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
Applicants’ amendment to claims, filed 6/17/2026, have been fully considered and reviewed by the examiner. Examiner notes the addition of new claim 29 and cancellation of claim 25. Claims 9-24 and 26-29 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the reasons set forth herein.
Applicant’s arguments related to the icephobic and superhydrophic coating is noted, but not persuasive as the applicant’s have not provided the citation relied upon and thus this argument is not supported by factual evidence. Regardless of the evidence as supplied by the Applicant, CN 675 explicitly discloses “the super-hydrophobic surface has self-cleaning function, but also has anti-corrosion, waterproof, drag reduction, anti-fog, ice, etc.” and thus the reference discloses the icephobic nature of superhydrophobic coatings as taught therein. (see the background technology). As such, as noted by CN 675 “icephobic” would necessarily follow from the presence of a superhydrophobic coating.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the ration of hydrolyzed organosilane to solvent in the mixture is noted, but not persuasive. Here, CN 675 discloses the mass fraction of the organosilane is 0.1 to 10% in the solvent and thus overlaps the claimed range and makes obvious the weight ratio as claimed. Here, the claims require a broad range of solvent to hydrolyzed organosilane (1:2 to 1:100) with small amount of hydrolyzed organosilane being present (i.e. 1:100). As noted by the applicant, CN 675 is concerned with silane coupling agents and Gelest discloses the using silane coupling agents (such as that as taught by CN 675) and discloses the silane coupling agent goes through hydrolysis.
Applicant’s reliance on CN 675 related to fewer/shorter steps is in relation to the cited prior art and does not provide evidence as it relates to the scope of the fewer/shorter steps as appears to be the Applicant’s intent, as CN 675 discloses the steps as illustrated in the prior art rejection and thus would encompass the same number of steps as taught therein.
Applicant argues that CN 675 is not concerned with hydrolyzing an organosilane as claimed and argues that the presence of hydrolysis is an incredibly process dependent and notes the time, solvent, temperature, and several other factors impact the amount of time for hydrolysis. The examiner notes that this argument is supported by evidence that is not supplied by the applicant nor supported by the broadly drafted claim language or the specification as drafted, which does not provide guidance on the hydrolysis process nor indicate that there are strict requirements to achieve the argued hydrolysis. As the claims and specification are silient to these process dependent variables, the examiner maintains that the claims are silent as to time, temperature and/or several other factors (as to time, the examiner notes the examples require 24 hours of stirring, but the applicant’s appear to concede that no required time are necessary and at most a dependent claims requires “multiple hours”, which can be 2 hours, as to solvent, the prior art discloses the same alcohol and organosilane are mixed togethers for a period of time, all that is required by the claims, as to temperature, no required temperature is claimed, but examples disclose “ambient” and the CN 675 reference discloses 10-40C which would encompass/read on ambient temperature). Here, the conditions of the prior art would be expected, in view of the broadly drafted claim, to have the same results of some degree of hydrolysis and the Applicant’s have failed to articulate or provide claim limitations that would differentiate the claims from the prior art.
Examiner notes applicant’s arguments appears to infer complete hydrolysis is required by the claims (e.g. specification discloses “after hydrolysis, each hydrolyzed organosilane compound contains three silanol Si-OH groups)”, the examiner notes that this statement in the specification is not incorporated from the specification to the claims and this is not required by the claims as drafted. The claims are open to partial hydrolysis. The examiner does not disagree the rate of hydrolyzation may be dependent on factors, but the claims themselves do not require complete hydrolysis or for that matter any degree of hydrolysis but merely require some degree of hydrolysis. Regardless, the evidence on the record indicates that the organosilane present in the alcohol and xylene will hydrolyze. See JP 358.
Applicant’s arguments that CN 675 is not concerned with hydrolysis, and thus cannot read on the instant claims as drafted. The examiner disagrees for the reasons as set with respect to JP 358 and with evidence of Geleste as cited above. Here, the mere fact that CN 675 does not explicitly disclose hydrolysis, does not negate the disclosure of the claimed organosilane in an alcohol solvent, the same requires of the instant claims, which do not require any more or less to hydrolyze the organosilane.
