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 .
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.
Claim 10 is 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 10 recites “wherein the performing of the plasma treatment includes providing O2, CF4, SF6, Ar, N2, H2, and a mixture gas thereof on the surface of the substrate.” The claim is not clear. It is not clear if all of the recited gases must be present during the plasma treatment or only one might be present or their mixture.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh et al. “Nanostructured surface with dopamine nanocoating for robust hydrophilicity” (“Oh”), as understood from the provided translation of the abstract, in view of Moon et al. (US 2020/0316881 A1) (“Moon”).
With respect to claim 1, Oh discloses a polydopamine composite material comprising a substrate with first nano-protrusions formed on a surface thereof (abstr.), and a polydopamine layer (abstr.). Oh is silent with respect to the polydopamine layer including second nano-protrusions protruding in a direction perpendicular to the surface of the substrate.
Moon discloses a substrate (abstr.) having first nano-protrusions (0016, 0063, Fig. 1), the substrate being a polymeric substrate which has hydrophilic properties (0066-0068), wherein the substrate includes second nano-protrusions protruding in a direction perpendicular to the surface of the substrate (0064, 0065, Fig. 1). The material has a surface with improved hydrophilicity (0010, 0046). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the polydopamine layer of Oh including second nano-protrusions protruding in a direction perpendicular to the surface of the substrate, in order to obtain a composite material having improved hydrophilicity.
Regarding claim 2, Oh and Moon teach the material of claim 1. Oh discloses the substrate comprises plastic (PET, PLA) (abstr.).
As to claim 3, Oh and Moon teach the material of claim 2. Oh discloses the surface of the substrate has a planar shape – “flat surfaces” or a complex shape (abstr.) interpreted as corresponding to a curved shape or a three-dimensional structure shape.
With respect to claim 4, Oh and Moon teach the material of claim 1. Oh discloses the first nano-protrusions have the shape of a nano-pillar based on the aspect ratio of the nano-protrusions disclosed in the abstract.
Regarding claim 5, Oh and Moon teach the material of claim 1. Oh discloses the height of each of the first nano-protrusions of 500 nm (abstr.), which is within the recited range. Oh is silent regarding the pitch between the first nano-protrusions. Moon discloses a width of the grooves in Fig. 1, which has been interpreted as a pitch between what was interpreted as first nano-protrusions – a width of the concave-convex grooves – of 1 nm to 1000 nm (0063), which overlaps the range recited in claim 5; overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the pitch between the first nano-protrusions of Oh as disclosed in Moon, as such pitch is known in the art of hydrophilic surfaces.
As to claim 6, Oh and Moon teach the material of claim 1. Oh discloses the height of each of the first nano-protrusions of 500 nm (abstr.), which is within the recited range. Oh is silent regarding the pitch between the first nano-protrusions. Moon discloses a width of the grooves in Fig. 1, which has been interpreted as a pitch between what was interpreted as first nano-protrusions – a width of the concave-convex grooves – of 1 nm to 1000 nm (0063), which overlaps the range recited in claim 6; overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the pitch between the first nano-protrusions of Oh as disclosed in Moon, as such pitch is known in the art of hydrophilic surfaces.
With respect to claim 7, Oh and Moon teach the material of claim 1. Oh is silent with respect to functional particles disclosed in the polydopamine layer. Moon discloses functional particles disposed in the polymeric layer, the particles including metal or metal oxide particles, to allow for suitable surface properties, particularly metal oxide particles that modify hydrophilic surface to super-hydrophilic surface (0072-0076). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to dispose functional particles in the polydopamine layer of Oh to modify hydrophilic properties of the layer, as suggested in Moon.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh, in view of Moon, and further in view of Freeman et al. (US 2010/0059433 A1) (“Freeman”).
With respect to claim 8, Oh and Moon teach the material of claim 1, but are silent with respect to a thickness of the polydopamine layer as recited in the claim. Freeman discloses a composite material comprising a layer of polydopamine (0012-0014), the polydopamine layer having a thickness of 5 nm (0080), the thickness within the range recited in claim 8. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the polydopamine layer in the material of Oh and Moon having a thickness of 8 nm as such thickness is known in the art of polydopamine composite materials. Changes in size are within the purview of a person skilled in the art (MPEP 2144.04).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 9, 10, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Oh et al. “Nanostructured surface with dopamine nanocoating for robust hydrophilicity” (“Oh”) as understood from the provided translation of the abstract.
With respect to claim 9, Oh discloses a method of manufacturing a polydopamine composite material (abstr.), the method comprising preparing a substrate (abstr.), forming nano-protrusions on a surface of the substrate – the nano-protrusions were formed using an oxygen plasma etching (abstr.), coating a dopamine solution on the surface of the substrate on which the nano-protrusions are formed (abstr.), and polymerizing the dopamine solution in the air – “the coated sample was dried naturally for more than a week” (abstr.).
Regarding claim 10, Oh discloses the method of claim 9, wherein the forming of nano-protrusions comprises performing plasma treatment, wherein the performing of plasma treatment includes providing oxygen on the surface of the substrate (abstr.).
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.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh, in view of Gogolides et al. (US 8951428 B2) (“Gogolides”).
With respect to claim 11, Oh discloses the method of claim 10, but is silent with respect to the plasma treatment comprising performing a reaction between plasma and the surface of the substrate within approximately 1 to approximately 90 minutes.
Gogolides discloses a method of forming nanostructures on a polymer surface comprising performing plasma treatment using oxygen, wherein a reaction between plasma and the surface of the polymer takes place within a range of from 30 seconds to 30 minutes (col. 7, lines 61-63). The range of duration overlaps the range recited in claim 11. Overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform the reaction between plasma and the surface of the substrate of Oh in the time range as recited in Gogolides, as such duration is known the art of plasma treatment of polymeric surfaces in forming nanostructures.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh.
As to claim 12, Oh discloses the method of claim 9, wherein the coating of the dopamine solution is performed within 1 second to 24 hours (abstr.), the range of time overlapping the recited range; overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh, in view of David et al. (US 10134566 B2) (“David”).
With respect to claim 13, Oh teaches the method of claim 9. Oh discloses forming of the nano-protrusions by performing plasma treatment (abstr.), but is silent with respect to the method comprising forming of the nano-protrusions comprising a laser beam, ion beam, lithography or acid etching process.
David discloses a method of forming a nanostructure, wherein the substrate is a polymeric substrate (abstr.), wherein forming of the nanostructure comprises acid etching process (col. 3, lines 45-56, col. 4, lines 21-25). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include acid etching process in forming nano-protrusions of Oh, as David discloses use of both oxygen plasma etching and acid etching in forming the nanostructures (col. 3, lines 45-56, col. 4, lines 21-25).
Information Disclosure Statement
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOANNA PLESZCZYNSKA whose telephone number is (571)270-1617. The examiner can normally be reached M-F ~ 11:30-8.
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, Maria Veronica Ewald can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
/Joanna Pleszczynska/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783