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 § 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.
Claims 1, 7 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RANGANATHAN (US-2015/0194240) in view of Nicholl (EP-1361257).
Claim 1: Ranganathan teaches a powder coating material composition comprising a fluorine-containing ethylenic polymer and fillers comprising carbon nanotubes (Ranganathan, para. 0026 and 0041); wherein the polymer is in the form polymer powder (Ranganathan, para. 0049). While Ranganathan’s broad teaching includes nanotubes as the fillers for the powder coating, in the same field of endeavor, namely, powder coating comprising polymer and conductive fillers, Nicholl teaches carbon-based fillers, in particular, carbon nanotubes are particularly useful as conductive fillers in fluorine-containing polymer coating including fluorine-based polymer coating (Nicholl, para. 0007, 0029, 0040 & 0042) Therefore, it would have been obvious to select carbon nanotubes as the fillers as taught by Nicholl in the powder coating of Ranganathan. With regards to the proportion of the carbon nanotubes in the resin, Nicholl teaches the total fillers, one of which fillers being carbon nanotubes, being from 0.1 to 15 wt% (Nicholl, para. 0047). Therefore, it would have been obvious to include carbon nanotubes in any amount between 0.1 to 15 wt% which meets the claimed range of 0.01 to 0.35% by mass to a total amount of the fluorine-containing ethylenic polymer and the electroconductive material.
Claim 7: Nicholl teaches the carbon nanotube is a single-walled
carbon nanotube (Nicholl para. 0042).
Claims 9-12: Ranganathan teaches forming a coating comprising the powder coating over various substrate including a metal surface (para. 0062)
Claims 2-6 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RANGANATHAN/NICHOLL as applied to claims 1, 6 and 9-12 above, and further in view of Shigenai (US-2015/0030857).
Claims 2 and 4: Ranganathan and Nicholl teach the claimed powder coating as discussed above; however, neither specifies the particle size of the polymer. Shigenai teaches a powder coating comprising particulate fluorine-based polymers having particle size from 20 to 100 mm for electrostatic coating (Shigenai, para. 0062). Therefore, the POSITA would have been motivated to select particulate fluorine-based polymers having particle size between 20 and 100 mm; with regards to the coating thickness, Shigenai teaches a coating thickness from 20-1000 mm depending on the use (Shigenai, para. 0127); therefore, it would have been obvious to arrive a coating thickness within the range taught by Shigenai for each particular use. With regards to the process limitations, the claims are product claims; therefore, the process limitations are not giving patentable weight. The burden is on Applicant to show the particular process limitations result in a powder coating materially different from the powder coating taught by the prior art references. With regards to the surface roughness, the value of surface roughness would have been expected because the particle size of the polymer falls within the claimed range as discussed above. With regards to the volume resistivity, Ranganathan teaches a coating with a volume resistivity of 1012 ohm-cm or lower (para. 0030) which meets the claimed range of 1014 ohm-cm or lower.
Claims 3 and 5: Ranganathan and Nicholl teach the claimed powder coating as discussed above; however, neither specifies the particle size of the polymer. Shigenai teaches a powder coating comprising particulate fluorine-based polymers having particle size from 100 to 1000 mm for rotational lining (Shigenai, para. 0063). Therefore, the POSITA would have found it obvious as matter of choice to select particulate fluorine-based polymers having particle size between 100 and 1000 mm, and a thickness from 20-1000 mm depending on the use (Shigenai, para. 0127). Therefore, it would have been obvious to manipulate a coating thickness of such range for each particular use. With regards to the process limitations, the claims are product claims; therefore, the process limitations are not giving patentable weight. The burden is on Applicant to show the particular process limitations result in a powder coating materially different from the powder coating taught by the prior art references. With regards to the surface roughness, the value of surface roughness would have been expected because the particle size of the polymer falls within the claimed range as discussed above. With regards to the volume resistivity, Ranganathan teaches a coating with a volume resistivity of 1012 ohm-cm or lower (para. 0030) which meets the claimed range of 1014 ohm-cm or lower.
Claim 6: Shigenai teaches the fluorine-containing ethylenic polymer
being a copolymer of a tetrafluoroethylene unit, and one of
a perfluoroalkyl vinyl ether unit, a hexafluoropropylene unit and an
ethylene unit (Shigenai, para. 0021).
Claims 9-12: Shigenai teaches forming a coating of the powder coating over various substrates including metal substrates (Shigenai, para. 0128-0129).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ranganathan/Nicholl as applied to claims 1, 7 and 9-12 above, and further in view of Sato (US-20110127472).
Ranganathan and Nicholl teach the claimed powder coating as discussed above; however, neither discusses the G/D ratio of the carbon nanotubes. Sato teaches carbon nanotubes having a G/D ratio of above 30 for the purpose of defect prevention in the coating (para. 0048). Therefore, the POSITA would be motivated to select carbon nanotubes having a G/D ratio above 30 which would include the claimed G/D of above 2 in order to arrive a fewer defects in the coating as taught by Sato.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOA (Holly) LE whose telephone number is (571)272-1511. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 10:00 am to 7:00 pm.
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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at 571-272-1490. 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.
/HOA (Holly) LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788
Prosecution Insights