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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 19 to 35 and 39, in the reply filed on 12/22/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that in the underlying PCT application unity was not found to be lacking. Applicant further argues because claim 38 refers to “A method for producing a structured layer arrangement as recited in claim 19” the claims have unity. This is not found persuasive because the analysis for unity of invention relates to aspects shared between the groups outlined. As stated in the restriction, groups I and II require the technical feature of “a planar carrier substrate; a structured chromium layer including chromium areas arranged alternatingly with uncoated areas of the carrier substrate on a functional-effective side of the carrier substrate; and a two-dimensional reactive layer arranged above the structured chromium layer and having a higher photocatalytic activity in partial areas above the chromium areas of the carrier substrate than in partial areas above the uncoated areas of the carrier substrate.” This technical feature is not a special technical feature in view of Yamamoto (JP2005148668A English; cited in IDS dated 04/13/2023) as described in the restriction requirement of 10/21/2025.
Furthermore, group I is directed to a product while the invention of group II is directed to a method. Accordingly, while the method of claim 19 may require the limitations of the product of claim 19, the product of claim 19 does not necessarily need to be made according to the process of claims 36-38. This can be interpreted as a product-by-process limitation. It is noted that “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process”, In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Further, “although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product”, In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir.1983). See MPEP 2113.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 36-38 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Objections
Claim 23 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 23, line 2, the phrase “has a nitrogen content in the range 15 at% to 25 at%” is likely intended to read “has a nitrogen content in the range of 15 at% to 25 at%”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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.
Claims 19, 21, and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto (JP2005148668A English; cited in IDS dated 04/13/2023). Note, the copy of Yamamoto provided by Applicant om 04/13/2023 only includes an English Abstract. Accordingly, all the citations to Yamamoto below are from the full English translation provided by the Examiner in this action.
Regarding claim 19, Yamamoto teaches a structural body comprising a part provided with a substance having a photocatalytic effect, a part provided with a reactive substance generated by the photocatalytic effect, and a substance having reactivity on at least a part of the substrate (Abstract; Claim 1). Yamamoto teaches the structural body has a layered composition, comprising a substrate (1), a chromium pattern (2) formed on the substrate such that portions of the substrate are layered with a uniform chromium film parts between portions having no chromium pattern, and a photocatalytic material layer (3) containing titanium oxide as the main component formed on the chromium pattern (Fig. 1; Pg. 2, par. 9-16; Pg. 3, par. 2). Yamamoto teaches the chromium layer is arranged as a “mask structure” or “photomask” that has a two-dimensional pattern (Pg. 2, par. 1) and is arranged in a grid with uncovered substrate (as depicted in Fig. 4).
The term “a planar carrier substrate” is interpreted as a suitable plate-shaped or planar carrier substrate (see Pg. 6, lines 31-34 in the instant specification). The substrate (1) depicted in Yamamoto is rectangular and that the deposited chromium layer (2) is in the same plane as the substrate, meeting the limitation of a “planar carrier substrate”.
PNG
media_image1.png
652
1650
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Figure 1. Reproduced Fig. 1 from Yamamoto depicting the layered structure)]
The term “functional-effective side” is interpreted as the side of the substrate which is layered with chromium and reactive, photocatalytic layer (see Pg. 7, lines 8-14 in the instant specification). Yamamoto teaching the chromium pattern is layered on a substrate in a two-dimensional pattern such that there are portions with no chromium therefore meets the limitation “a structured chromium layer including chromium areas arranged alternatingly with uncoated areas of the carrier substrate on a functional-effective side of the carrier substrate.”
Yamamoto teaches the photocatalytic material containing titanium oxide is formed on the chromium pattern (Pg. 2, par. 16; Fig. 1) and that only the area having the portion with the photocatalyst material provides the photocatalytic effect (Claims 3-5; Pg. 2, par. 8-9). Yamamoto teaches a further scavenger layer (4) is deposited only on the chromium pattern which serves to aid the photocatalytic material by scavenging the reactive substance produced by the photocatalytic material (Pg. 3, par. 2-4). Yamamoto teaching the photocatalytic material is deposited on the chromium and that only the portions with photocatalytic material display a photocatalytic effect would necessarily provide areas with higher photocatalytic activity in areas with photocatalytic material than in areas without the photocatalytic material and scavenging material, meeting the limitation “having a higher photocatalytic activity in partial areas above the chromium areas of the carrier substrate than in partial areas above the uncoated areas of the carrier substrate.”
Regarding claim 21, Yamamoto teaches the thickness of the titanium oxide layer formed on the chrome pattern is approximately 100 nm to 1000 nm (Pg. 2, par. 17). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the range taught by Yamamoto (titanium oxide thickness 100 nm to 1000 nm) overlaps with the claimed range (titanium oxide thickness in range of 30 nm to 300 nm). Therefore, the range in Yamamoto renders obvious the claimed range.
Regarding claim 24, Yamamoto teaches the substrate is glass (Pg. 2, par. 13-14).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto et al. (JP2005148668A English; cited in IDS dated 04/13/2023) in view of Lee et al. (US20090155605A1).
Regarding claim 20, Yamamoto teaches the structured layer arrangement of claim 19 and Yamamoto further teaches the titanium oxide is titanium dioxide, TiO2 (Pg. 3, par. 11-14). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the range taught by Yamamoto (titanium oxide TiO2, x = 2) overlaps with the claimed range (TiOx, x = 2 to 4). Therefore, the range in Yamamoto renders obvious the claimed range.
The claim further requires “the partial areas with higher photocatalytic activity are formed predominantly of titanium oxide richer in anatase, and the partial areas with lower photocatalytic activity are formed predominantly of titanium oxide richer in rutile,” to which Yamamoto does not explicitly teach the phase of the titanium oxide (i.e. where it is anatase or rutile phase) formed on the partial areas.
Lee teaches a hydrophilic mirror having a titanium dioxide (TiO2) layer formed on a chromium substrate, where the TiO2 layer contains anatase and rutile phase TiO2 ([0041]-[0044]). Lee further teaches the anatase phase TiO2 has better photoactivity than the rutile structure ([0003]). Accordingly, from the teachings of Lee, the coated areas containing anatase-phase TiO2 would display higher photocatalytic activity than locations with rutile-phase TiO2.
Advantageously, anatase-phase TiO2 possesses a greater band gap than rutile-phase TiO2 and as a result displays better photoactivity ([0002]-[0004]).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a TiO2 layer on a chromium substrate with locations of anatase TiO2 that display higher photoactivity than rutile TiO2 locations in the structured layer arrangement of Yamamoto in order to provide areas with better photoactivity due to the larger band gap in anatase TiO2, as taught by Lee.
Claims 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto et al. (JP2005148668A English; cited in IDS dated 04/13/2023) in view of Inazuki et al. (US20200192215A1).
Regarding claim 22, Yamamoto teaches the structured layer arrangement of claim 19 and the claim further requires “the chromium layer has a thickness in the range of 30 nm to 150 nm” to which Yamamoto is silent.
Inazuki teaches a layered photomask material containing a chromium-containing film formed directly on a substrate that has a thickness of up to 75 nm (Abstract; [0002]; [0062]). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the range taught by Inazuki (chromium layer of up to 75 nm) overlaps with the claimed range (chromium thickness of 30 nm to 150 nm). Therefore, the range in Inazuki renders obvious the claimed range.
Advantageously, providing a chromium layer with the thickness taught by Inazuki ensures an optical density in the film with suitable light-shielding properties while also being able to be patterned with high accuracy ([0015]; [0030]).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a chromium film with a thickness of up to 75 nm in the structured layer arrangement of Yamamoto in order to provide a film with suitable optical density and light-shielding properties while also being able to be patterned with high accuracy, as taught by Inazuki.
Regarding claim 23, Yamamoto teaches the structured layer arrangement of claim 19 and the claim further requires “the chromium layer has a nitrogen content in the range 15 at% to 25at%.” to which Yamamoto is silent.
