2000)*100=99.96 wt.%), which encompasses the range of the presently claimed.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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).
Regarding claim 9, as applied to claim 1, Xie further discloses the super-hydrophobic surface contact can reach more than 156 degrees (i.e., 156 degrees to 180 degrees) (Xie, page 9, 1st paragraph).
Regarding claim 11, as applied to claim 1, given that Xie discloses a high-transparency super-hydrophobic spray coating, therefore it is clear that the coating composition can achieve a transmittance of greater than or equal to 95% with sufficiently low amount.
Response to Arguments
Applicant primarily argues:
“These limitations are not taught or suggested by Xie or Martin. The Office appears to recognize that the cited references do not teach or suggest these limitations, at least because the limitation that the binder comprises fluoroethylene vinyl ether, which was originally present in now-canceled claim 5, was not rejected over the combination of Xie and Martin. Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of this rejection.”
Remarks, p. 7
The Examiner respectfully traverses as follows:
The present claim 1 is rejected on the ground of Xie in view of Martin and Lawin, not on the ground of Xie, Martin, or Xie in view of Martin, as set forth above on pages 4-7 above.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant further argues:
“However, claim 1 as amended specifically requires "greater than or equal to 10 wt. % to less than or equal to 80 wt. % of a binder comprising fluoroethylene vinyl ether". Lawin, alone or in combination with Martin and Xie, does not teach or suggest fluoroethylene vinyl ether in any amount and therefore cannot guide a person of ordinary skill in the art towards the presently claimed subject matter.”
Remarks, p. 8
The Examiner respectfully traverses as follows:
Firstly, the present claim 1 requires greater than or equal to 10 wt.% to less than or equal to 80 wt.% of a binder, and the binder comprises fluoroethylene vinyl ether, therefore claim 1 does not requires a specific amount of fluoroethylene vinyl ether, as long as the binder comprising fluoroethylene vinyl ether is greater than or equal to 10 wt.% to less than or equal to 80 wt.%.
Secondly, Xie teaches the binding agent comprising 1-90 parts of polysiloxane, 0.1 - 90 parts of polysilazane, 0.02 - 10 parts of flatting agent, and 1 - 200 parts of first solvent; the nanometer filler dispersion comprises nanometer filler 1-90 parts, hydrophobic modifier 1-90 parts, the second solvent 1-2000 parts (Xie, Abstract).
Therefore, the binding agent (reading upon the binder) correspond to: 0.097 wt.% to 99.23 wt.% of high-transparency super-hydrophobic spray coating (i.e., (1+0.1+0.02+1)/( 1+0.1+0.02+1+90+90+2000)*100=0.097 wt.%; (90+90+10+200)/( 90+90+10+200+1+1+1)*100=99.23 wt.%), which encompasses the range of the presently claimed, as set forth above on page 5, absent evidence to the contrary.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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).
Therefore, the Examiner has fully considered Applicant’s arguments, but they are found unpersuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELING ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8043. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:00am-5:00pm 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, Ching-Yiu Fung can be reached at 571-270-5713. 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.
/KELING ZHANG/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1732