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 Objections
Claims 2, 7-8, 10, 14, 16-17, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2, line 2, “cured polymeric coating” should read “cured polymeric layer”.
Claim 7, line 2, “cured polymeric coating” should read “cured polymeric layer”.
Claim 8, line 1, “cured polymeric coating” should read “cured polymeric layer”.
Claim 10, line 2, “the layer” should read “the cured polymeric layer”.
Claim 14, line 1, “cured polymeric coating” should read “cured polymeric layer”.
Claim 16, line 2, “cured polymeric coating” should read “cured polymeric layer”.
Claim 17, lines 2-3, “cured polymeric coating” should read “cured polymeric layer”.
Claim 17, line 9, “the layer” should read “the cured polymeric layer”.
Claim 20, line 1, “cured polymeric coating” should read “cured polymeric layer”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-7, 10, 12-14, 16-17, and 19-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 13-16 of U.S. Patent No. US 11312869 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following reasons:
Regarding Claim 1, US ‘869 claims an article having a cured polymeric coating comprising a second chemical composition (i.e. cured overlying chemical composition) which forms an exposed outer surface of the cured polymeric coating, extends at least 2.5 microns in depth from the exposed outer surface, and after curing: contains a polymeric resin, an icephobic material addition, and at least one biocidal powder addition, and has a Shore D-Scale Hardness of at least 20 (Claim 13).
Although US ‘869 discloses additional limitations and/or components, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the specific second chemical composition (i.e. cured overlying chemical composition) of the article of US ‘869 falls within the broad cured polymeric layer as presently claimed.
Regarding Claim 2, US ‘869 further claims the at least one biocidal powder addition represents up to 75% by weight of the second chemical composition (Claim 13) which would necessarily overlap the claimed amount.
Regarding Claim 3, US ‘869 further claims the biocidal powder addition is of a metallic material and/or a metal compound comprising at least one metal selected from the group consisting of Ag, Co, Cu, Ni, Sn, and Zn (Claim 14).
Regarding Claim 4, US ‘869 further claims an average particle size of the biocidal powder addition is between 0.5 and 25 microns (Claim 15).
Regarding Claim 5, US ‘869 further claims the biocidal powder addition is a metallic powder and at least part of the metallic powder is grain-refined comprising an average grain size between 5 nm and 50 nm (Claim 16).
Regarding Claim 6, US ‘869 further claims the at least one biocidal powder addition represents up to 75% by weight of the second chemical composition and the icephobic material addition represents up to 25% by weight of the second chemical composition (Claim 13).
Regarding Claim 7, US ‘869 further claims the article after 24 hours at 37°C. displays a radius of no growth on a zone inhibition test for microorganisms of at least 0.1 mm (Claim 13).
Regarding Claim 10, US ‘869 further claims a first chemical composition (i.e. cured underlying chemical composition), wherein the second chemical composition has a different chemical composition than the first chemical composition (Claim 13).
Regarding Claim 12, US ‘869 further claims the icephobic material addition is composed entirely of solids (Claim 13).
Regarding Claim 13, US ‘869 further claims a sand erosion value according to standard ASTM G76 at an impingement angle of 90 degrees of less than 10 mm3/kg (Claim 13).
Regarding Claim 14, US ‘869 further claims an ice adhesion of less than 400 kPa as prepared and after 5 icing/deicing cycles when measured according to ERDC/CRREL Technical Note 03-4 (Claim 13).
Regarding Claim 16, US ‘869 further claims the icephobic material addition represents up to 25% by weight of the second chemical composition (Claim 13).
Regarding Claim 17, US ‘869 claims an article having a cured polymeric coating comprising a first chemical composition (i.e. cured underlying chemical composition) and a second chemical composition (i.e. cured overlying chemical composition), wherein the second chemical composition has a different chemical composition than the first chemical composition. The second chemical composition forms an exposed outer surface of the cured polymeric coating, extends at least 2.5 microns in depth from the exposed outer surface, and after curing: contains a polymeric resin, an icephobic material addition, and at least one biocidal powder addition (Claims 1, 13).
Although US ‘869 discloses additional limitations and/or components, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the specific second chemical composition (i.e. cured overlying chemical composition) of the article of US ‘869 falls within the broad cured polymeric layer as presently claimed.
Regarding Claim 19, US ‘869 further claims a Shore D-Scale Hardness of at least 20 (Claim 13).
Regarding Claim 20, US ‘869 further claims an ice adhesion of less than 400 kPa as prepared and after 5 icing/deicing cycles when measured according to ERDC/CRREL Technical Note 03-4 (Claim 13).
