CTFR 17/284,552 CTFR 79110 DETAILED ACTION 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Applicants' arguments have been fully considered. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn due to Applicant's amendments and/or arguments. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. 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: 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-9, 12-13, 16-17, 20, 22-25, and 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 20160122697 A (Washio) in view of US 20160137766 A1 (Okafuji et al.) in view of KR20160081859A (Gee et al.) and further in view of US 2016/0068703 (Schmidt et al.) . It is noted that when utilizing KR 20160122697 A in the above paragraph, the disclosures of the reference are based on US2017056921A1 which is an English language equivalent of the reference. Therefore, the column and line numbers cited with respect to KR 20160122697 A are found in US2017056921A1. Re claims 1-9, and 12-17, 20, 22-25 and 29, Washio, teaches a first hard coat (claimed top release coating component) wherein the first hard coat layer includes a water-repellant which is a (meth)acryloyl group-containing fluoropolyether (0023, 0146-0147). Washio teaches fluropolymer in a top release coating component including comprising (meth)acryloyl group-containing fluoropolyether but not perfluoropolyether acrylate. Okafuji teaches perfluoropolyether acrylate [172] for at least having good water repellent performance. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the (meth)acryloyl group-containing fluoropolyether acrylate of Washio with the perfluoropolyether group of Okafuji for good water repellency. Although there is no disclosure that the first hard coat layer of Washio is a top release coating component, given that the first hard coat layer is identical to the claimed top release coating component (claim 23) including comprising (meth)acryloyl group-containing fluoropolyether, which in combination is the release polymer presently claimed, it is clear that the first hard coat layer of Washio would function as a top release coating component as claimed. The initiator is optional and thus not required (claim 26). The second hard coat has inorganic particles (claimed hard coat) [46-48, 147]. See particle size of organic particles, silica and magnesium [0048, 139, 159, 173-174, 265-267, 404-405]. Washio teaches 1 to 300 nm (0.0001 to 0.03 microns) falls within or is close to applicant’s ranges and overlapping per claims 2-6 and 8-9, while not teaching the exact range. Washio discloses the use of 0.03 microns while the claims require greater than 0.5 microns – close to claimed range of claim 2 and less than 100 nm (0.1 microns) – overlapping claimed range of claim 9. It is apparent, however, that the instantly claimed size of particles and that taught by Washio are so close to each other that the fact pattern is similar to the one in In re Woodruff , 919 F.2d 1575, USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) or Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed.Cir. 1985) where despite a “slight” difference in the ranges the court held that such a difference did not “render the claims patentable” or, alternatively, that “a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough so that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties”. In light of the case law cited above and given that there is only a “slight” difference between the size of particles disclosed by Washio and the size disclosed in the present claims, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the size of particles disclosed in the present claims is but an obvious variant of the amount disclosed in Washio, and thereby one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In reWertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In reWoodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have selected the claimed ranges from the overlapping portion of the range taught by the Washio reference because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. MPEP 2144.05. The combination doesn’t teach grafted to a polymer or different mixtures as claimed as claimed. Further attention is drawn to paragraphs [84, 102] of Washio which discloses that the polymer can be grafted with methacrylate-styrene/butadiene rubber graft copolymer that has advantageous features such as hard coat advantages in an optical article [88]. Further Schmidt teaches [38] nano particles nanosilica are different [19-23] graft polymers similar to that claimed grafted to adjacent layers [48-52] for copolymerization in a hard coating. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have added or used nano-metal oxide particles and to have grafted a release polymer to a hard coating of the combination for initiating copolymerization. Washio teaches [65] multifunctional acrylate. Washio teaches thicknesses as claimed within overlapping ranges [81-85] per claims 13, 16, and 24. Washio teaches substates claimed [86-87, 92] per claim 17. Re claims 19 and 25, the layer is smooth [177, 179, 193] and thus has a zero value or close enough to zero of roughness meeting the claim as the layers have the same material, the property is expected. Re claim 28, The combination doesn’t teach the particle sizes of the nano-metal oxide or the Gee teaches at page 7, 3 rd paragraph, the nano powder metal fine particles have a particle diameter ranging from 10 nm to 150 nm (overlapping ranges) and include one kind selected from the group consisting of aluminum oxide and Examples 1- 8 for the further particles less than 100 nm and less than 25 nm (overlapping ranges). These particles are added to prevent the haze from being increased on the film. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have selected the ranges of particles for increasing clarity/preventing haze for overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. MPEP 2144.05. Re claims 20 and 22, that the layers and materials are the same, the peel force is inherent . 