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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1, 3-6, 9-14, 16, 18-22, 24, 26-28 and 43; and Species A) substrate: aluminum; Species B) first material: manganese (II, III) oxide Mn3O4; Species C) second material: manganese; and Species D) method of contacting: contacting the coated substrate with a second aqueous solution that comprises at least one metal salt and at least one amine in the reply filed on 4/20/2026 is acknowledged.
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.
Claims 1, 3-6, 9, 11-13, 16, 18-22, 24, 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rafshoon et al. (WO 2021/119518).
Regarding claim 1, Rafshoon et al. teach composition (paragraph [05]) comprising a substrate (paragraph [05]), a first material (paragraph [05]) and a second material (paragraph [11], wherein the first material comprises a porous, nanostructured ceramic that comprises pores (paragraph [10]) and the second material comprises particles (paragraph [11]), wherein the second material particles at least partially occupy at least a portion of the pores of the first material (paragraph [11]), and wherein the substrate is in contact with at least a portion of the first material (paragraph [05]).
Regarding claims 3-5, Rafshoon et al. teach wherein the first material comprises manganese oxide (paragraphs [08], [76]).
Regarding claim 6, Rafshoon et al. teach wherein the first material comprises a thickness of up to about 50 micrometers, such as, for example, a thickness of about 0.2 micrometers to about 25 micrometers which reads on Applicant’s claimed range of about 10 nanometers to about 200 micrometers (paragraph [10]).
Regarding claims 9 and 22, Rafshoon et al. teach wherein the substrate comprises a metal comprising aluminum (paragraph [09]).
Regarding claims 11-13, 16, 18-22, Rafshoon et al. teach wherein the second material comprises manganese (paragraph [64]).
Regarding claim 24, Rafshoon et al. teach wherein the composition comprises an interface between the first material and the second material, wherein the interface comprises a gradient with an interfacial composition or morphology (paragraph [11]).
Regarding claim 26, Rafshoon et al. teach wherein the composition is characterized by a sessile drop water contact angle above 150 degrees (paragraphs [42], [80]).
Regarding claim 27, Rafshoon et al. teach wherein the composition further comprises a hydrophobic compound with a polar head group and a non-polar tail group comprising hydrocarbons, fluorocarbons, vinyl groups or phenyl groups (paragraph [64]).
Regarding claim 28, Rafshoon et al. are silent on wherein the composition comprises about 5%, about 5% to about 10%, about 5% to about 20%, about 5% to about 40%, about 5% to about 50%, about 5% to about 75%, about 5% to about 90%, about 5% to about 95%, about 5% to about 99%, about 50% to about 60%, about 50% to about 70%, about 50% to about 80%, about 50% to about 90%, about 50% to about 95%, about 50% to about 99%, about 10 to about 20%, about 20 to about 30%, about 30% to about 40%, about 40% to about 50%, about 50% to about 60% about 60% to about 70% about 70% to about 80%, about 80% to about 90%, or about 90% to 99% reduction in defrost energy requirement to remove frost which has formed when compared to an identical substrate that does not comprise the composition or an identical first material in which the pores are not occupied by the second material. It is elementary that a mere recitation of a newly discovered property, inherently possessed by the things in the prior art, does not cause a claim drawn to those things to distinguish over the prior art (In re Swinehart et al, 169 USPQ 226 at 229). It is inherent that the inclusion of the same substrate, first material and second material within the composition of Rafshoon et al. would possess the same reduction in defrost energy as the instant application because it possesses all the other claimed constituents in the same structure. MPEP 2112.01
Claims 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Choi et al. (KR 101465360, see machine translated version).
Regarding claim 1, Choi et al. teach a composition comprising a substrate (paragraph [0011]), a first material (paragraph [0011]), and a second material (paragraph [0011]), wherein the first material comprises a porous, nanostructured ceramic that comprises pores (paragraph [0011]) and the second material comprises particles (paragraph [0011]), wherein the second material particles at least partially occupy at least a portion of the pores of the first material (paragraph [0011]) and wherein the substrate is in contact with at least a portion of the first material (paragraph [0011]).
Regarding claim 10, Choi et al. teach wherein the nanoparticles fill pores between nanostructures so that the size of the pores between the nanostructures is 1 µm or less which reads on the claimed second material comprises particles with a characteristic dimension less than about 20 micrometers, less than about 10 micrometers, less than about 5 micrometers, less than 2 micrometers, less than 1 micrometer, less than 500 nanometers, less than about 250 nanometers, or less than about 100 nanometers (paragraph [0012]).
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 10 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rafshoon et al. (WO 2021/119518).
Rafshoon et al. are relied upon as disclosed above.
Regarding claim 10, Rafshoon et al. do not disclose wherein the second material comprises particles with a characteristic dimension less than about 20 micrometers, less than about 10 micrometers, less than about 5 micrometers, less than 2 micrometers, less than 1 micrometers, less than 500 nanometers, less than about 250 nanometers, or less than about 100 nanometers. However, where in the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges in dimension involve only routine skill in the art, absence a showing of criticality. MPEP 2144.05 II. One would have been motivated to modify the dimension of the second material of Rafshoon et al. in order to impart changes to the first material (Rafshoon et al., paragraph [62]).
Regarding claim 14, Rafshoon et al. do not disclose wherein at least a portion of the second material comprises a thickness of about 10 nanometers to about 20 micrometers. However, where in the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges in thickness involve only routine skill in the art, absence a showing of criticality. MPEP 2144.05 II. One would have been motivated to modify the thickness of the second material of Rafshoon et al. in order to impart changes to the first material (Rafshoon et al., paragraph [62]).
Claim 43 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (KR 101465360, see machine translated version) in view of Korevaar et al. (US Patent Application No. 2008/0169019).
Choi et al. are relied upon as disclosed above.
Regarding claim 43, Choi et al. teach wherein the first material comprises a porous, nanostructured ceramic (paragraph [0011]) and the second material comprises a morphology comprising at least one of spheres, at least one of nano rods, nano wires and nanoneedles (paragraph [0025]).
Choi et al. fail to teach wherein the first material comprises a morphology comprising nanowalls. However, Korevaar et al. teach solar cell devices (page 1, paragraph [0002]) with nanostructured ceramic (page 4, paragraph [0061]) and the nanostructured ceramic having a morphology comprising nanowalls (page 4, paragraph [0060]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the composition of Choi et al. with the nanowall structure of Korevaar et al. in order to increase the efficiency of the solar cell (Korevaar et al., page 2, paragraph [0013]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHINESSA GOLDEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5543. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday; 8:00 - 4:00 EST.
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Chinessa T. Golden/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788 6/26/2026
Prosecution Insights