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 .
Summary
This action is responsive to the amendments and remarks filed on 08/14/2025. Applicant has submitted Claims 2-3, 5, and 7-9 for examination.
Examiner finds the following: 1) Claims 2-3, 5, and 7-9 are rejected; 2) Claim 3 is objected to; and 3) no claims allowable.
Response to Arguments and Remarks
Examiner respectfully acknowledges Applicant’s remarks.
Regarding the amendments and remarks about the 101 issues, Examiner is not persuaded.
Examiner appreciates that Applicant has amended in more components to bring structure to the methods claimed. However, the claimed invention seems directed to limitations that cover mental processes. Based on the as-filed specification, the Applicant intends for the limitation to be carried out by generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. As such, Examiner maintains the below 101 rejection.
Regarding Applicant’s remarks about the combination of Yasumasa and Margel, Examiner is not persuaded.
Applicant argues that it would not have been obvious to PHOSITA to combine Yasumasa and Margel. Applicant argues that Yasumasa discusses resin sheets, discusses sucrose fatty acid esters, and is generally geared to keeping food in mind, and thus silica would not be in the realm of materials to consider in combination with the resin sheet.
Examiner, generally, does not disagree with Applicant’s description of Yasumasa, however, Examiner asserts the combination is reasonable. Examiner notes that PHOSITA, with the knowledge of Margel, could reasonably explore alternatives to or in addition to the resin sheets of Yasumasa. Additionally, given the use of silicon in packaging and containers, Examiner does not understand silica to be an inappropriate material in light of Yasumasa. Thus, Examiner maintains the combination.
Claim Objection
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: typographical error.
Regarding Claim 3, in part (emphasis added):
… a uniform water film forming ability of an of an antifogging agent …
Examiner believes this to be a simple clerical error occurring from the amending of the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 2-3, 5, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent Claims 2 and 9 recite methods for determining a uniform water film forming ability of an antifogging agent.
The limitation of deriving a water film uniformity index, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Based on the as-filed specification, the Applicant intends for the limitation to be carried out by generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites a few additional elements: preparing a base material and capturing an image. The process in both steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea evaluating water film for uniformity. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, Claims 2 and 9 are not patent eligible.
Discussion of Dependent Claims: Claims 3, 5, and 7 depend from Claim 2 and include additional elements that generally describe additional features and parameters. Comparing data and general parameters are considered to be insignificant extra-solution activities as the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas. Therefore, the additional elements recited in Claims 2-8 do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas.
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 2-3 and 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasumasa (JP 2018115864 A), in view of Margel (US 20200171534 A1), and in further view of Kawai (US 20220073702 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Yasumasa discloses:
A method for determining a uniform water film forming ability of an antifogging agent (Yasumasa, P1, L13, “Method for evaluating anti-fogging property”), the method comprising:
a first step of preparing a sample (Yasumasa, FIG. 1, P3, L38, test piece 7) by treating a principal surface of a base material with an antifogging agent (Yasumasa, P6, L10, “Specimen C is an antifog agent solution”) …;
a second step of capturing, by a camera device, an image of an object (Yasumasa, FIG. 1, P4, L19, “digital camera 9 is installed as an image capturing device”) having a pattern in which a plurality of regions having predetermined brightness are disposed in a predetermined area (Yasumasa, FIG. 2, P3, L12, “check sheet 2 has a checkerboard pattern”), through the sample having a water film formed on the principal surface treated with the antifogging agent, to obtain an image for evaluation (Yasumasa, FIG. 1, P4, L6-7, “the lid of the packaging container or the packaging container is directly 6 exposed as steam to be evaluated to photograph Fogging resistance may be evaluated”); and …