Applicant’s arguments related to hydrolysis is noted, but not persuasive as evidenced by JP 358. Applicant’s arguments that there is no reference to a solvent mixture comprising xylene and alcohol for hydrolyzing an organosilane is noted, but not persuasive in view of JP 358, cited hereinafter. Applicant’s argument that increasing the process time by adding xylene is noted, but not supported by factual evidence. Additionally, even in the event that there is increase of process time, one would still expect predictable results in using the combination of xylene and butanol as evidenced by JP 358.
All other applicant arguments are deemed unpersuasive and moot as directed to newly added claim requirements or unsupported by factual evidence.
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.
Claim(s) 9-14, 15-26 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 10798675, hereinafter CN 675 taken collectively with JP H10237358A, hereinafter JP 358.
Please Note - machine translation page numbers used for citations are examples and guidance and the applicant is advised to review the entirety of the disclosure as the examiner relies on the entirety of disclosure of the cited references.
Examiner incorporates herein by reference Response to Arguments above.
Claim 9: CN 675 discloses a superhydrophobic coating over a substrate comprising mixing an organosilane in a solvent mixture “one or more” volatile solvents, such as alcohols, wherein the organosilane is dodecyltrimethoxysilane (meets the requirements of R1 – dodecyl and R2- methyl as claimed).
The superhydrophobic coating of CN 675 can reasonably be considered hydrophobic-icephobic as claimed due to the surface contact angles generated by its application (see e.g. examples, where “icephobic” would necessarily follow from the presence of a superhydrophobic coating).
CN 675 discloses mixing a polymer base (binder material), a hardener (accelerators), and the hydrolyzed organosilane mixture to form a hydrophobic-icephobic composition (step (3) on bottom of page 2 of translation);
applying the hydrophobic-icephobic composition to the coated substrate (step 4, top of page 3 of the translation “the mixture solution is applied to the surface of the substrate”);
and curing the hydrophobic-icephobic composition to form the hydrophobic-icephobic coating, (step 4, top of page 3 of the translation “cured to form a superhydrophobic coating”)
wherein the hydrophobic-icephobic coating is chemically bonded to the substrate. CN 675 discloses the silane coupling agent forms a covalent bond and provides a better wear resistance and thus meets the requirement of chemically bonded as claimed. Additionally, this requirement is necessarily present in the disclosure of CN 675 based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of chemically bonded, specifically, the coating is applied to and cured to the substrate and thus will meet the requirement of “chemically” bonded absent some specific recitation as to the scope of this requirement.
As for the weight ratio as claimed, CN 675 discloses the mass fraction of the organosilane is 0.1 to 10% and thus overlaps the claimed range and makes obvious the weight ratio as claimed. At the very least, the amount of organosilane is a result effective variable,
As for the requirement of xylene and alcohol solvent. CN 675 discloses a combination of known solvents, including alcohols; however, fails to explicitly disclose xylene and alcohol as claimed. However, JP 358, also in the art of forming a organosilane coating onto various materials discloses a combination of known solvents includes xylene and butanol (”As the diluting solvent used in the hydrolysis polycondensation reaction of the hydrolyzable mixture, mentioned above as the dispersion solvent of colloidal silica, methanol, ethanol, isopropanol, n- butanol, lower aliphatic alcohols such as isobutanol; ethylene glycol, ethylene glycol monobutyl ether, ethylene glycol derivatives such as ethylene glycol acetate monoethyl ether; diethylene glycol, diethylene glycol derivatives such as diethylene glycol monobutyl ether; there may be mentioned, and diacetone alcohol, one selected from the group consisting or it may be used two or more. In combination with these hydrophilic organic solvent, toluene, xylene, ethyl acetate, butyl acetate, methyl ethyl ketone, methyl isobutyl ketone, can be also exemplified as methyl ethyl ketoxime.”) Additionally, JP 358 discloses hydrolysis by using xylene and butanol and adding the organosilane to this mixture stirring for multiple hours to initiate a hydrolysis reaction, discloses using a mixed solvent of these two materials “xylene · n- butanol mixed solvent” (B-1 of the preparation conditions stating, “xylene · n- butanol mixed solvent . . . was charged with . . . trimethoxy silane, a partial hydrolysis over about 5 hours with stirring 65 ° C”). and therefore using xylene and alcohol would have led to predictable results as CN 675 discloses a combination of known solvents and JP 358 discloses a combination of known solvents includes xylene and butanol to mix with a organosilane, such as a trimethoxysilane, and silica, similar to that of CN 675.