Inazuki teaches a layered photomask material containing a chromium-containing film formed directly on a substrate that has nitrogen content of at least 1 at% up to 25 at% at the highest (Abstract; [0052]). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the range taught by Inazuki (chromium layer nitrogen content from 1 at% to 25 at%) overlaps with the claimed range (chromium nitrogen content in the range of 15 at% to 25 at%). Therefore, the range in Inazuki renders obvious the claimed range.
Advantageously, providing a chromium layer with the nitrogen content taught by Inazuki ensures an optical density in the film with suitable light-shielding properties while also being able to be patterned with high accuracy ([0015]; [0030]).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a chromium film with a nitrogen content from 1 at% to 25 at% in the structured layer arrangement of Yamamoto in order to provide a film with suitable optical density and light-shielding properties while also being able to be patterned with high accuracy, as taught by Inazuki.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto et al. (JP2005148668A English; cited in IDS dated 04/13/2023) in view of Kobayashi (JP4201162B2 English; cited in IDS as JP2003295428A. Note the foreign document of JP2003295428A provided by Applicant on 04/13/2023 on included an English Abstract and the English Translation of JP4201162B2, provided by the Examiner, was cited in all instances below.)
Regarding claim 25, Yamamoto teaches the structured layer arrangement of claim 19 and the claim further requires “a biofunctional layer is arranged above the reactive layer,” to which Yamamoto is silent.
Kobayashi teaches a layered material that can have a functional element formed on a photocatalyst layer that displays various functions including biofunctional properties ([0185]-[0187]). Kobayashi describing the functional element as being “biofunctional” and being above a reactive photocatalyst meets the limitation “a biofunctional layer” as claimed.
Advantageously, a biofunctional layer grants the material functionality in biocompatibility and antithrombic functions ([0187]).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a biofunctional layer in the structured layer arrangement of Yamamoto in order to provide a biofunctional layer with biocompatible and antithrombic properties, as taught by Kobayashi.
Claims 26-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto et al. (JP2005148668A English; cited in IDS dated 04/13/2023) in view of Kobayashi (JP4201162B2 English) and further in view of Miyake et al. (US20050186674A1; cited in IDS dated 04/13/2023).
Regarding claim 26, Yamamoto teaches the structured layer arrangement of claim 19 and Yamamoto in view of Kobayashi teach the structured layer arrangement of claim 25.
The claim further requires “the biofunctional layer is configured for specific binding or accumulation of biological molecules on the biofunctional layer” to which Yamamoto and Kobayashi do not explicitly discuss.
Miyake teaches patterned layered material comprising a base material, a photocatalyst, a cell adhesive material, a light-shielding portion made of chromium and a cell culture patterning layer (Abstract; [0088]). Miyake teaches the adhesive material in the layered material adhere particular cells and materials with biological characteristics including fibronectin, laminin, tenascin, vitronectin, RGD (arginine-glycine-asparagine acid) sequence containing peptide, YIGSR (tyrosine-isoleucine-glycine-serinearginine) sequence containing peptide, collagen, atelocol-lagen, gelatin and the like ([0053]-[0055]). Miyake teaching that biological materials adhere to the adhesive material on the layered material is equivalent to, at least, the limitation “accumulation of biological molecules on the biofunctional layer” due to biological materials being adhered there.
Advantageously, the cell adhesive material provides excellent adhesiveness with the cited biological materials ([0055]).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a cell adhesive material in the structured layer arrangement of Yamamoto in order to provide a layer that provides excellent adhesiveness with target biological materials, as taught by Miyake.
Regarding claim 27, Yamamoto teaches the structured layer arrangement of claim 19, Yamamoto in view of Kobayashi teach the structured layer arrangement of claim 25, and Yamamoto in view of Kobayashi and Miyake teach the structured layer arrangement of claim 26.
The claim further requires “the biofunctional layer includes amino, epoxy, carboxyl, hydroxyl, thiol, and/or azide functional groups” to which Yamamoto is silent.
Kobayashi teaches the functional layer displaying biofunctional properties can be formed of organopolysiloxane materials comprising fluoroalkyl, vinyl, amino, phenyl, or epoxy groups (Claim 12; [0029]; [0120]-[0122]).
Advantageously, including a fluoroalkyl, vinyl, amino, phenyl, or epoxy group provide the material a large wettability difference between the pattern forming body (i.e. substrate) and the pattern which in turn affords the photocatalyst the ability to interact with light more readily and decompose target layers more readily ([0029]-[0031]).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a biofunctional layer with a fluoroalkyl, vinyl, amino, phenyl, or epoxy groups in the structured layer arrangement of Yamamoto in order to improve the ability of the photocatalyst to interact with light and decompose target layers more readily, as taught by Kobayashi.
Regarding claim 28, Yamamoto teaches the structured layer arrangement of claims 19 and Yamamoto in view of Kobayashi teach the structured layer arrangement of claim 25.
The claim further requires “the biofunctional layer is adapted to inhibit and/or prevent binding or accumulation of biological molecules on the biofunctional layer” to which Yamamoto and Kobayashi do not explicitly discuss.
Miyake teaches patterned layered material comprising a base material, a photocatalyst, a cell adhesive material, a light-shielding portion made of chromium and a cell culture patterning layer (Abstract; [0088]). Miyake teaches the cell adhesive material in the layered material can be changed such as to lose adhesiveness with cells or inhibit cell adhesion binding properties ([0051]).
Advantageously, the cell adhesive material being made to inhibit binding of cells provides a surface that doesn’t display adhesiveness with particular cells ([0051]-[0056]).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to change a cell adhesive material in the structured layer arrangement of Yamamoto in order to inhibit binding of particular cells with biochemical characteristics, as taught by Miyake.
Regarding claim 29, Yamamoto teaches the structured layer arrangement of claims 19, Yamamoto in view of Kobayashi teach the structured layer arrangement of claim 25, and Yamamoto in view of Kobayashi and Miyake teach the structured layer arrangement of claim 28.
Yamamoto further teaches a photoresist layer can be included on top of the reactive layer that comprises polyethylene oxide (PEO) (Pg. 3, par. 2-4).
Advantageously, the photoresist layer comprising polyethylene oxide (PEO) can function as a scavenging layer that is selectively decomposed by the photocatalyst layer while leaving scavenging material where there is no pattern (Pg. 4, par. 1-7).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include polyethylene oxide (PEO) in the biofunctional layer in the structured layer arrangement of Yamamoto and Kobayashi in order to selectively decompose select photocatalyst sites, as taught by Yamamoto.
Regarding claim 30, Yamamoto teaches the structured layer arrangement of claims 19, Yamamoto in view of Kobayashi teach the structured layer arrangement of claim 25, and Yamamoto in view of Kobayashi and Miyake teach the structured layer arrangement of claim 26.
The claim further requires “the biofunctional layer includes a self-assembled monolayer and an organosilane that forms an amorphous silicon oxide network to the reactive layer” to which Yamamoto is silent.
Kobayashi further teaches the layered material comprises a self-assembled monolayer and an inorganic material layered on the photocatalyst layer made of amorphous silica derived from silanes with the formula SiX4 where X includes methoxy, ethoxy, acetyl, or hydrolysates thereof (Claim 1; [0069]-[0070]; [0119]-[0122]).
Advantageously, self-assembled monolayers are easy to form based on their self-organizing effect while an amorphous silicon oxide layer improves the strength of the film ([0157]; [0070]).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a self-assembled monolayer and an amorphous silicon network in the structured layer arrangement of Yamamoto in order to utilize the self-organizing effect of self-assembled monolayers and improve the strength of the film, as taught by Kobayashi.
Regarding claim 31, Yamamoto teaches the structured layer arrangement of claims 19, Yamamoto in view of Kobayashi teach the structured layer arrangement of claim 25, and Yamamoto in view of Kobayashi and Miyake teach the structured layer arrangement of claim 28.
The claim further requires “the biofunctional layer includes a self-assembled monolayer and an organosilane that forms an amorphous silicon oxide network to the reactive layer” to which Yamamoto is silent.