Claims 1-14 and 16-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7, 10, 12-13, 15, 17, 19, and 22-23 of U.S. Patent No. US 11667798 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following reasons:
Regarding Claim 1, US ‘798 claims a cured polymeric coating comprising a cured second chemical composition (i.e. cured overlying chemical composition) forming an exposed outer surface of the cured polymeric coating and extending at least 2.5 microns in depth from the exposed outer surface, wherein the cured second chemical composition: contains a polymeric resin, at least one icephobic material addition, and at least one biocidal powder addition, and has a Shore D-Scale Hardness of at least 20 (Claims 1-2 and 22).
Although US ‘798 discloses additional limitations and/or components, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the specific cured polymeric coating of US ‘798 falls within the broad cured polymeric layer as presently claimed.
Regarding Claim 2, US ‘798 further claims the at least one biocidal powder addition represents at least 5% per volume of the cured polymeric coating (Claim 3).
Regarding Claim 3, US ‘798 further claims the at least one biocidal powder addition is a metallic material and/or a metal compound comprising at least one metal selected from the group consisting of Ag, Co, Cu, Ni, Sn, and Zn (Claim 4).
Regarding Claim 4, US ‘798 further claims the at least one biocidal powder addition has an average particle size of between 0.5 and 25 microns (Claim 5).
Regarding Claim 5, US ‘798 further claims the at least one biocidal powder addition is a metallic powder, and at least part of the metallic powder is grain-refined comprising an average grain size between 2 nm and 500 nm Claim 6).
Regarding Claim 6, US ‘798 further claims the cured second chemical composition comprises between 1 and 20 weight % of the at least one icephobic material addition and/or between 5 and 90 weight % of the at least one biocidal powder addition (Claim 7).
Regarding Claim 7, US ‘798 further claims the exposed outer surface of the cured polymeric coating after 24 hours at 37° C. displays a radius of no growth on a zone inhibition test for microorganisms of at least 0.1 mm (Claim 10).
Regarding Claim 8, US ‘798 further claims the cured polymeric coating at room temperature is free of liquids (Claim 12).
Regarding Claim 9, US ‘798 further claims the cured second chemical composition, prior to curing, comprises one or more curable epoxy resins with an EEW number of between 100 and 750 (Claim 13).
Regarding Claim 10, US ‘798 further claims a cured first chemical composition (i.e. cured underlying chemical composition), wherein the cured second chemical composition has a different chemical composition than the cured first chemical composition (Claim 1).
Regarding Claim 11, US ‘798 further claims the cured second chemical composition forms the exposed outer surface to atmosphere; and said exposed outer surface is smooth with a surface roughness Ra<1 micron (Claim 15).
Regarding Claim 12, US ‘798 further claims the at least one icephobic material addition is composed entirely of solids (Claim 19).
Regarding Claim 13, US ‘798 further claims the cured second chemical composition has a sand erosion value according to standard ASTM G76 at an impingement angle of 90 degrees of less than 10 mm3/kg (Claim 23).
Regarding Claim 14, US ‘798 further claims the cured second chemical composition has an ice adhesion of less than 500 kPa as prepared and after 5 icing/deicing cycles when measured according to ERDC/CRREL Technical Note 03-4 (Claim 1).
Regarding Claim 16, US ‘798 further claims the at least one icephobic material addition represents up to 25% by weight of the cured second chemical composition (Claim 17).
Regarding Claim 17, US ‘798 claims a cured polymeric coating comprising a cured first chemical composition (i.e. cured underlying chemical composition) and a cured second chemical composition (i.e. cured overlying chemical composition), wherein the cured second chemical composition has a different chemical composition than the cured first chemical composition. The cured second chemical composition forms an exposed outer surface of the cured polymeric coating, extends at least 2.5 microns in depth from the exposed outer surface, and contains: a polymeric resin, at least one icephobic material addition, and at least one biocidal powder addition (Claims 1-2).
Although US ‘798 discloses additional limitations and/or components, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the specific cured polymeric coating of US ‘798 falls within the broad cured polymeric layer as presently claimed.
Regarding Claim 18, US ‘798 further claims the cured second chemical composition forms the exposed outer surface to atmosphere; and said exposed outer surface is smooth with a surface roughness Ra<1 micron (Claim 15).
Regarding Claim 19, US ‘798 further claims the cured second chemical composition has a Shore D-Scale Hardness of at least 20 (Claim 22).
Regarding Claim 20, US ‘798 further claims the cured second chemical composition has an ice adhesion of less than 500 kPa as prepared and after 5 icing/deicing cycles when measured according to ERDC/CRREL Technical Note 03-4 (Claim 1).
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12, 14, 17, and 20 of U.S. Patent No. US 12168736 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following reasons:
Regarding Claim 1, US ‘736 claims a cured polymeric coating comprising a cured overlying chemical composition forming an exposed outer surface of the cured polymeric coating and extending at least 2.5 microns in depth from the exposed outer surface, wherein the cured overlying chemical composition contains a polymeric resin, at least one icephobic material addition, and at least one biocidal powder addition, and has a Shore D-Scale Hardness of at least 20 (Claim 1).
Although US ‘736 discloses additional limitations and/or components, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the specific cured polymeric coating of US ‘736 falls within the broad cured polymeric layer as presently claimed.
Regarding Claim 2, US ‘736 further claims the at least one biocidal powder addition represents at least 5% per volume of the cured polymeric coating (Claim 2).
Regarding Claim 3, US ‘736 further claims the at least one biocidal powder addition is a metallic material and/or a metal compound comprising at least one metal selected from the group consisting of Ag, Co, Cu, Ni, Sn, and Zn (Claim 3).
Regarding Claim 4, US ‘736 further claims the at least one biocidal powder addition has an average particle size of between 0.5 and 25 microns (Claim 4).
Regarding Claim 5, US ‘736 further claims the at least one biocidal powder addition is a metallic powder, and at least part of the metallic powder is grain-refined comprising an average grain size between 2 nm and 500 nm (Claim 5).
Regarding Claim 6, US ‘736 further claims the cured overlying chemical composition comprises between 1 and 20 weight % of the at least one icephobic material addition and/or between 5 and 90 weight % of the at least one biocidal powder addition (Claim 6).
Regarding Claim 7, US ‘736 further claims the exposed outer surface of the cured polymeric coating after 24 hours at 37° C. displays a radius of no growth on a zone inhibition test for microorganisms of at least 0.1 mm (Claim 7).
Regarding Claim 8, US ‘736 further claims the cured polymeric coating at room temperature is free of liquids (Claim 8).
Regarding Claim 9, US ‘736 further claims the cured overlying chemical composition, prior to curing, comprises one or more curable epoxy resins with an EEW number of between 100 and 750 (Claim 9).
Regarding Claim 10, US ‘736 further claims a cured underlying chemical composition between the outer surface of the underlying substrate and the cured overlying chemical composition, the cured overlying chemical composition having a different chemical composition than the cured underlying chemical composition (Claim 10).
Regarding Claim 11, US ‘736 further claims the cured overlying chemical composition forms the exposed outer surface of the cured polymeric coating, and said exposed outer surface is smooth with a surface roughness Ra<1 micron (Claims 11-12).
Regarding Claim 12, US ‘736 further claims the at least one icephobic material addition is composed entirely of solids (Claim 14).
Regarding Claim 13, US ‘736 further claims the cured overlying chemical composition has a sand erosion value according to standard ASTM G76 at an impingement angle of 90 degrees of less than 10 mm3/kg (Claim 17).
Regarding Claim 14, US ‘736 further claims the cured overlying chemical composition has an ice adhesion of less than 500 kPa as prepared and after 5 icing/deicing cycles when measured according to ERDC/CRREL Technical Note 03-4 (Claim 1).
Regarding Claim 15, US ‘736 further claims the cured overlying chemical composition, prior to curing, comprises a polyurethane (Claim 20).
Regarding Claim 16, US ‘736 further claims the cured overlying chemical composition comprises between 1 and 20 weight % of the at least one icephobic material addition (Claim 6).
Regarding Claim 17, US ‘736 claims a cured polymeric coating comprising a cured overlying chemical composition forming an exposed outer surface of the cured polymeric coating and extending at least 2.5 microns in depth from the exposed outer surface, wherein the cured overlying chemical composition contains a polymeric resin, at least one icephobic material addition, and at least one biocidal powder addition (Claim 1).
US ‘736 further claims a cured underlying chemical composition between the outer surface of the underlying substrate and the cured overlying chemical composition, the cured overlying chemical composition having a different chemical composition than the cured underlying chemical composition (Claim 10).
Although US ‘736 discloses additional limitations and/or components, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the specific cured polymeric coating of US ‘736 falls within the broad cured polymeric layer as presently claimed.
Regarding Claim 18, US ‘736 further claims the cured overlying chemical composition forms the exposed outer surface of the cured polymeric coating, and said exposed outer surface is smooth with a surface roughness Ra<1 micron (Claims 11-12).
Regarding Claim 19, US ‘736 further claims the cured overlying chemical composition has a Shore D-Scale Hardness of at least 20 (Claim 1).
Regarding Claim 20, US ‘736 further claims the cured overlying chemical composition has an ice adhesion of less than 500 kPa as prepared and after 5 icing/deicing cycles when measured according to ERDC/CRREL Technical Note 03-4 (Claim 1).
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-8, 10, 12-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elsbernd (US 2018/0312698) in view of Lahiri et al. (US 2018/0289010 A1) and in view of the evidence of Mechanical Rubber (Durometer Conversion Chart).
Regarding Claims 1 and 3-4, Elsbernd discloses an article comprising an ice repellant layer (paras 0001, 0014, 0022), which may have a thickness of 250 nm to 5 microns (para 0062). The ice repellent layer comprises fluorochemical (i.e. icephobic material addition) (para 0025) and non-fluorinated polymer binder resin (para 0048).
Elsbernd further discloses the non-flourinated polymer binder resin having a Shore A hardness of up to 100 (para 0050) which, according to the evidence of Mechanical Rubber, converts to a Shore D hardness of up to 58.
Elsbernd discloses the coating may be applied to articles including watercraft (para 0006)
Elsbernd does not disclose the at least one biocidal powder addition.
Lahiri discloses a coating or paint comprising a combination of biocidal materials (Abstract) and polymer carrier (para 0082), where the coating is for ship hulls and other marine structures (para 0004). The composition may also comprise fluoropolymers (para 0084). The biocidal material is a combination of copper-containing particles and either ZnPT and/or Tralopyril (para 0007). The copper-containing particles have a diameter of 0.1 to 10 microns (i.e. powder) (para 0077). The biocides provide cost effective, durable antimicrobial activity, and the use of copper-containing particles in combination with the other biocidal materials reduces the required load of the biocides, therefore reducing cost, toxicity, and risk of biocide resistance (paras 0010-0011).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Elsbernd by incorporating the teachings of Lahiri and produce the article of Elsbernd wherein the ice repellant layer further comprises the biocidal material combination of Lahiri, including the copper-containing particles having a diameter of 0.1 to 20 microns. Doing so would provide cost effective, durable antimicrobial activity, while reducing toxicity and risk of biocide resistance.
Regarding Claims 6 and 16, Elsbernd in view of Lahiri discloses all the limitations of the present invention according to Claim 1 above. Elsbernd further discloses the ice repellant layer comprises 0.005-50% fluorochemical (i.e. icephobic material addition) (para 0026).
Regarding Claim 7, Elsbernd in view of Lahiri discloses all the limitations of the present invention according to Claim 1 above. While Elsbernd in view of Lahiri does not disclose the radius of no growth as claimed, since Elsbernd in view of Lahiri discloses ice repellant layer as claimed, including biocidal materials as claimed, the ice repellant layer of Elsbernd in view of Lahiri would necessarily have radius of no growth as claimed.
Regarding Claims 8 and 12, Elsbernd in view of Lahiri discloses all the limitations of the present invention according to Claim 1 above. Elsbernd further discloses the ice repellant layer (including icephobic material addition) can be 99.5% or more solid (including 100% solid, i.e. liquid free) (para 0022).
Regarding Claim 10, Elsbernd in view of Lahiri discloses all the limitations of the present invention according to Claim 1 above. Elsbernd further discloses the ice repellant layer may be applied to a polymeric substrate (para 0072) and that the non-fluorinated organic polymeric binder of the ice repellant layer is a different material than the polymeric material of the substrate (para 0047).
Regarding Claim 13, Elsbernd in view of Lahiri discloses all the limitations of the present invention according to Claim 1 above. While Elsbernd in view of Lahiri does not disclose the sand erosion value, since Elsbernd in view of Lahiri discloses ice repellant layer as claimed, including polymer resin, icephobic material addition, and biocidal materials as claimed, the ice repellant layer of Elsbernd in view of Lahiri would necessarily have sand erosion value as claimed.
Regarding Claim 14, Elsbernd in view of Lahiri discloses all the limitations of the present invention according to Claim 1 above. Elsbernd further discloses ice adhesion can be less than 200 kPa (para 0018). Although there is no disclosure of the ice adhesion being after 5 icing/deicing cycles when measured according to ERDC/CCREL Technical Note 03-4 as presently claimed, absent evidence of criticality of the presently claimed method and given that Elsbernd discloses ice adhesion that falls within the range claimed, the limitation is considered met absent evidence to the contrary.
Regarding Claim 15, Elsbernd in view of Lahiri discloses all the limitations of the present invention according to Claim 1 above. Elsbernd further discloses the non-fluorinated polymer binder may comprise polyurethane (para 0047).
Regarding Claim 17, Elsbernd discloses an article comprising an ice repellant layer (paras 0001, 0014, 0022), which may have a thickness of 250 nm to 5 microns (para 0062). The ice repellent layer comprises fluorochemical (i.e. icephobic material addition) (para 0025) and non-fluorinated polymer binder resin (para 0048).
Elsbernd further discloses the ice repellant layer may be applied to a polymeric substrate (para 0072) (i.e. cured underlying chemical composition), and that the non-fluorinated organic polymeric binder of the ice repellant layer is a different material than the polymeric material of the substrate (para 0047), and the substrate may comprise part of a watercraft (para 0006).
Elsbernd does not disclose the at least one biocidal powder addition.
Lahiri discloses a coating or paint comprising a combination of biocidal materials (Abstract) and polymer carrier (para 0082), where the coating is for ship hulls and other marine structures (para 0004). The composition may also comprise fluoropolymers (para 0084). The biocidal material is a combination of copper-containing particles and either ZnPT and/or Tralopyril (para 0007). The copper-containing particles have a diameter of 0.1 to 20 microns (i.e. powder) (para 0077). The biocides provide cost effective, durable antimicrobial activity, and the use of copper-containing particles in combination with the other biocidal materials reduces the required load of the biocides, therefore reducing cost, toxicity, and risk of biocide resistance (paras 0010-0011).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Elsbernd by incorporating the teachings of Lahiri and produce the article of Elsbernd wherein the ice repellant layer further comprises the biocidal material combination of Lahiri, including the copper-containing particles having a diameter of 0.1 to 20 microns. Doing so would provide cost effective, durable antimicrobial activity, while reducing toxicity and risk of biocide resistance.
Regarding Claim 19, Elsbernd in view of Lahiri discloses all the limitations of the present invention according to Claim 17 above. Elsbernd further discloses the non-flourinated polymer binder resin having a Shore A hardness of up to 100 (para 0050) which, according to the evidence of Mechanical Rubber, converts to a Shore D hardness of up to 58.
Regarding Claim 20, Elsbernd in view of Lahiri discloses all the limitations of the present invention according to Claim 17 above. Elsbernd further discloses Elsbernd further discloses ice adhesion can be less than 200 kPa (para 0018). Although there is no disclosure of the ice adhesion being after 5 icing/deicing cycles when measured according to ERDC/CCREL Technical Note 03-4 as presently claimed, absent evidence of criticality of the presently claimed method and given that Elsbernd discloses ice adhesion that falls within the range claimed, the limitation is considered met absent evidence to the contrary.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elsbernd in view of Lahiri as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Couturier (WO 2016/090468 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Elsbernd in view of Lahiri discloses all the limitations of the present invention according to Claim 1 above. Elsbernd in view of Lahiri does not disclose the cured overlying chemical composition comprising an epoxy as claimed.
Couturier discloses epoxy silicone (i.e. epoxy polysiloxane) coating compositions for ice shedding (pg 7, paras 5- 6) where the epoxy has EEW of 100-5000 (pg 7, paragraph 7). The composition can substantially reduce or eliminate ice accretion (pg 2, para 4).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Elsbernd in view of Lahiri to incorporate the teachings of Courtier to produce the article wherein the ice repellant layer comprises the epoxy polysiloxane having EEW of 100-5000 of Couturier. Doing so would substantially reduce or eliminate ice accretion.
Claims 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elsbernd in view of Lahiri as applied to claims 1 and 17 above, and further in view of Nowak et al. (US 2014/0162022 A1).
Regarding Claims 13-14, Elsbernd in view of Lahiri discloses all the limitations of the present invention according to Claims 1 and 17 above. Elsbernd in view of Lahiri does not disclose the surface roughness as claimed.
Nowak discloses structural coatings with anti-icing properties (Abstract) which uses discrete templates (paras 0072-0073) in order to promote surface roughness which inhibits wetting of water (para 0044) and inhibits water infiltration (para 0084). Nowak further discloses that the discrete templates create a surface roughness from about 10 nanometers to 10 microns (para 0078).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Elsbernd in view of Lahiri to incorporate the teachings of Nowak and produce the article of Elsbernd wherein the coating further comprises discrete templates which create a surface roughness from about 10 nanometers to 10 microns including surface roughness as presently claimed. Doing so would inhibit wetting of water and inhibit water infiltration.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BETHANY M MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-2109. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:00.
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, Callie Shosho can be reached at 571-272-1123. 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.
/BETHANY M MILLER/Examiner, Art Unit 1787
/CALLIE E SHOSHO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1787