As for the requirement of organic coated substrate; CN 675 generally discloses the superhydrophobic coating is applied to various substrates, including metal, wood (organic), plastic (organic) for various purposes including e.g. aviation, navigation; however, fails to disclose the application to an organic coated substrate. However, JP 358 in the art of coating substrates with fouling resistance, including silane coupling agent modified silica, and discloses the coating can be applied to various substrate including metal, and discloses that the substrate can include an undercoat/intermediate layer, such as a base coating including various resin/organic materials, including primer coatings, etc. (pages 13-14) and therefore taking the references collectively, it would have been obvious to have modified CN 675 to apply the superhydrophobic coating to the organic base coated metal substrate as such is taught by JP 3358 as CN 675 generally discloses applying to various substrate and JP 358 discloses that such substrates are known to include a prior deposited organic coating.
Each of CN 675 and JP 358 discloses mixing the organosilane with the alcohol solvent and such will result in the claimed hydrolyzed silane, see JP 358 related to hydrolysis in organic solvent mixture.
Claim 10: CN 675 discloses dodecyltrimethoxysilane (meets the requirements of R1 – dodecyl, 12 carbons)
Claim 11: CN 675 discloses composition is thermally cured at a temperature from an ambient temperature to about 80° C (see example 1).
Claim 12: JP 358 discloses solvents including xylene and butanol and combinations thereof as noted and made obvious for the reasons set forth above. JP 358 discloses n-butyl alcohol (“Examples of such an organic solvent, is not particularly limited, for example, methanol, ethanol, isopropanol, n- butanol”, h
Claim 13: CN 675 discloses the binder (polymer base) is a polyurethane (page 2 “polyurethane resin”).
Claim 14: JP 358 discloses an epoxy primer and thus using such would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. (“The primer layer is not particularly limited, for example, nylon resin, alkyd resin, epoxy resin, acrylic resin”)
Claim 15: CN 675 discloses various coating techniques including brushing, rolling, dipping, spraying (step 4, page 3).
Claim 16 and 19: Claim 11 requires thermally curing at ambient and therefore the prior art will necessarily be subject to the ambient temperature for the claimed time period (see e.g. applications at page 1). In other words, by its application and use, the superhydrophobic coating will be at an ambient temperature for a period of time claimed and thus makes obvious this claimed range.
Claim 17: CN 675 discloses coating; however, fails to explicitly disclose a coating thickness. However, JP 358, also in the art of providing a coating onto a substrate discloses a coating amount is not limited (“The thickness of the coating cured coating . . . is not particularly limited”). The coating thickness is a result effective variable, directly affecting the coating properties, i.e. too thin and will not have desired coverage and too thick will be detrimental to the coating and product, and therefore determination of the optimum thickness to convey the desired coating properties will be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 18: CN 675 discloses silica nanoparticles present within the composition 0.1 to 10wt% of the mixture (page 2); however, fails to disclose the amount of silica in the hydrophobic-icephobic composition. However, this component is taught by CN 675 to provide a specific result, i.e. provide a microscale roughness to the coating, and therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have determined the optimum amount of nanoparticle silica in the superhydrophobic composition to reap the benefits of providing the coating with a degree of roughness necessary to provide the desired superhydrophobic properties.
Claim 20: CN 675 and JP 358 each individually discloses using two or more solvents; however, neither reference discloses the volume ratio of the materials. However, the mixture of CN 675 and JP 358 would necessarily have a volume ratio and the amount of each solvent would have a direct effect on the properties of the coating composition, dilution and thus the determination of the volume ratio of the solvents would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to reap the benefits of the mixture.
Claim 21 and 22: CN 675 discloses a water contact angle within the range as claimed (see e.g. example 1, static contact angle is 158o) and a sliding angle within the range as claimed (see e.g. example 1, roll angle is 5o). The remaining examples also disclose the values within the range as claimed. As such the claimed ranges are taught or made obvious by the prior art. As for the requirement of ASTM D 7334, the claims do not actively disclosure performing this test, and therefore the properties of the claims are a direct result of the steps taken and thus this is a mere recognition of latent properties and the prior art will necessarily have these same results unless the applicant is performing other process steps or other method steps that are not specifically claimed nor disclosed as required.