07-21 AIA Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over KR 20160122697 A (Washio) in view of US 20160137766 A1 (Okafuji et al.) in view of KR20160081859A (Gee et al.) in view of US 2016/0068703 (Schmidt et al.) and further in view of US 20180009959 A1 to Nakashima et al . It is noted that when utilizing KR 20160122697 A in the above paragraph, the disclosures of the reference are based on US2017056921A1 which is an English language equivalent of the reference. Therefore, the column and line numbers cited with respect to KR 20160122697 A are found in US2017056921A1. Washio essentially teaches the claimed invention above. Re claim 4, Washio while teaching organic particles as set forth above doesn’t teach polystyrene. Nakashima teaches [0129] As component (D), there can be used either of inorganic microparticles and organic microparticles. Examples of the inorganic microparticles include silica (silicon dioxide); metal oxide microparticles such as aluminum oxide, zirconia, titania, zinc oxide, germanium oxide, indium oxide, tin oxide, indium tin oxide, antimony oxide and cerium oxide; metal fluoride microparticles such as magnesium fluoride and sodium fluoride; metal sulfide microparticles; metal nitride microparticles; and metal microparticles. Examples of the organic microparticles include resin beads of styrene resins, acrylic resins, polycarbonate resins, ethylene resins, cured resins of an amino compound with formaldehyde, and the like. These can be used singly or in a combination of two or more. [0130] Any group of these substances exemplified as component (D) can be believed to be at least a substance capable of chemically bonding with or strongly interacting with component (B). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the organic particles of Washio with the styrene microparticles for excellent chemical bonding . Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Applicant arguments are considered moot in of the new reference as set forth above. See office action. A prima facie case has been established, and therefore the burden shifts to the Applicant to submit additional objective evidence of nonobviousness, such as comparative test data showing that the claimed invention possesses improved properties not expected by the prior art. Arguments of counsel cannot take the place of factually supported objective evidence. See, e.g., In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135,139-40, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 1996); In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699,705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Until the Applicant has convincingly argued or has provided evidence to the contrary, the rejections are maintained. To the argument of capability of grafting, as the material is the same, all that is required is the ability to be so grafted. The same applies to the inherency of the peel force, especially considering the interfacial adhesion at adjacent layers. Applicant has provided no evidence to support this position. See Mpep 2141.02: V. DISCLOSED INHERENT PROPERTIES ARE PART OF "AS A WHOLE" INQUIRY "In determining whether the invention as a whole would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103, we must first delineate the invention as a whole. In delineating the invention as a whole, we look not only to the subject matter which is literally recited in the claim in question... but also to those properties of the subject matter which are inherent in the subject matter and are disclosed in the specification. . . Just as we look to a chemical and its properties when we examine the obviousness of a composition of matter claim, it is this invention as a whole, and not some part of it, which must be obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103." In re Antonie , 559 F.2d 618, 620, 195 USPQ 6,8 (CCPA 1977) (emphasis in original) (citations omitted) (The claimed wastewater treatment device had a tank volume to contractor area of 0.12 gal./sq. ft. The court found the invention as a whole was the ratio of 0.12 and its inherent property that the claimed devices maximized treatment capacity regardless of other variables in the devices. The prior art did not recognize that treatment capacity was a function of the tank volume to contractor ratio, and therefore the parameter optimized was not recognized in the art to be a result-effective variable.). See also In re Papesch , 315 F.2d 381, 391, 137 USPQ 43, 51 (CCPA 1963) ("From the standpoint of patent law, a compound and all its properties are inseparable." ).for the requirements of rejections based on inherency. Obviousness cannot be predicated on what is not known at the time an invention is made, even if the inherency of a certain feature is later established. In re Rijckaert , 9 F.2d 1531, 28 USPQ2d 1955 (Fed. Cir. 1993). See MPEP § 2112 The combination clearly teaches the claimed invention. Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2006/0275595 to Thies et al. has an optional photo initiator in a nanocoating. US 20100143674 A1 to Yoshihara et al. discloses Ra is around 4- Fig. 5 for a hardcoat and other layers can be added on top of the hard coat film (0175) where the layers include a low refractive index layer made from a fluorine-based resin (0184). JP 2006301607 – discloses a low refractive index layer with a fluorinated polyolefin. The references in the international written opinion. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL . See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAMRA L. DICUS whose telephone number is (571)272-2022. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am 4:00 pm. 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 on 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. TAMRA L. DICUS Primary Examiner Art Unit 1787 /TAMRA L. DICUS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787 Application/Control Number: 17/284,552 Page 2 Art Unit: 1787 Application/Control Number: 17/284,552 Page 3 Art Unit: 1787 Application/Control Number: 17/284,552 Page 4 Art Unit: 1787 Application/Control Number: 17/284,552 Page 5 Art Unit: 1787 Application/Control Number: 17/284,552 Page 6 Art Unit: 1787 Application/Control Number: 17/284,552 Page 7 Art Unit: 1787 Application/Control Number: 17/284,552 Page 8 Art Unit: 1787 Application/Control Number: 17/284,552 Page 9 Art Unit: 1787 Application/Control Number: 17/284,552 Page 10 Art Unit: 1787
Prosecution Insights