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 .
Status of Application
Claims 1-7 and 10-18 are pending. Claim 10 is withdrawn. Claims 1-7 and 11-18 are presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
Initially it is noted that Applicant’s amendments have overcome the previous 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections.
Applicant's arguments filed 2/24/2026, with respect to the prior art rejections, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues that the amended claims now exclude “any post-coating removal step”. In particular, Applicant argues that Schmidt requires a a subtractive etch. In response to Applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, the combination of references make obvious a selective deposition process that substitutes Stutzmann’s deposition process that does not require a post-coating removal step for Schmidt’s process. Therefore, the combination of references makes obvious a process that does not require a post-coating removal step.
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.
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.
1. Claim(s) 1-7 and 11-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt et al. (WO 2019/118685) in view of Stutzmann et al. (“Self-Aligned, Vertical-Channel, Polymer Field-Effect Transistors”).
I. Regarding claims 1-6 and 11-18, Schmidt teaches a method of manufacturing a light control film (abstract) comprising: providing a microstructured film comprising a plurality of light transmissive regions which extend from a base layer and the film comprising a polymerizable resin, such as PMMA (page 8, lines 1-9), and the light transmissive regions alternated with channels (page 7, lines 7-20 and Figure 2), and wherein the microstructured film has a surface defined by a top surface and a pair of side surfaces of each light transmissive region and a bottom surface of each channel (Figure 2); coating the pair of side surface of each light transmissive region and the bottom surface of each channel with a coating (claim 29 and Figure 3), the coating comprising light absorbing particles dispersed in water; and air drying the coating (page 20, lines 32-34) wherein the light absorbing particles remain only on the pair of side surfaces of each light transmissive region (Figure 3). Schmidt further teaches that the particles can be carbon black (page 13, lines 12-14 and Table 2, page 19) with a particle size of 130 nm (Table 2, page 19). Schmidt also teaches backfilling the channels with a material identical to the light transmissive regions (page 15, lines 9-22), and the coating including an anionic binder (page 12, lines 20-24) with the carbon black present in an amount of at least 1 wt% (page 10, lines 25-29).
Schmidt fails to teach the drying step causing the particles to be selectively deposited on the pair of side surfaces without any post-coating removal step as Schmidt teaches a step of etching to yield the particles only on the pair of side surfaces (page 14, lines 19-21).
However, Stutzmann teaches treating a substrate, PMMA with two surface pre-treatments, a first oxygen plasma treatment to render the PMMA hydrophilic and then a selective surface treatment with a hydrophobic agent, such that a coating composition deposited after is selectively deposited on the hydrophilic areas without any post-coating removal step (last column, page 1883). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schmidt’s process by selectively depositing the light absorbing particles on the sidewalls during drying without requiring additional surface treatments by pre-treating the entire PMMA surface with an oxygen plasma to increase its hydrophilicity followed by selectively treating the horizontal surfaces (top and bottom) with a hydrophobic agent as taught by Stutzmann such that Schmidt’s aqueous coating would selectively be deposited and dried on the hydrophilic side surfaces without requiring any post-coating removal step. One would have been motivated to make this modification as it would eliminate the need for etching after depositing thereby simplifying the process and preventing the etched material from contaminating the final product.
II. Regarding claim 7, Schmidt in view of Stutzmann teach all the limitations of claim 1 (see above), but fail to teach drying at a temperature of at least 50 ºC. However, it is well known that temperature is a result-effective variable as adjusting temperature will adjust the length of time necessary for drying. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the instantly claimed range through process optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Conclusion
Claims 1-7 and 10-18 are pending.
Claim 10 is withdrawn.
Claims 1-7 and 11-18 are rejected.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ROBERT S WALTERS JR whose telephone number is (571)270-5351. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5.
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.
/ROBERT S WALTERS JR/
March 12, 2026Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1717