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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on March 26, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed March 26, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-9 are pending in the application. Claims 1 and 2 were amended and support for amendments is found in the Specification as originally filed. Claims 8 and 9 were previously withdrawn. Claim 10 is newly cancelled. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome objections and the 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed March 26, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “a total amount of metal species at surfaces”. However, it is unclear if the metal species is the same as the “at least one metal species at surfaces” of Claim 1. Applicant is suggested to amend to “a total amount of the at least one metal species at surfaces” in order to be consistent with the claim language. Claims 2-7 are rejected for being dependent on a rejected base claim.
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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected are under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Nobuyuki et al. (JP2007/246351; as disclosed in the IDS submitted on 08/10/2022; English machine translation incorporated herewith; hereafter as “Nobuyuki”) as evidenced by ShinEtsu (KBM-403 (NPL), hereafter as “ShinEtsu”).
Regarding Claims 1 and 4, Nobuyuki teaches a titanium oxide organosol [Claims 1, 11; Examples 1-2, 4, 6, 8, 10], corresponding to a rutile-form titanium oxide organosol of Claim 1 consisting of:
titanium oxide sol particles that are coated with a layer consisting of a hydrous oxide of at least one metal species such as tin and zirconium [Claim 1] wherein the titanium oxide particles are rutile [Claim 2], corresponding to rutile-form titanium oxide particles that have been surface-treated with a hydrous oxide of at least one metal species selected from Zr, Ce, Sn, and Fe of Claim 1;
5.2 g of KBM-403, glycidoxypropyltrimethoxysilane (GOPS) [Paragraph 0023], which has a Si-content of 0.62 g (amt. of GOPS * MW of Si/MW of GOPS = 5.2*28.09/236.3 = 0.62 g);
t-butylamine [Paragraph 0018], which the instant Specification cites as a basic additive [Specification, Paragraph 0052], corresponding to a basic additive acting as a deflocculant of Claim 1, and wherein the basic additive is a water-soluble amine of Claim 4;
an organic, non-aqueous solvent [Claim 5; ¶ 0018-0019], corresponding to a water-insoluble solvent of Claim 1; and
a preparation of rutile titanium oxide hydrosol consisting of 40 g of TiO2 , 1.2 g of ZrO2 , 10 g of SnO2, 6 g SiO2 and 5.2 g of GOPS (which contains 0.62 g of Si ) [Example 1; Paragraph 0022-0023] which has a TiO2 content of 70 mass % of the oxides (40 g TiO2 / 57.2 g of total oxides), corresponding to TiO2 with respect to all oxides of Ti, Si and the at least one metal species in the entire colloidal particles is at least 64.5 mass % of Claim 1;
Si content of 3.22 g ((0.62 g Si from GOPS + 2.8 g Si from SiO2 = 3.42 g); and
A total metal species content of 32.8 g (Ti content = amt. of TiO2 *MW of Ti/MW of TiO2) = 40*48/80 = 24 g; Zr content = 1.2*91/123 = 0.89 g; Sn content = 10*118/150 = 7.9 g; 24+0.89+7.9 = 32.8 g);
Which is equivalent to 10 mass % of Si in the entire particle with respect to the total amount of metal species (3.42g of Si/32.8 g of total metal species = 10 mass %), since the total amount of Si in the entire particle is less than 35 % by mass with respect to the total amount of metal species, the amount of Si on the surface of the colloidal particles must also be less than 35 % by mass, and is thus interpreted to correspond to an amount of Si at the particle surface to be equal to or less than 35% by mass of Claim 1.
ShinEtsu teaches said glycidoxypropyltrimethoxysilane (GOPS) [Page 1, Paragraph 1] is a silane coupling agent. Therefore, the glycidoxypropyltrimethoxysilane (GOPS) of Nobuyuki reads on the silane coupling agent comprising Si of Claim 1 as evidenced by ShinEtsu.
However, Nobuyuki is silent to an amount of the metal species at surfaces of the colloidal particles derived from x-ray photoelectron spectroscopy is 20 to 50 mass% of Claim 1 and wherein an amount of Si at surfaces of the colloidal particles is derived from x-ray photoelectron spectroscopy of Claim 1.
Nobuyuki teaches the same rutile-form titanium oxide organosol as required by the instant claim as set forth in the rejection above. Nevertheless, the titanium oxide sol and Si of Nobuyuki would expectedly result in the same amount of the metal species and silicon at surfaces of the colloidal particles as required by the instant Claim 1 if the titanium oxide sol of Nobuyuki were subject to the same x-ray photoelectron spectroscopy testing. Case law has held that claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is expectedly present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). The courts have stated that a chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655, (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430, (CCPA 1977). "Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established." Further, if it is the applicant's position that this would not be the case, evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant's position. In the alternative that the above disclosure is insufficient to anticipate the above listed claims, it would have nonetheless been obvious to the skilled artisan to produce the claimed titanium oxide sol, as the reference teaches each of the claimed ingredients (rutile-form titanium oxide particles, hydrous oxide silane coupling agent, basic additive and water-insoluble solvent) for the same utility (to obtain surface treated rutile-form titanium oxide particles) and for the same purpose (to obtain rutile-form titanium oxide organosol).
However, Nobuyuki does not explicitly teach all the limitations of Claim 1 in a single embodiment.
Nevertheless, Nobuyuki teaches rutile-form titanium oxide particles coated with a hydrous oxide of tin and zirconium [Claim 1], silane coupling agent [Paragraph 0023], basic additive [Paragraph 0018], water-insoluble solvent [Claim 5], and Ti and Si content [Paragraph 0022] with sufficient specificity that one of ordinary skill in the art would arrive at the claimed combination. Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention would have found it “obvious to try” as the teaching represents a finite number of identified, predictable combinations. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Regarding Claims 2, 3 and 7, Nobuyuki teaches:
amount of the metal hydrate oxide is suitably 5 to 100% by weight based on the total weight of the oxide [Paragraph 0015], corresponding to wherein a content ratio of the colloidal particles is at least 28 mass % when calculated as the oxide of Claim 2;
methods of suppressing the increase in viscosity of the titanium oxide hydrosol over time [Paragraph 0011];
11-20 haze value % measured with an optical path length of 10 mm [Table 1; Examples 1-6], corresponding to having a haze value of 20 % or less measured at an optical path length of 10 mm of Claim 3;
a transparent sol of titanium dioxide for forming a hard, transparent coating layer [Paragraph 0001], corresponding to a hard coating layer of Claim 7.
However, Nobuyuki is silent to a viscosity is 15 mPa s or less of Claim 2, being diluted with the water- insoluble solvent to a solid content of 5% by mass of Claim 3 and wherein the coating layer has a pencil hardness of at least 6H of Claim 7.
Nobuyuki teaches the same rutile-form titanium oxide organosol as required by the instant claim as set forth in the rejection above. Nevertheless, the titanium oxide sol of Nobuyuki would inherently result in the same viscosity range of Claim 2, haze value if tested in the same conditions in Claim 3, and coating layer hardness of Claim 7 as required by the instant claims. Case law has held that claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). The courts have stated that a chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655, (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430, (CCPA 1977). "Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established." Further, if it is the applicant's position that this would not be the case, evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant's position. In the alternative that the above disclosure is insufficient to anticipate the above listed claims, it would have nonetheless been obvious to the skilled artisan to produce the claimed titanium oxide organosol, as the reference teaches each of the claimed ingredients (rutile-form titanium oxide particles, hydrous oxide silane coupling agent, basic additive and water-insoluble solvent) for the same utility (to obtain surface treated rutile-form titanium oxide particles) and for the same purpose (to obtain rutile-form titanium oxide organosol).
Regarding Claims 5 and 6, Nobuyuki further teaches: forming a hard, transparent coating layer comprised of titanium oxide sol having a high refractive index [Paragraph 0001], corresponding to the high refractive index coating-forming composition comprising the rutile-form titanium oxide organosol of Claim 5; and use of titanium oxide sol for optical parts and optical elements [Paragraph 0003], corresponding to an optical element comprising a coating layer formed from the high refractive index coating-forming composition of Claim 6.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments in the Remarks and Affidavit filed March 26, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues in the Remarks filed March 26, 2026 that (1) although Nobuyuki discloses organic solvents including toluene, this disclosure is merely a possibility and is not demonstrated in the Examples. However, prior art is not required to teach all the limitations of a claim in a single embodiment in order to render the claim obvious. Further, while Nobuyuki provides toluene as a potential organic solvent, Nobuyuki also more broadly teaches the use of non-aqueous solvents [Claims 5, 11; ¶ 0018-0019] and that the titanium oxide hydrosol of Nobuyuki may be converted into a titanium oxide organosol by replacing the aqueous solvent with a non-aqueous solvent [¶ 0018-0019] that may include but is not limited to toluene. Furthermore, Nobuyuki teaches rutile-form titanium oxide particles coated with a hydrous oxide of tin [Claim 1], silane coupling agent [Paragraph 0023], basic additive [Paragraph 0018], water-insoluble solvent [Claims 5, 11], and Ti and Si content [Paragraph 0022] with sufficient specificity that one of ordinary skill in the art would arrive at the claimed combination. Thus, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues in the Remarks filed March 26, 2026 that (2) the claimed Si component is only from a coupling agent used as a peptizing agent (additive) (i.e., derived from the coupling agent), and not using Si as a principal raw material constituting the colloidal particles. However, the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the claimed Si component is only from the coupling agent) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Thus, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues in the Remarks and Affidavit filed March 26, 2026 that (3) experiments conducted confirm the importance of controlling the amount of Si within the claimed range. However, as outlined in the disclosure above, Nobuyuki teaches a calculated 10 mass % Si [Paragraph 0023], which is within the claimed range, and thus, would expectedly form the same organosol as the claimed invention. The Examiner’s calculated amount of 10 mass % of Si is notably different from the values calculated in the Page 9 of applicant’s Remarks, and from the 39 mass % measured in applicant’s experiments and disclosed in Page 3 of the Affidavit. It is unclear how applicants calculated the values disclosed in Page 9 of applicant’s Remarks and Affidavit.
The calculations outlined above are different in several respects, notably:
The amount of Si that is referred to in Lines 12-13 of Claim 1 is calculated based on the amount Si, not SiO2 since Lines 12-13 refer to Si and not SiO2 or the oxide of Si (as how it is referred to in Lines 8-9 of Claim 1).
The amount of Si (not SiO2) in Nobuyuki was calculated based on the amount of Si in KBM-403 in Lines 360-361 (5.3 g of GOPS, which has 0.62 g of Si), as added in the form of SiO2 in Lines 364-365 (2 g of SiO2, which has 0.93 g of Si), and as added in the form of SiO2 in Lines 373-374 (2 g of SiO2, not 4 g of SiO2 as noted on Page 9 of the Remarks, which has 0.93 g of Si). In sum, where the calculations on Page 9 of the Remarks note 8 g of SiO2, Examiner notes 6 g of SiO2, and where the Remarks use the mass of SiO2, Examiner uses the mass of Si.
The total amount of metal species at surfaces of the colloidal particles that is referred to in Lines 12-13 of Claim 1 is calculated based on the amount of metal in the metal oxides, not the amount of metal oxides. This is notably different from the applicant’s use of the total amount of metal oxide in their calculations. Since Lines 7-9 of Claim 1 specifically refer to “all oxides of the group consisting of Ti, Si and the at least one metal species” (emphasis added) and which is notably different from Lines 12-13 which specifically refer to “a total amount of metal species”, Claim 1 Lines 7-9 were interpreted to refer to metal oxides whereas Claim 1 Lines 12-13 were interpreted to refer to metals. Thus, the total amount of metal species, not the amount of metal hydroxides, were used in the examiner’s calculations (i.e., the mass of the O2 subtracted from the mass of the metal oxides).
It is also unclear what the 13.5 in the calculations of Page 9 of the Remarks is referring to.
It is for these reasons applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DORIS LING whose telephone number is (571)270-3961. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, ARRIE LANEE REUTHER can be reached on (571)270-7026. 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.
/DORIS LING/Examiner, Art Unit 1764
/ARRIE L REUTHER/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights