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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of species (a-i), drawn to the three-dimensional structure being hexagonal in shape, in the reply filed on 10/20/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 9 and 19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/20/2025.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2, 7-8, 10-12, 17-18 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In reference to claim 1, in line 6 after “each” and before “of the plurality”, it is suggested to insert “three-dimensional structure”. Appropriate correction is required.
In reference to claims 2, 10 and 12, in line 2 after “the” and before “three-dimensional structures”, it is suggested to insert “plurality of”, in order to ensure consistency in the claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
In reference to claims 7 and 17, in line 3 after “three-dimensional structure” and before “and a length”, insert “of the plurality of three-dimensional structure”. Appropriate correction is required.
In reference to claims 8, 18 and 20, in line 1 after “the” and before “three-dimensional structures”, it is suggested to insert “plurality of”, in order to ensure consistency in the claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
In reference to claim 11, in line 4 after “each” and before “of the plurality”, it is suggested to insert “three-dimensional structure”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 7-8, 10-14, 17-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hatton et al. (US 2013/0227972) (Hatton) taken in view of evidence by Machado et al. (US 2022/0297819) (Machado).
In reference to claims 1, 8 and 10, Hatton discloses using a substrate that has a patterned hydrophobic surface on a substrate for reducing ice formation (Abstract; [0006]; [0029]). The patterned surface is a separate layer on the substrate ([0050]) (corresponding to a method of forming a textured surface to prevent frost buildup, the method comprising: forming a substrate; forming a plurality of three-dimensional structures that attach to the substrate).
The patterned surface comprises raised structure ([0008]). The raised structures are interconnected walls that form compartments, i.e., cavities each delimited by a bottom surface and one or more walls ([0013]) (corresponding to valleys are formed in between the three-dimensional structures). The pattern surface is a periodic pattern forming an ordered arrangement of honeycomb arrays ([0033]; FIG. 3C) (corresponding to the three0dimesnional structure are hexagonal in shape; the three-dimensional structures form a period lattice structure on the substrate).
Hatton further discloses the hydrophobic surface includes raised structures arranged in a pre-determined design ([0029]). To determine the dimensions of a raised structure, one has to consider several factors, e.g., the type of application (e.g., preventing formation of ice from super-cooled water droplets on a rooftop or aircraft), the size of the water droplet, and the velocity of a water droplet ([0017]) (corresponding to dimensions of each of the plurality of structures are controlled).
A water droplet freezes on the tips of the structure ([0042]; [0044]; [0087]). As evidence by Machado in three-dimensional structures comprising peaks and valleys, like Hatton, when there is both frost and liquid water there is a concentration gradient that forms as a result of the difference between saturation pressures of the two phases. It is the concentration gradient that drives evaporation of the droplets father down the surface (i.e., towards the valley). The evaporation gets to a point where all the remaining liquid droplets evaporate before they can freeze and this stalls propagation of the frost in the valley (Machado, [0036]). Thus, it is clear the ice only forms on the tips of the structures of Hatton, because of the concentration gradient that forms as a result of a saturation vapor pressure difference between solid condensate and liquid condensate on the pattern surface (corresponding to controlling dimensions of each of the plurality of structures to generate a concentration gradient that forms as a result of a saturation vapor pressure difference between solid condensate and liquid condensate on the textured surface; the concentration gradient causes evaporation of the liquid condensate in the valleys that occur between the plurality of three-dimensional structures).
In reference to claims 2 and 3, Hatton discloses the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Hatton further discloses the patterned surface is coated with a hydrophobic material ([0049]) (corresponding to applying a coating to the valleys formed in between the three-dimensional structures; applying the coating to the plurality of three-dimensional structures).
In reference to claim 4, Hatton discloses the limitations of claim 2, as discussed above. Hatton discloses the coating on the patterned surface includes hydrophobic material ([0049]) (corresponding to altering, by the coating, an overall diffusion field of the textured surface by adsorbing or desorbing vapor from the atmosphere).
In reference to claim 7, Hatton discloses the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Hatton further discloses dimensions of the compartment include wall height, length and width ([0019]). The dimension are determined to prevent formation of ice ([0017]). Example 1 further shows varying the wall thickness, size of the patterned structure and height of the patterned structure ([0062]) (corresponding to the controlled dimensions include a height of a side wall of a three-dimensional structure and a length of a side of the three-dimensional structure).
In reference to claims 11, 18 and 20, Hatton discloses a patterned hydrophobic surface on a substrate to reduce ice formation (Abstract; [0006]; [0029]) (corresponding to a textured surface). The patterned surface is formed as either an integral part of the substrate or a separate layer on the substrate ([0050]) (corresponding to a substrate; a plurality of three-dimensional structures attached to the substrate).
The patterned surface comprises raised structure ([0008]). The raised structures are interconnected walls that form compartments, i.e., cavities each delimited by a bottom surface and one or more walls ([0013]) (corresponding to a plurality of three-dimensional structures; valleys that are formed between the plurality of three-dimensional structures). The compartments are hexagonal compartments (i.e., delimited by three walls) ([0014]) (corresponding to the three-dimensional structures are hexagonal in shape). The walls have a height of 0.1 µm to 1000 µm (i.e., 0.0001 mm to 1 mm) and a length of 0.02 µm to 1000 µm (i.e., 0.00002 mm to 1 mm) ([0015]).