Claim 23: CN 674 and JP 358 each discloses methanol, ethanol, propanol, etc.
Claim 24: JP 358 makes obvious this requirement for the reasons set forth in claims 12 above, see specific discussion with respect to n-butyl alcohol.
Claim 26: Stirring time would be recognized as a result effective variable, directly affecting the degree of mixing and process efficiency and it would have been obvious to have determined the optimum mixing through routine experimentation, including multiple hours (2) as claimed to obtain a completely mixed material. JP 358 discloses stirring for multiple hours and therefore predictable results would follow.
Claim 29: Limitations of this claim are addressed above with respect to claim 9.
Claim(s) 16 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 675 taken collectively with JP 358 and further with CN 102782208, hereinafter CN 208.
While the examiner maintains the position as set forth above, the examiner cites here CN 208, also in the art of forming a hydrophobic coating on a substrate by applying a silane and discloses that the applied coating in the mixed solvent can be cured at temperatures for a period of time or cured/solidified at ambient temperature for 24 hours (0044) and therefore using the known solidifying method would have been obvious as predictable.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 675 taken collectively with JP 358 and further with JP 2013053305, hereinafter JP 305.
CN 675 with JP 358 discloses coating; however, fails to explicitly disclose the claimed coating thickness. However, JP 305, also in the art of providing a coating onto a substrate discloses a coating amount of 10 to 50 microns (page 13, stating “the coating amount . . . an amount of about 10 to 50µm as a cured film thickness). Therefore, taking the references collectively and all that is known to one of ordinary skill in the art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified CN 675 to use the thickness of JP 305 as such is taught as a well-known thickness for coating. The claimed thickness is encompassed by the prior art thickness and thus makes obvious this claim.
Claim(s) 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 675 taken collectively with JP 358 and further with US Patent Application Publication 20100221407, hereinafter USPP 407.
While the examiner maintains the position as set forth above, the examiner notes that CN 675 explicitly measures the contact angle and USPP 407 discloses that the contact measurement of the fluid on a surface using ASTM D 7334 is a standard practice for contact angle measurement for coatings and therefore taking the level of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to use the known contact measurement technique, including ASTM D 7334 as claimed. as such would have provided predictable results.
Claim(s) 26-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 675 taken collectively with JP 358 and further with Silane Coupling Agent, Connecting Across Boundaries, Gelest, 2014, hereinafter Gelest.
CN 675 taken collectively with JP 358 each individually disclose the utilization of silane coupling agents for the adhesion of a coating to a substrate and discloses organic substrate (CN 675) and substrate, such as metal, plastics, etc. and discloses that the substrate can include an undercoat/intermediate layer, such as a base coating including various resin/organic materials (pages 13-14); however, fails to disclose the curing mechanism for the silane coupling agent. However, Gelest discloses the using silane coupling agents to provide bond between substrate and coating materials, including polymers (such as that as taught by CN 675) and discloses the silane coupling agent goes through hydrolysis, and thereafter a condensation reaction, hydrogen bonding and bond formation (see page 3), including hydroxyl groups on the surface of the substrate. Gelest discloses including performing treatment of the organic materials to increase the hydroxyl surface functionality to the surface to provide linkage sites (page 10). Gelest provides guidance as to the curing of the film by condensation of the hydrolyzed silane coupling agent and chemical bonding to the substrate surface and the silanol heads of neighboring silanes bonding together to form polyorganosiloxane as claimed and such also bonding to the OH groups of the substrate (mechanism at page 3, see “how does a silane modify a surface”). Therefore, taking the references collectively, it would have been obvious to have modified CN 675 with JP 358 to include the OH groups on the substrate surface (and increase them by treatment if necessary) to achieve the desired utilization of the silane coupling agent, that is achieve a durable bond with the substrate.
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 DAVID P TUROCY whose telephone number is (571)272-2940. The examiner can normally be reached Mon, Tues, Thurs, and Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached on 571-272-5166. 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.
/DAVID P TUROCY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights