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
Claims 13-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 05/17/2026 due to the inventions containing distinguishing features over the prior art. This is not found persuasive because the claimed limitations are found in the prior art, see the subsequent office action.
Further, multiple inventions, such as those related to a heat exchanger, a composition of a composite material and a method of manufacturing a heat exchanger, require additional reference material and further discussion for each additional invention examined. Concurrent examination of multiple inventions would thus involve a significant burden even if all searches were coextensive wherein the art applicable to one invention would not necessarily be applicable to the other inventions, and vice versa. Further, in addition to classification searches, searching electronic resources and employing different search strategies or search queries also contribute to capturing prior art.
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.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The term “low” in claims 1 and 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “low” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The amount of surface energy is rendered indefinite by the use of the term "low".
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 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 of this title, 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 1-3, 5, 7-9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (US PG Pub. 2010/0310774A1) in view of Takasawa et al. (US PG Pub. 2014/0069620A1), hereinafter referred to as Wu and Takasawa, respectively.
Regarding Claim 1, Wu discloses a metal component (see ¶57), comprising:
a substrate (“a coating composition including an elastomeric polymer and a plurality of nano-fillers dispersed in an organic solvent can first be formed, then be applied to a substrate and then be solidified to form a hydrophobic coating” ¶10); and
a coating (100) covering at least part of a surface of the substrate, the coating comprising a hydrophobic coating (“the hydrophobic coating can include applying a coating composition to a substrate” ¶20),
the hydrophobic coating comprising a low surface energy silane-based material (110, “the polymer matrix 110 can include a vinylidene fluoride-containing fluoroelastomer cross-linked with an effective curing agent that incudes, but is not limited to, a bisphenol compound, a diamino compound, an aminophenol compound, an amino-siloxane compound, an amino-silane, a phenol-silane compound or their combination”, (underline for emphasis) ¶43) and a filler dispersed in the low surface energy silane-based material (shown in figure 1); wherein
the filler comprising two types of particles (120) of which each has a shape (shown in figure 1);
the shapes of the two types of particles being different (shown in figure 1, wherein the particles have different shapes). Wu fails to disclose a heat exchanger and the substrate defining a channel for fluid circulation.
Takasawa, also drawn to a metal substrate having a hydrophobic coating, teaches a heat exchanger (shown in figure 1) and the substrate defining a channel for fluid circulation (5, shown in figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Wu with the substrate being a heat exchanger and the substrate defining a channel for fluid circulation, as taught by Takasawa, the motivation being to provide a heat exchanger with “an excellent frost formation-suppressing effect exhibited by a hydrophobic film…to prevent frost formation” for “a favorable heat exchange function can be continuously obtained without any increase in ventilation resistance” while also providing corrosion resistance to increase the operation life of a heat exchanger.
A recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed, regarding “the substrate defining a channel for fluid circulation”, does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims, as is the case here. Please see Section 2114 of the MPEP entitled Functional Language.
Regarding Claim 2, Wu further discloses the shape of at least one of the two types of particles is a regular shape which is selected from one of sphere, rod, needle (“nanospheres, nanotubes, nanofibers, nanoshafts, nanopillars, nanowires, nanorods, nanoneedles, nanowhiskers, and/or their various functionalized and derivatized fibril forms, which include nanofibers with exemplary forms of thread, yarn, fabrics, etc. Such nano-fillers 120 can take a variety of cross-sectional shapes including round, oblong, square, euhedral, etc. within the same or different polymer matrices” ¶27).
Regarding Claim 3, Wu discloses one of the two types of particles has an irregular shape (“the average particle size can be given in terms of the diameter of substantially spherical nano-fillers or nominal diameter for irregular shaped particles”, ¶26), and a remaining one of the two types of particles has the regular shape (“Such nano-fillers 120 can take a variety of cross-sectional shapes including round, oblong, square, euhedral, etc. within the same or different polymer matrices” ¶27, wherein Wu teaches that it is known that “the shape of the particles is not limited in any manner” (¶27) and multiple shapes of the nanofillers can be situated within the same polymer matrix);
the particle with the irregular shape is selected from one of aluminum oxide, zinc oxide, titanium oxide, silicon oxide; the particle with the regular shape is selected from one of aluminum oxide, zinc oxide, titanium oxide, cerium oxide (“the nano-filler can include a core-shell structure having a silica shell over a metal oxide core” (¶9) and “titanium oxide, aluminum oxide, cerium oxide, zinc oxide, tin oxide, aluminum doped zinc oxide, antimony doped titanium dioxide, antimony doped tin oxide, indium oxide, indium tin oxide, similar doped oxides, and/or other suitable known oxides” ¶35).
Regarding Claim 5, Wu further discloses a particle size range of each of the two types of particles is from 10 nm to 100 nm (“the nano-filler 120 can have a size, for example, from about 1 nm to about 1000 nm (1 micron). In various embodiments, the nano-filler 120 can have a size ranging from about 1 nm to about 100 nm” ¶25).