Hatton further discloses to determine the dimensions of a raised structure, one has to consider several factors, e.g., the type of application (e.g., preventing formation of ice from super-cooled water droplets on a rooftop or aircraft), the size of the water droplet, and the velocity of a water droplet ([0017]) (corresponding to dimensions of each of the plurality of structures are controlled).
A water droplet freezes on the tips of the structure ([0042]; [0044]; [0087]). As evidence by Machado, in three-dimensional structures comprising peaks and valleys, when there is both frost and liquid water there is a concentration gradient that dorms as a result of the difference between saturation pressures of the two phases. It is the concentration gradient that drives evaporation of the droplets father down the surface (i.e., towards the valley). The evaporation gets to a point where all the remaining liquid droplets evaporate before they can freeze and this stalls propagation of the frost in the valley (Machado, [0036]). Thus, it is clear the ice only forms on the tips of the structures of Hatton, because of the concentration gradient that forms as a result of a saturation vapor pressure difference between solid condensate and liquid condensate on the pattern surface (corresponding to dimensions of each of the plurality of structures are controlled to generate a concentration gradient that forms as a result of a saturation vapor pressure difference between solid condensate and liquid condensate on the textured surface; the concentration gradient causes evaporation of the liquid condensate in the valleys).
Alternatively, Hatton discloses the pattern surface is a periodic pattern forming an ordered arrangement of honeycomb arrays ([0033]; FIG. 3C) (corresponding to the three-dimensional structures form a period lattice structure on the substrate). The honeycomb cells each having walls, wherein the walls have a height of 0.1 µm to 1000 µm (i.e., 0.0001 mm to 1 mm) and a length of 0.02 µm to 1000 µm (i.e., 0.00002 mm to 1 mm) ([0015]). The patterned surface may be made of metals such as aluminum ([0045]).
Given that the patterned surface of Hatton is substantially identical to the present claimed textured surface in structure and composition, the patterned surface of Hatton would inherently have dimensions that are pre-determined (i.e., controlled) to generate a concentration gradient that forms as a result of a saturation vapor pressure difference between solid condensate and liquid condensate on the textured surface; the concentration gradient causes evaporation of the liquid condensate in the valleys.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
In reference to claims 12 and 13, Hatton discloses the limitations of claim 11, as discussed above. Hatton further discloses the patterned surface is coated with a hydrophobic material ([0049]) (corresponding to a coating applied to the valleys formed in between the three-dimensional structures; the coating is also applied to the plurality of three-dimensional structures).
In reference to claim 14, Hatton discloses the limitations of claim 12, as discussed above. Hatton discloses the coating on the patterned surface includes hydrophobic material ([0049]) (corresponding to the coating alters an overall diffusion field of the textured surface by adsorbing or desorbing vapor from the atmosphere).
In reference to claim 17, Hatton discloses the limitations of claim 11, as discussed above. Hatton further discloses dimensions of the compartment include wall height, length and width ([0019]). The dimension are determined to prevent formation of ice ([0017]). Example 1 further shows varying the wall thickness, size of the patterned structure and height of the patterned structure ([0062]) (corresponding to the controlled dimensions include a height of a side wall of a three-dimensional structure and a length of a side of the three-dimensional structure).
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.
Claims 5-6 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatton as applied to claims 2 and 12 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (CN 113773731) (Wang).
The examiner has provided a machine translation of CN 113773731. The citation of prior art in the rejection refers to the provided machine translation.
In reference to claims 5-6 and 15-16, Hatton teaches the limitations of claims 2 and 12, as discussed above. Hatton teaches the patterned surface is coated with hydrophobic material ([0049]).
Hatton does not explicitly teach the coating comprises a moisture absorbent nanomaterial, as presently claimed.
Wang teaches a tough anti-icing coating ([n0001]). The coating includes modified graphene oxide ([n0006]; [n0008]) (corresponding to the coating comprises graphene oxide). The modified graphene oxide is modified nano-graphene oxide ([n0020]) (corresponding to the coating comprises a moisture absorbent nanomaterial). Given that the instant application’s Specification at [0004] discloses graphene oxide is a moisture absorbent material, it is clear the nano-graphene oxide is a moisture absorbent material. The coating has a low surface energy, excellent hydrophobicity, excellent durability, impact resistance and wear resistance ([n0023]).
In light of the motivation of Wang, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to have the coating with hydrophobic material of Hatton be the tough anti-icing coating, in order to provide a coating having low surface energy, excellent hydrophobicity, excellent durability, impact resistance and wear resistance, and thereby arriving at the presently claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon, namely Liu et al. (CN 115502785), is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. However, the rejection using this reference would be cumulative to the rejection of record set forth above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mary I Omori whose telephone number is (571)270-1203. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at (571) 272-0604. 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.
/MARY I OMORI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784