Kobayashi further teaches the layered material comprises a self-assembled monolayer and an inorganic material layered on the photocatalyst layer made of amorphous silica derived from silanes with the formula SiX4 where X includes methoxy, ethoxy, acetyl, or hydrolysates thereof (Claim 1; [0069]-[0070]; [0119]-[0122]).
Advantageously, self-assembled monolayers are easy to form based on their self-organizing effect while an amorphous silicon oxide layer improves the strength of the film ([0157]; [0070]).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a self-assembled monolayer and an amorphous silicon network in the structured layer arrangement of Yamamoto in order to utilize the self-organizing effect of self-assembled monolayers and improve the strength of the film, as taught by Kobayashi.
Regarding claim 32, Yamamoto teaches the structured layer arrangement of claims 19, Yamamoto in view of Kobayashi teach the structured layer arrangement of claim 25, and Yamamoto in view of Kobayashi and Miyake teach the structured layer arrangement of claims 26 and 27.
The claim further requires “the biofunctional layer consists of 3-aminopropyltriethoxysilane (APTES), 3- aminopropyltrimethoxysilane (APTMS), N-(2-aminoethyl)-3-aminopropyltriethoxysilane (AEAPTES), N-(2-aminoethyl)-3-aminopropyltrimethoxysilane (AEAPTMS), N-(6- aminohexyl)aminomethyltriethoxysilane (AHAMTES), or 3- aminopropyldiisopropylethoxysilane (APDIPES),” to which Yamamoto and Kobayashi are silent.
Miyake teaches patterned layered material comprising a base material, a photocatalyst, a cell adhesive material, a light-shielding portion made of chromium and a cell culture patterning layer (Abstract; [0088]). Miyake further teaches the cell adhesive material comprises basic compounds such as aminopropyltriethoxysilane, N-(2-aminoethyl)-3-aminopropyltrimethoxysilane (AEAPTES) and condensates and the like while teaching an example using N-(2-aminoethyl)-3-aminopropyltrimethoxysilane ([0054]; [0155]).
Advantageously, aminopropyltriethoxysilanes allow for the electric charge of the surface layer to be altered such that cell adhesion properties can be controlled ([0054]).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include aminopropyltriethoxysilanes, such as N-(2-aminoethyl)-3-aminopropyltrimethoxysilane (AEAPTES), in the cell adhesive material in the structured layer arrangement of Yamamoto in order to allow for the electric charge of the surface layer to be altered to allow for control over cell adhesion properties, as taught by Miyake.
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto et al. (JP2005148668A English; cited in IDS dated 04/13/2023) in view of Miyake et al. (US20050186674A1; cited in IDS dated 04/13/2023).
Regarding claim 33, Yamamoto teaches the structured layer arrangement of claim 19 and the claim further requires “wherein a negative photoresist is arranged as a functional layer above the reactive layer,” to which Yamamoto is silent.
The term “negative photoresist” is interpreted to be a layer comprising an aminosilane in view of the instant specification in at least Pg. 14, lines 1-11.
In this regard, Miyake teaches patterned layered material comprising a base material, a photocatalyst, a cell adhesive material, a light-shielding portion made of chromium and a cell culture patterning layer (Abstract; [0088]). Miyake further teaches the cell adhesive material comprises basic compounds such as aminopropyltriethoxysilane, N-(2-aminoethyl)-3-aminopropyltrimethoxysilane (AEAPTES) and condensates and the like while teaching an example using N-(2-aminoethyl)-3-aminopropyltrimethoxysilane ([0054]; [0155]). Miyake teaches the aminosilane layer is formed on the photocatalyst layer ([0051]-[0054]). Miyake teaching an aminosilane layer on a photocatalyst layer meets the limitation “a negative photoresist is arranged as a functional layer above the reactive layer” because an aminosilane is interpreted as a negative photoresist, as stated above, and a photocatalyst layer is a reactive layer, consistent with the description of a reactive layer in at least claim 2.
Advantageously, aminopropyltriethoxysilanes allow for the electric charge of the surface layer to be altered such that cell adhesion properties can be controlled ([0054]).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include aminopropyltriethoxysilanes, such as N-(2-aminoethyl)-3-aminopropyltrimethoxysilane (AEAPTES), in the cell adhesive material on top of the photocatalyst layer in the structured layer arrangement of Yamamoto in order to allow for the electric charge of the surface layer to be altered that in turn enables control over cell adhesion properties, as taught by Miyake.
Claims 34-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto et al. (JP2005148668A English; cited in IDS dated 04/13/2023) in view of Oh et al. (KR20110062294A English).
Regarding claim 34, Yamamoto teaches the structured layer arrangement of claim 19 and the claim further requires “a two-dimensional reflector layer, covered two-dimensionally by a dielectric layer, is arranged directly on the functional-effective side of the carrier substrate, and the structured chromium layer is arranged on the dielectric layer” to which Yamamoto is silent.
The term “two-dimensionally” is interpreted to be a layer that that is deposited via suitable deposition method, such as PECVD or desiccator method (see Pg. 10, lines 16-21 in the instant specification). The “reflector layer” is interpreted as being a metal (see claim 35 and Pg. 12, lines 20-24 in the instant specification). The “dielectric layer” is interpreted as being silicon dioxide (see claim 35 and Pg. 12, lines 24-25 in the instant specification).
Oh teaches a light mixing layered material comprising a first reflective surface, a second layer, and a third between the first and second layer (Claims; Pg. 1, par. 18). Oh teaches the first reflective layer may be formed of a metal such as silver, aluminum, platinum, chromium, nickel, and copper, the second layer may be formed of a metal such as chromium, and the third layer may be formed of inorganic dielectrics such as silica (Pg. 3, par. 3-9). Oh further teaches the layers are formed by depositing the particles on the substrate by, for example, e-beam, thermal vapor deposition, chemical vapor deposition, or sputtering (Pg. 3, par. 10).
Oh effectively teaches a material that can comprise a reflective base layer of metal, a dielectric layer thereon containing silica, and a metal layer comprising metal such as chromium on top, where the layers are deposited by general vapor deposition techniques as layers and are considered to meet the limitation of “two-dimensional” and “two-dimensionally”.
Advantageously, the layered material comprising the reflective and dielectric layers of Oh provide increased propagation distance of light which allows for improved light emission through the material (Pg. 2, par. 6-7).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a two-dimensional reflective layer with a dielectric layer on top with a chromium layer on top of the dielectric layer in the structured layer arrangement of Yamamoto in order to increase the propagation distance of light through the material which translates to improved light emission throughout the material, as taught by Oh.
Regarding claim 35, Yamamoto teaches the structured layer arrangement of claim 19 and Yamamoto in view of Oh teach the structured layer arrangement of claim 34.
The claim further requires “the reflector layer includes a metal and the dielectric layer includes silicon dioxide” to which Yamamoto is silent.
Oh teaches a light mixing layered material comprising a first reflective surface, a second layer, and a third between the first and second layer (Claims; Pg. 1, par. 18). Oh teaches the first reflective layer may be formed of a metal such as silver, aluminum, platinum, chromium, nickel, and copper, the second layer may be formed of a metal such as chromium, and the third layer may be formed of inorganic dielectrics such as silica (i.e. SiO2) (Pg. 3, par. 3-9).
Advantageously, the layered material comprising the metal reflective layer and the silica dielectric layers of Oh provide increased propagation distance of light which allows for improved light emission through the material (Pg. 2, par. 6-7).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a two-dimensional metal reflective layer with a silica dielectric layer on top with a chromium layer on top of the dielectric layer in the structured layer arrangement of Yamamoto in order to increase the propagation distance of light through the material which translates to improved light emission throughout the material, as taught by Oh.
Claim 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto (JP2005148668A English; cited in IDS dated 04/13/2023). Note, the copy of Yamamoto provided by Applicant om 04/13/2023 only includes an English Abstract. Accordingly, all the citations to Yamamoto below are from the full English translation provided by the Examiner in this action.
Regarding claim 39, Yamamoto teaches a structural body comprising a part provided with a substance having a photocatalytic effect, a part provided with a reactive substance generated by the photocatalytic effect, and a substance having easy reactivity on at least a part of the substrate (Abstract; Claim 1). Yamamoto teaches the structural body has a layered composition, comprising a substrate (1), a chromium pattern (2) formed on the substrate such that portions of the substrate are layered with a uniform chromium film parts between portions having no chromium pattern, and a photocatalytic material layer (3) containing titanium oxide as the main component formed on the chromium pattern (Fig. 1; Pg. 2, par. 9-16; Pg. 3, par. 2). Yamamoto teaches the chromium layer is arranged as a “mask structure” or “photomask” that has a two-dimensional pattern (Pg. 2, par. 1) and is arranged in a grid with uncovered substrate (as depicted in Fig. 4).
The term “a planar carrier substrate” is interpreted as a suitable plate-shaped or planar carrier substrate (see Pg. 6, lines 31-34 in the instant specification). The substrate (1) depicted in Yamamoto is rectangular and that the deposited chromium layer (2) is in the same plane as the substrate, meeting the limitation of a “planar carrier substrate”.
PNG
media_image1.png
652
1650
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Figure 2. Reproduced Fig. 1 from Yamamoto depicting the layered structure)]
The term “functional-effective side” is interpreted as the side of the substrate which is layered with chromium and reactive, photocatalytic layer (see Pg. 7, lines 8-14 in the instant specification). Yamamoto teaching the chromium pattern is layered on a substrate in a two-dimensional pattern such that there are portions with no chromium therefore meets the limitation “a structured chromium layer including chromium areas arranged alternatingly with uncoated areas of the carrier substrate on a functional-effective side of the carrier substrate.”
Yamamoto teaches the photocatalytic material containing titanium oxide is formed on the chromium pattern (Pg. 2, par. 16; Fig. 1) and that only the area having the portion with the photocatalyst material provides the photocatalytic effect (Claims 3-5; Pg. 2, par. 8-9). Yamamoto teaches a further scavenger layer (4) is deposited only on the chromium pattern which serves to aid the photocatalytic material by scavenging the reactive substance produced by the photocatalytic material (Pg. 3, par. 2-4). Yamamoto teaching the photocatalytic material is deposited on the chromium and that only the portions with photocatalytic material display a photocatalytic effect would necessarily provide areas with higher photocatalytic activity in areas with photocatalytic material than in areas without the photocatalytic material and scavenging material, meeting the limitation “having a higher photocatalytic activity in partial areas above the chromium areas of the carrier substrate than in partial areas above the uncoated areas of the carrier substrate.”
The claim further requires “the structured layer arrangement is produced according to the method recited in claim 36.”
Yamamoto teaches the structural body with a layered composition is prepared by forming a chromium pattern on a quartz substrate to provide a photomask pattern with various L/S patterns followed by depositing a photocatalytic layer on the chromium photomask that is made of TiO2 (Pg. 3, par. 10-15). Yamamoto teaches a further scavenger layer (4) is deposited only on the chromium pattern which serves to aid the photocatalytic material by scavenging the reactive substance produced by the photocatalytic material (Pg. 3, par. 2-4). Yamamoto teaching the photocatalytic material is deposited on the chromium and that only the portions with photocatalytic material display a photocatalytic effect would necessarily provide areas with higher photocatalytic activity in areas with photocatalytic material than in areas without the photocatalytic material and scavenging material, meeting the limitation “having a higher photocatalytic activity in partial areas above the chromium areas of the carrier substrate than in partial areas above the uncoated areas of the carrier substrate.”
Additionally, it is noted that while Yamamoto teaches a method as recited in claim 36, the limitation “the structured layer arrangement is produced according to the method recited in claim 36” is a product-by-process limitation. It is noted that “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process”, In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Further, if the process of Yamamoto had been different from the method of claim 36, Applicant is additionally reminded “although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product”, In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir.1983). See MPEP 2113.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jordan Wayne Taylor whose telephone number is (571)272-9895. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30 AM - 5 PM EST; Second Fridays Off.
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, Sally A. Merkling can be reached on (571)272-6297. 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.
/JORDAN W TAYLOR/Examiner, Art Unit 1738