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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-10, in the reply filed on 08/04/2026 is acknowledged.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 20090012442 (hereinafter KR ‘442) in view of Ohgushi et al (US 4564557; hereinafter Ohgushi).
As regarding claim 1, KR ‘442 discloses the claimed invention for a coating filter comprising: a stainless steel or aluminum material; and a coating layer formed on the stainless steel or aluminum material, wherein the coating layer includes silicone (SiO2) ([0024]-[0027], [0032]-[0034], and claims 1-2).
KR ‘442 does not disclose methyl methacrylate (MMA) resin. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide methyl methacrylate (MMA) resin in order to improve filter cleanability, heat resistance, durability, and contamination resistance, since it was known in the art as shown in Ohgushi (title, abstract, col 4 ln 5-25 and 35-45, example 1; col 6 ln 20-45; col 7 ln 5-25).
As regarding claim 2, KR ‘442 as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. KR ‘442 as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein a paint forming the coating layer includes, in weight percent, 5 to 7% silicone, 3 to 4.5% MMA resin, with a balance being a diluent and unavoidable impurities. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein a paint forming the coating layer includes, in weight percent, 5 to 7% silicone, 3 to 4.5% MMA resin, with a balance being a diluent and unavoidable impurities in order to enhance coating filter performance, 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. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen wt% silicon and MMA resin or upon another variable recited in the claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen wt% silicon and MMA resin are critical and unexpected results.
As regarding claim 5, KR ‘442 as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. KR ‘442 as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein the coating layer has a thickness ranging from 1 to 5 µm (film layer with a thickness of 0.1 – 100 microns).
As regarding claim 9, KR ‘442 as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. KR ‘442 as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein a water contact angle is at 100° or larger. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein a water contact angle is at 100° or larger in order to enhance coating filter performance, 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. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 20090012442 (hereinafter KR ‘442) in view of Ohgushi et al (US 4564557; hereinafter Ohgushi), as applied supra, and further in view of Thorlaksen (US 20140170426).
As regarding claim 3, KR ‘442 as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. KR ‘442 as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the paint forming the coating layer further includes, in weight percent, 3 to 5% fluorine-containing silicone oil. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein the paint forming the coating layer further includes, in weight percent, 3 to 5% fluorine-containing silicone oil in order to coating filter efficiency, since it was known in the art as shown in Thorlaksen ([0090]-[0091], [0096], and [0098]).
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 20090012442 (hereinafter KR ‘442) in view of Ohgushi et al (US 4564557; hereinafter Ohgushi), as applied supra, and further in view of JP 2015075290 (hereinafter JP ‘290).
As regarding claim 4, KR ‘442 as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. KR ‘442 as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the diluent includes ethyl acetate. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein the diluent includes ethyl acetate in order to coating filter efficiency, since it was known in the art as shown in JP ‘290 ([0172], [0192], and [0194]).
Claim(s) 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 20090012442 (hereinafter KR ‘442) in view of Ohgushi et al (US 4564557; hereinafter Ohgushi), as applied supra, and further in view of WO 2013156898 (hereinafter WO ‘898).
As regarding claim 6, KR ‘442 as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. KR ‘442 as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the coating filter is at least one of a mesh filter, a baffle filter, and a perforated filter. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein the coating filter is at least one of a mesh filter, a baffle filter, and a perforated filter in order to coating filter efficiency, since it was known in the art as shown in WO ‘898 (claim 7).
As regarding claim 7, KR ‘442 as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. KR ‘442 as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the perforated filter has an opening ratio ranging from 28 to 32%. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein the perforated filter has an opening ratio ranging from 28 to 32% in order to enhance coating filter performance, 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. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
As regarding claim 8, KR ‘442 as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. KR ‘442 as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the perforated filter has a hole diameter of 1 mm or larger. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein the perforated filter has a hole diameter of 1 mm or larger in order to enhance coating filter performance, 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. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 20090012442 (hereinafter KR ‘442) in view of Ohgushi et al (US 4564557; hereinafter Ohgushi), as applied supra, and further in view of CN 115232490 (hereinafter CN ‘490).
As regarding claim 10, KR ‘442 as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. KR ‘442 as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein a pencil hardness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein a pencil hardness in order to coating filter efficiency, since it was known in the art as shown in CN ‘490 ([0043]).
KR ‘442 as modified does not disclose the pencil hardness is 3H or higher and 5H or lower. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide the pencil hardness is 3H or higher and 5H or lower in order to enhance coating filter performance, 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. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUNG H BUI whose telephone number is (571)270-7077. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 - 4:30 ET.
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, Benjamin L. Lebron can be reached at (571) 272-0475. 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.
/DUNG H BUI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights