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 .
Status of Application
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9 and 11-23 are pending and presented for examination.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/29/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues that Zhai does not teach or suggest direct coating a plurality of nanometer features onto the substrate, and the claimed invention does not require the polyelectrolyte multilayer in Zhai. However, the Examiner notes that the claims do not exclude a polyelectrolyte multilayer. Additionally, “the substrate” of claim 1 is not limited. Zhai teaches application of the nanoparticle dispersion directly to a substrate, wherein “the substrate” is a composite glass substrate including a multilayer crosslinked resin polyelectrolyte. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that Zhai does teach direct coating of the nanoparticle dispersion to a substrate. Therefore, the rejections over Zhai are maintained as presented below.
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.
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.
1. Claim(s) 1-3, 5-7, 9, 11-13 and 17-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhai et al. (U.S. PGPUB No. 2006/0029808) in view of Huang et al. (“Robust superhydrophobic transparent coatings fabricated by a low-temperature sol-gel process”).
I. Regarding claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, 11-13 and 17-21, Zhai teaches a process comprising: directly wet coating a dispersion consisting of water and silica nanoparticles (necessarily prepared by dispersing nanoparticles into water) onto an outer surface of a provided glass and resin substrate (0040-0042, note that the substrate consists of glass and PAH/PAA multilayer crosslinked resin) to form a silica nanoparticle layer (0042), such that the silica nanoparticles are not sintered and are in point contact with each other and the substrate and form an aggregated layer of silica nanoparticles including voids (Figure 3A and 0048); coating a fluorinated organosilicon compound onto an outer surface of the silica layer (0043); and curing the fluorinated organosilicon compound to form a repellent layer; wherein the silica layer is disposed on an outer surface of the substrate outer layer and the repellent layer is disposed on an outer surface of the silica layer (0043). Zhai makes no modifications to the silica nanoparticles such that the particles in the silica layer will be the same size as the particles in the dispersion, and the nanoparticles have a size of 1-100 nm (see 0036 and note that overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness). Zhai fails to teach a step of drying the dispersion to remove solvent and also fails to teach the fluorinated organosilicon compound coated from a solution.
However, Huang teaches a similar method for providing a water resistant coating (see title) comprising: providing a glass substrate (Dip coating process section); wet coating a 15 nm silica nanoparticle dispersion consisting essentially of the silica nanoparticles and ethanol (a lower alcohol) on an outer surface of the substrate (Preparation of sol-gel solutions section and Dip coating process section); drying the dispersion to remove solvent by heating at 80 ºC for 20 minutes (Dip coating process section) which yields an unsintered silica nanoparticle aggregated layer having the same size silica nanoparticles and the layer comprising voids wherein the nanoparticles are in point contact with each other and the substrate (see Figure 1); coating a solution of a fluorinated organosilicon compound onto an outer surface of the silica layer (Dip coating process section); and curing (Dip coating process section) to yield a layer which will be both water and oil repellant. 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 Zhai’s process by drying the applied silica nanoparticle layer to remove solvent by heating at 80 ºC for 20 minutes and applying the fluorinated organosilicon compound from a solution as disclosed by Huang. One would have been motivated to make these modifications to first provide a non-contaminated solvent-free nanoparticle layer before further modification to prevent the solvent from contaminating the applied fluorinated compound layer and to allow for a simpler means for application of the fluorinated compound that would avoid the use of a device to perform chemical vapor deposition.
II. Regarding claim 22, Zhai in view of Huang teach all the limitations of claim 1 (see above), including an example where the concentration of nanoparticles in the dispersion is 0.06% (0042), but fails to teach the range of 0.1-1 wt%. However, the amount of silica nanoparticles in the dispersion is a result-effective variable that will adjust the coating thickness and density of the applied composition. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the instantly claimed range through process optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
III. Regarding claim 23, Zhai in view of Huang teach all the limitations of claim 1 (see above), but fail to explicitly teach the use of deionized water. However, the Examiner takes Official Notice that deionized water is a well-known material used in chemical processes and various scientific applications in the place of generic tap water. 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 Zhai in view of Huang’s process by substituting deionized water for the generic water of Zhai in view of Huang. One would have been motivated to make this modification as one could have substituted well-known deionized water for generic water with a reasonable expectation of success (as deionized water is simply a more purified form of tap water) and the predictable result of providing a process for forming a water repellent coating on a substrate.
2. Claim(s) 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhai in view of Huang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Takeda (WO 2018/034138).
Regarding claims 14-16, Zhai in view of Huang teach all the limitations of claim 1, but fails to teach the fluorinated organosilicon compound being a fluorooxyalkylene group containing compound having a hydrolysable group and having a formula as claimed in claims 15 and 16. However, Takeda teaches use of a fluorooxyalkylene group containing compound having a hydrolysable group as a compound for forming a water-repellent film (abstract), wherein the compound may be
PNG
media_image1.png
230
705
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(page 23). 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 Zhai in view of Huang’s process by substituting Takeda’s fluorinated organosilicon compound for Zhai in view of Huang’s fluorinated organosilicon compound. One would have been motivated to make this modification as Takeda teaches these compounds provide films with not only excellent water repellency but also excellent wear resistance (abstract).
Conclusion
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9 and 11-23 are pending.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9 and 11-23 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT S WALTERS JR whose telephone number is (571)270-5351. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at 571-272-1295. 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.
/ROBERT S WALTERS JR/
January 14, 2026Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1717