Regarding Claim 7, Wu further discloses both of the two types of particles are compounds insoluble or slightly soluble in water (“the nano-filler can include a core-shell structure having a silica shell over a metal oxide core” (¶9) and “titanium oxide, aluminum oxide, cerium oxide, zinc oxide, tin oxide, aluminum doped zinc oxide, antimony doped titanium dioxide, antimony doped tin oxide, indium oxide, indium tin oxide, similar doped oxides, and/or other suitable known oxides” ¶35).
Regarding Claim 8, Wu further discloses a resistivity of each of the two types of particles is 109 Ώ*cm to 1022 Ώ*cm. Regarding claims 7-8, Wu is silent as to the solubility or resistivity of each of the two types of particles. However, given that the particle shapes, sizes and chemical makeup based on the disclosure in Wu is substantially similar to that of the instant claims, it is the examiner's position that the particles would inherently have the instantly claimed solubility or resistivity. Since PTO cannot conduct experiments the proof of burden is shifted to the applicants to establish an unobviousness difference, see In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977)
Regarding Claim 9, Wu further discloses at least part of the particles of at least one of the two types of particles is grafted with a hydrophobic group which is selected from at least one of a hydrocarbon group, a halogen atom and a nitro group (“the silica shell 128 of the nano-filler 120 shown in FIGS. 1-1B can be chemically active and can be covalently modified with hydrophobic moieties including, but not limited to, silazane, fluorosilane, polysiloxane, alkyl or combinations thereof” (¶30) and “Specific fluorosilane examples can include C6F13CH2CH2OSi(OCH3)3, C8H17CH2CH2OSi(OC2H5)3 or mixtures thereof”(¶32), wherein C6F13CH2CH2OSi(OCH3)3 contains a hydrocarbon group and halogen atom and C8H17CH2CH2OSi(OC2H5)3 contains a hydrocarbon group).
Regarding Claim 12, a modified Wu further teaches the heat exchanger comprises a collecting pipe (3), a fin (5) and a plurality of heat exchange tubes (4);
the heat exchange tubes are fixed to the collecting pipe (shown in figure 1 of Takasawa);
inner cavities of the heat exchange tubes are in communication with an inner cavity of the collecting pipe (shown in figure 1 of Takasawa);
at least part of the fin is fixed between two adjacent heat exchange tubes (shown in figure 1 of Takasawa);
the substrate comprises a substrate of at least one of the fin (“a heat exchange fin having a fin substrate formed of an aluminum plate material formed of aluminum or an aluminum alloy, and a crosslinked hydrophobic film having a frost formation-suppressing effect (or an anti-frost effect)” ¶17).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (US PG Pub. 2010/0310774A1) in view of Takasawa et al. (US PG Pub. 2014/0069620A1), as applied in Claims 1-3, 5, 7-9 and 12 above and in further view of Yang et al. (Translation of CN113429867A), hereinafter referred to as Yang.
Regarding Claim 4, although Wu teaches a ratio of a content of the particles with the irregular shapes and the particles with the regular shapes in the hydrophobic coating, Wu fails to disclose a ratio of a content of the particles with the irregular shapes and the particles with the regular shapes in the hydrophobic coating is 1:1 to 1:5.
Yang, also drawn to a hydrophobic coating with a low energy silane compound, teaches a ratio of a content of the particles with the irregular shapes (shown in figure 2, being the second or middle micro-nano particle) and the particles with the regular shapes (shown in figure 2, being the first or third micro-nano particle) in the hydrophobic coating is 1:1 to 1:5 (“the solid filler content of the first micro-nano-particle mixed solution is 10wt. % to 50wt. %; the content of the solid filler of the second micro-nano particle mixed solution is 8wt. % to 10wt. %; the solid filler content of the third hydrophobic micro-nano particle mixed solution is less than 8wt. %”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Wu with a ratio of a content of the particles with the irregular shapes and the particles with the regular shapes in the hydrophobic coating is 1:1 to 1:5, as taught by Yang, the motivation being to provide “excellent wear resistance, good stability and excellent super-hydrophobicity… can select different micro-nano particles to prepare super-hydrophobic coating, and can impart self-recovery, antibacterial property and so on”.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (US PG Pub. 2010/0310774A1) in view of Takasawa et al. (US PG Pub. 2014/0069620A1), as applied in Claims 1-3, 5, 7-9 and 12 above and in further view of Bovero et al. (US PG Pub. 2019/0010335A1), hereinafter referred to as Bovero.
Regarding Claim 6, although Wu discloses a first type of particles and a second type of particles, Wu fails to disclose an average particle size of the first type of particles is 2 to 10 times an average particle size of the second type of particles.
Bovero, also drawn to a hydrophobic coating, teaches the two types of particles comprise a first type of particles (226) and a second type of particles (228, shown in figure 3C), an average particle size of the first type of particles is 2 to 10 times an average particle size of the second type of particles (“the distribution can be multimodal (e.g., 2 to 5 distinct size distributions) with each distinct range having its own modal average and a narrower variance, e.g., 1 to 10 percent from each modal average” (¶23) and “The first distribution of particles 226 has an average diameter less than half of the average diameter of the second distribution of particles 228” (¶24)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the particles of Wu with a first type of particles and a second type of particles, an average particle size of the first type of particles is 2 to 10 times an average particle size of the second type of particles, as taught by Bovero, the motivation being “The selection of size distributions provides any way to adjust the hydrophobicity of the surface because the roughness of the surface typically decreases with the number of distinct size distributions, which can reduce hydrophobicity” ¶23.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (US PG Pub. 2010/0310774A1) in view of Takasawa et al. (US PG Pub. 2014/0069620A1), as applied in Claims 1-3, 5, 7-9 and 12 above and in further view of Dyanov et al. (US PG Pub. 2014/0093651A1), hereinafter referred to as Dyanov.
Regarding Claim 10, Wu fails to disclose the low surface energy silane-based material comprises a silane grafted with a hydrophobic group thereon; and the hydrophobic group is selected from at least one of a hydrocarbon group, a halogen atom and a nitro group.
Dyanov, also drawn to a hydroscopic coating, teaches the low surface energy silane-based material comprises a silane grafted with a hydrophobic group thereon; and the hydrophobic group is selected from a hydrocarbon group or halogen atom (“the ability of halogen-element-substituted (shortly: ‘halogen-substituted’) silanes (including, but not limited only to, any alkyl-, aryl-, siloxanes and cyclic-silanes) and carbon-silanes (organosilanes) to form both: poly-condensates carrying repellant chemical groups with other chemicals (silanes, organosilanes, carbohydrates, etc.) and to form violently-fast covalent bonds with almost any surface molecules applied on/to (because of the high reactivity of the halogen atoms) resulting in the formation of 2- or 3-dimensional nano-layers exhibiting water-, oil- and/or dust-repellant properties” (¶24) and “By creating combinatory mixes of halogen-substituted silanes and other silanes, siloxanes, hydrocarbons and else exhibiting repellent properties, highly efficient repellent micro-thin surfaces are produced when the mixtures are deposited as surfacing layer(s)” (¶25)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the layer of Wu with a silane grafted with a hydrophobic group thereon; and the hydrophobic group is selected from at least one of a hydrocarbon group or a halogen atom, as taught by Dyanov, the motivation being to offer “better flexibility for preparation of wide variety of repellant mixtures in achieving high water-repellant (hydrophobic), oil- and dust-repellent surfacing layers with exceptionally high durability and long-lasting (permanent) bonding for specific surface applications and for the preparation of other subsequent types of repellant surfacing solutions and materials such as paints or sealing agents, textiles, fabrics, construction materials and else” (¶16).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (US PG Pub. 2010/0310774A1) in view of Takasawa et al. (US PG Pub. 2014/0069620A1), as applied in Claims 1-3, 5, 7-9 and 12 above and in further view of Poteet et al. (US PG Pub. 2021/0025662A1), hereinafter referred to as Poteet.
Regarding Claim 11, although Wu teaches a hydrophobic coating for corrosion inhibition, Wu fails to disclose the coating comprises a rare earth conversion film covering at least part of the surface of the substrate; the rare earth conversion film comprises a rare earth compound; and at least a portion of the rare earth conversion film is located between the substrate and the hydrophobic coating.
Poteet, also drawn to a corrosion resistant coating, teaches a coating comprises a rare earth conversion film (120) covering at least part of the surface of the substrate (110);
the rare earth conversion film comprises a rare earth compound (“conversion coat 120 can be a non-hexavalent chromium containing conversion coat, having ions selected from the group consisting of trivalent chromium, Mo, Mn, Zr, Ti, Ni, Zn, V, P, Co, La, Ce, rare earth metals, or combinations thereof” (¶16)); and
at least a portion of the rare earth conversion film is located between the substrate (110) and the coating (130, shown in figure 1A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the coating of Wu with a rare earth conversion film covering at least part of the surface of the substrate; the rare earth conversion film comprising a rare earth compound; and at least a portion of the rare earth conversion film being located between the substrate and the coating, as taught by Poteet, the motivation being a “Conversion coat 120 can provide an active inhibition of corrosion should corrosion resistant coating 130 become compromised. Additionally, conversion coat 120 can increase the bond strength between substrate 110 and corrosion resistant coating 130 compared to the bond strength between substrate 110 and corrosion resistant coating 130 without a conversion coat” (¶18).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL ALVARE whose telephone number is (571)272-8611. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 0930-1800.
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, Len Tran can be reached at (571) 272-1184. 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.
/PAUL ALVARE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights