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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 8-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon (USPGPub2009/0047475) in view of Kim et al. (USPGPub 2022/0220407).
Regarding claims 1-3, 5-6 and 12-13, Jeon teaches that it is known to coat wiper blades with a composition having components similar to graphene and solid but that are not graphene, wherein the composition comprises a water-based resin comprising particulate matter(claim 4) and a liquid carrier and wherein it is reasonably implicit that a dispersion is formed due to the use of a dispersing agent for non-soluble components [0056], wherein the solid lubricants may comprise several ingredients including particles of PTFE, PU and graphite are present in percentages reading upon the claimed ranges. The Jeon fails to teach the use of graphene in the composition. However, Kim teaches that it is known to incorporate graphene as a solid lubricant into composition for the coating of wiper blades in the amounts claimed [0016]. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to either 1) substitute the solid lubricant of Kim for that of Jeon as a simple substitution of one known solid lubricant for wiper blades for another wherein the substitution would be considered predictable based upon the known use of graphene and the solid lubricants of Jeon and Kim in composition intended for the coating of wiper blades or to 2) include the graphene of Kim into the wiper blade composition of Kim as a application of a known solid lubricant provision technique applied to a known wiper blade composition intended to provide solid lubricants ready for improvement to yield predictable results wherein the provision would have been expected to improve the system of Kim by provide additional solid lubricants capable of aided in the intended purposes of Jeon.
Regarding claim 4, as stated above, Jeon teaches the use of a polyurethane particle wherein this would read upon a “resin” of “urethane polymer”.
Regarding claim 8, as applied to claim 1 above it is shown the solid lubricant of Kim (graphene) may be substituted for one of Jeon (graphite for example). As such, and in that case particularly, in the absence of an unexpected result arising from the particular percentage of graphene present in the current claims, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace any portion of the solid lubricant of Jeon with that of Kim, including in the amounts claimed.
Regarding claims 9-11, the teachings of Jeon in view of Kim are as shown above. Jeon in view of Kim fails to explicitly teach providing the ingredients in the order claimed. However, the Court has long held that merely changing the order of adding ingredients or performing steps of a prior art invention is not capable of overcoming a prima facie case of obviousness based up said provided order of steps wherein the outcome is substantially the same. See In re Burhans, 154F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon (USPGPub2009/0047475) in view of Kim et al. (USPGPub 2022/0220407) and applied to claims 1-6 and 8-13 and further in view of Pan et al. (USPGPub 2022/0220407).
Regarding claim 7, the teachings of Jeon in view of Kim are as shown above. Joen in view of Kim fails to teach wherein the composition further comprises polymer microbeads. However, Pan teaches that polymer microbeads may be provided in composition for the coating of wipers [0003] thereby reducing transmittance of the coating material [0039] wherein it is also noted that the microbeads may be of the same particles provided by Jeon in particulate form such as silicone. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to either 1) provide additional microbeads or 2) provide the microparticles of Jeon in view of Kim as microbeads as guided by Pan in order to provide micro surface roughness to the coating of Jeon in view of Kim as guided by Pan in order to reduce transmittance as guided by Pan.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW J BOWMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5342. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Sat 5:00AM-11:00AM.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at 571-272-1295. 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.
/ANDREW J BOWMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights