DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
1. Claims 1-3 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or (a)(2) as anticipated by US 4,915,971 to Fennema et al. (“Fennema”).
With regard to Claims 1-3 and 10-13, Fennema teaches a process of spraying an edible hydrophobic or superhydrophobic layer on food product surfaces comprising spraying a solution comprising a free saturated fatty acid and organic solvent thereon and heating as claimed (see Abstract; Col. 3, Ln. 31 through Col. 5, Ln. 5; Claim 1). Fennema teaches stearic acid, palmitic acid, and combinations thereof (see Col. 9, Lns. 14-15). Fennema further teaches acetone as an apparent alternative to ethanol as a solvent (see Col. 8, Lns. 20-22).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
2. Claims 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fennema.
With regard to claims 4-6, Fennema teaches the claimed types of free fatty acid used in the claimed manner. The reference does not expressly teach antimicrobial properties thereof; however it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have recognized such properties and the utility thereof, particularly in the art of food product manufacturing as is the subject matter of Fennema. Selection of fatty acid is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. Fennema is also noted as teaching usage of beeswax (see Col. 6, Lns. 8-26).
With regard to Claims 7-8, Fennema does not expressly teach provision of a colorant. Addition of colorant to food products is considered ubiquitous in the food manufacturing industry and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have included an edible food colorant in order to enhance product visual appearance in the method of Fennema.
3. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fennema as applied to Claim 1, as evidenced-by and/or in-view-of:
i) Lee et al.; Spray Coating of Hydrophobic Iron Fatty Acids/PS Composite Solutions for the Preparation of Superhydrophobic Paper; Korean Chemical Society; 37.11; pgs. 1862-1865; 2016; (“Lee”); and/or
ii) Daneshmand et al.; Deposition of Superhydrophobic Fatty Acid-Coated Al203 Films by Spray Pyrolysis Method: Effect of Dispersion Mediums on Morphology and Roughness of the Layer; Protection of Metals and Physical Chemistry of Surfaces; 57; pgs. 335-343; 2020; “Daneshmand”).
With regard to Claim 9, to the extent that Fennema does not expressly observe the claimed surface features, Lee and Daneshmand teach the claimed properties derive from the same layer materials. Lee teaches a process of spraying a hydrophobic or superhydrophobic layer on paper surfaces comprising spraying a solution comprising a saturated fatty acid and organic solvent (see Abstract; Pgs. 1-2). According to Lee, coatings increase the roughness on the cellulose fiber surface and can increase contact angle to 155.6° (Id.). Described fatty acids comprise a saturated fatty acid of at least 12 carbon atoms in length such as stearic acid (Id.). Additionally, Daneshmand teaches a process of spraying a hydrophobic or superhydrophobic layer on surfaces comprising spraying a solution comprising a saturated fatty acid and organic solvent (see Abstract; Pgs. 336-337). Daneshmand teaches layers formed of stearic and/or palmitic acid featuring water contact angles and surfaces roughness within the claimed range (Id.; FIG. 11). Accordingly, the coating layers provided by the process of Fennema using the same materials and process are understood to feature the claimed properties. It would have otherwise been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have obtained the claimed surface properties in the method of Fennema in order to confer high water contact angles in pursuit of superhydrophobicity with a reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 17 September 2025 have been fully considered. Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection of Claims 2-3 under 35 U.S.C. 112 are found persuasive. Applicant’s arguments re: Lee, Daneshmand, and Dutkiewicz (see Response at Pgs. 10-13) are found persuasive in view of the claims as amended.
Applicant argues that Fennema does not teach the claimed types of solvent (see Response at Pg. 10). This argument is not found persuasive since Fennema teaches acetone as an alternative to ethanol (see Col. 8, Lns. 20-22). Moreover, Fennema teaches free fatty acids meeting the claimed limitations.
New grounds of rejection have been presented herein in response to the claims as amended.
Conclusion
Un updated search has revealed additional prior art, now made of record but not yet relied upon, and is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2015/0232690 to Armstrong et al. teaches spray application of a combination of stearic and palmitic acid in solvents including acetone and hexane, yielding a transparent hydrophobic layer (see Abstract; ¶¶ [0027], [0032], [0035], [0037]-[0038], Example 1).
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 Michael P Rodriguez whose telephone number is (571)270-3736. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 6:00 Eastern M-F.
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 at 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.
/Michael P. Rodriguez/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1715