… determining whether the derived water film uniformity index is equal to or greater (Yasumasa, P5, L25-29, “When judging whether the anti-fog property is good or bad, from the values obtained by 25 applying the standard deviation of the histogram or the image definition method defined in JIS-K 26 7374, that is, the maximum value M and the minimum value m of the luminance, M - m) / (M + 27 m) or the inter-class variance or degree of separation in the threshold value when image data is 28 binarized by discriminant analysis method may be used”) …; and
determining that the antifogging agent is indicative of an ability to form a uniform water film when the derived water film uniformity index is equal to or greater (Yasumasa, P5, L25-29, “When judging whether the anti-fog property is good or bad, from the values obtained by 25 applying the standard deviation of the histogram or the image definition method defined in JIS-K 26 7374, that is, the maximum value M and the minimum value m of the luminance, M - m) / (M + 27 m) or the inter-class variance or degree of separation in the threshold value when image data is 28 binarized by discriminant analysis method may be used”) …
Yasumasa discloses the above, but does not explicitly disclose:
… an antifogging agent including silica; …
However, Margel, in a similar field of endeavor (inorganic and inorganic-organic hybrid particles-in situ coated sheets), discloses:
… an antifogging agent including silica (Margel, [0293], “Excellent anti-fog durable coatings were also obtained were the coating of the PE film with silica, via Si(OEt).sub.4 and with organic derivatized silica, via MPS, was done for 1-2 minutes”); …
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yasumasa with the silica of Margel. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of silica and its anti-fogging characteristics as disclosed by Margel and how to use them to modify Yasumasa. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(B)), specifically the use of silica and its known anti-fogging characteristics.
The combination of Yasumasa and Margel discloses the above, but does not explicitly disclose:
… a third step of obtaining a frequency distribution of areas having predetermined brightness obtained from the image for evaluation, and then deriving a water film uniformity index indicating uniformity of the water film, which is represented by the proportion (%) of the number of particles (frequency) included in the predetermined area range in the frequency distribution, …
However, Kawai, in a similar field of endeavor (LIGHT-RESISTANT, HEAT-RESISTANT AND DURABLE ULTRAVIOLET ABSORBER), disloses:
… a third step of obtaining a frequency distribution of areas having predetermined brightness obtained from the image for evaluation, and then deriving a water film uniformity index indicating uniformity of the water film, which is represented by the proportion (%) of the number of particles (frequency) included in the predetermined area range in the frequency distribution (Kawai, [0256], “the “average particle size” means a particle size that corresponds to a cumulative frequency of 50% in the distribution of equivalent spherical diameters based on the particle volumes,” and “An average value A of the top 10% of the respective maximum lengths of the fine particles present in a cross-section of the film observed with a SEM or a TEM is not below the value of the “average particle size” defined as above,” and “Introduction of the absorber in form of a solute is a method that can be readily be implemented and also is desired for achieving more uniform distribution of the ultraviolet absorber a in the ultraviolet shielding film”), …
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Yasumasa and Margel with the distribution and distribution detection of Kawai. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of distribution and distribution detection as disclosed by Kawai and how to use them to modify the combination of Yasumasa and Margel. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a use of known technique to improve similar methods in the same way; (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(B)), specifically the use of means to distribute, monitor, and detect particle distributions.
The combination of Yasumasa, Margel, and Kawai discloses the above, but does not explicitly disclose:
… uniformity index is equal to or greater than 65% ...
However, Yasumasa on P2, L19-20, discloses:
A checkered pattern composed of two colors of different luminance is photographed 19 through a steamy packaging container or a sheet of a lid of a packaging container and if the 20 shape of the histogram of the obtained image is bimodal, anti- It is judged that it is high, and if 2] the shape of the histogram is unimodal, it is judged that anti-fogging property is low.
Additionally, on P5, L31-34:
… if the standard deviation of the test piece 7 is equal to or larger than the 31 predetermined value, it is judged that the anti-fog ging property of the test piece 7 is good, and if 32 the standard deviation is less than the predetermined value, the anti-fogging property of the test 33 piece 7 is good It can be determined that there is nothing.
Margel, in [0136], discloses:
… the average or the median size of at least e.g., 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%, 60%, 70%, 80%, 90%, or 95% of the particles, ranges from: …
Additionally, in [0138]-[0139]:
By “uniform” or “homogenous” it is meant to refer to size distribution that varies within a range of less than e.g., ±60%, ±50%, ±40%, ±30%, ±20%, or ±10%, including any value therebetween. In some embodiments, plurality of the particles is characterized by an average hydrodynamic diameter of less than 30 nm with a size distribution of that varies within a range of less than e.g., 60%, 50%, 40%, 30%, 20%, or 10%, including any value therebetween.
Examiner notes that particle size is inherently tied into distribution and determination of uniformity, as Margel and other references discuss.
Kawai, in [0257], discloses:
It is preferred that the ultraviolet absorber a be contained in an amount of 0.01 to 90%, more preferably 0.1 to 80%, even more preferably 1 to 80%, particularly preferably 5 to 60%, more particularly preferably 5 to 50%, even more particularly preferably 7 to 30%, in terms of % by mass with respect to the silicon oxide in the ultraviolet shielding film. In view of this, though not particularly limited, the ultraviolet absorber a shall preferably be added in an amount of, for example, 0.5 to 25%, more preferably 0.5 to 15%, also in terms of % by mass with respect to the amount of the film-forming solution.
Examiner grants that in Kawai the distribution discussed is the film, not water, but notes that Kawai is able to determine various percentages and distributions.
The water film uniformity index, as claimed, is a result-effective variable. In that, if the index is too low the material would fog up too much and if the index is too high it could interfere with the transparency of the material.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s filing date to include “uniformity index is equal to or greater than 65%,” since determining the optimum index is based on a result effective variable and would require routine skill in the art. Furthermore, it has been held that that determining the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 (II (A) and (B)).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Yasumasa, Margel, and Kawai discloses Claim 2, and Yasumasa further discloses:
… wherein the method is used for determining a uniform water film forming ability of an of an antifogging agent capable of forming a film having a contact angle against water of 100 or less (Yasumasa, FIG. 1, P4, L27-28, “The digital camera 9 is installed substantially at right angles to the 27 test piece 7, and in detail, the angle with respect to the test piece 7 is 80 to 90 degrees”).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Yasumasa, Margel, and Kawai discloses Claim 2, and Yasumasa further discloses:
… a fourth step of applying a fog generating means capable of generating fog (Yasumasa, FIG. 1, P4, L6-7, “the lid of the packaging container or the packaging container is directly 6 exposed as steam to be evaluated to photograph Fogging resistance may be evaluated”) …, to the principal surface of the sample prepared in the first step, and then capturing an image of a predetermined object through the sample to obtain an image for antifogging properties evaluation (Yasumasa, FIG. 1, P4, L6-7, “the lid of the packaging container or the packaging container is directly 6 exposed as steam to be evaluated to photograph Fogging resistance may be evaluated”); and
a fifth step of deriving an antifogging index indicating the antifogging properties of the antifogging agent on the basis of a file capacity at the time of compressing the image for antifogging properties evaluation by a predetermined compression method (Yasumasa, Table 3, p6, L35-44, “For example, when 35 the reference value of the image sharpness is defined as 60%, since the image sharpness of each 36 of the test piece A and the test piece B is equal to or more than 60% of the reference value, it can 37 be judged that the antifogging property is OK level , And the image sharpness of each of the test 38 piece C and the test piece D is lower than 60% of the reference value, it can be determined that 39 the anti-fogging property is NG level. Similarly, when the reference value of the standard 40 deviation is set to 30, since the standard deviation of the test piece A and the standard piece B is 41 30 or more of the reference value, respectively, it can be judged that the anti-fogging property is 42 OK level, Since the standard deviation of C and the test piece D is below the reference value of 43 30, it can be determined that the anti-fogging property is NG level”),
wherein the second step and the third step are carried out when the antifogging index is equal to or higher than a predetermined threshold value (Yasumasa, P5, L25-29, “When judging whether the anti-fog property is good or bad, from the values obtained by 25 applying the standard deviation of the histogram or the image definition method defined in JIS-K 26 7374, that is, the maximum value M and the minimum value m of the luminance, M - m) / (M + 27 m) or the inter-class variance or degree of separation in the threshold value when image data is 28 binarized by discriminant analysis method may be used”).
Margel discloses:
… on the untreated base material (Margel, FIGS. 6A-6C, [0057], “contact angle images of untreated PE film”) …
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Yasumasa, Margel, and Kawai with the untreated base material of Margel. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of untreated base material as disclosed by Margel and how to use them to modify the combination of Yasumasa, Margel, and Kawai. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(B)), specifically the use of an untreated version of as a reference point to compare coated results to.
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Yasumasa, Margel, and Kawai discloses Claim 3, and Yasaumasa further discloses:
… a fourth step of applying a fog generating means capable of generating fog (Yasumasa, FIG. 1, P4, L6-7, “the lid of the packaging container or the packaging container is directly 6 exposed as steam to be evaluated to photograph Fogging resistance may be evaluated”) …, to the principal surface of the sample prepared in the first step, and then capturing an image of a predetermined object through the sample to obtain an image for antifogging properties evaluation (Yasumasa, FIG. 1, P4, L6-7, “the lid of the packaging container or the packaging container is directly 6 exposed as steam to be evaluated to photograph Fogging resistance may be evaluated”); and
a fifth step of deriving an antifogging index indicating the antifogging properties of the antifogging agent on the basis of a file capacity at the time of compressing the image for antifogging properties evaluation by a predetermined compression method (Yasumasa, Table 3, p6, L35-44, “For example, when 35 the reference value of the image sharpness is defined as 60%, since the image sharpness of each 36 of the test piece A and the test piece B is equal to or more than 60% of the reference value, it can 37 be judged that the antifogging property is OK level , And the image sharpness of each of the test 38 piece C and the test piece D is lower than 60% of the reference value, it can be determined that 39 the anti-fogging property is NG level. Similarly, when the reference value of the standard 40 deviation is set to 30, since the standard deviation of the test piece A and the standard piece B is 41 30 or more of the reference value, respectively, it can be judged that the anti-fogging property is 42 OK level, Since the standard deviation of C and the test piece D is below the reference value of 43 30, it can be determined that the anti-fogging property is NG level”),
wherein the second step and the third step are carried out when the antifogging index is equal to or higher than a predetermined threshold value (Yasumasa, P5, L25-29, “When judging whether the anti-fog property is good or bad, from the values obtained by 25 applying the standard deviation of the histogram or the image definition method defined in JIS-K 26 7374, that is, the maximum value M and the minimum value m of the luminance, M - m) / (M + 27 m) or the inter-class variance or degree of separation in the threshold value when image data is 28 binarized by discriminant analysis method may be used”).
Margel discloses:
… on the untreated base material (Margel, [0293], “Excellent anti-fog durable coatings were also obtained were the coating of the PE film with silica, via Si(OEt).sub.4 and with organic derivatized silica, via MPS, was done for 1-2 minutes”) …
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Yasumasa, Margel, and Kawai with the untreated base material of Margel. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of untreated base material as disclosed by Margel and how to use them to modify the combination of Yasumasa, Margel, and Kawai. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(B)), specifically the use of an untreated version of as a reference point to compare coated results to.
Regarding Claim 9, Yasumasa discloses:
A method comprising applying an antifogging agent to headlights, wherein …
… and a water film uniformity index of the antifogging agent obtained by a predetermined method (Yasumasa, P5, L25-29, “When judging whether the anti-fog property is good or bad, from the values obtained by 25 applying the standard deviation of the histogram or the image definition method defined in JIS-K 26 7374, that is, the maximum value M and the minimum value m of the luminance, M - m) / (M + 27 m) or the inter-class variance or degree of separation in the threshold value when image data is 28 binarized by discriminant analysis method may be used”) …, wherein the predetermined method comprises:
a first step of preparing a sample by treating a principal surface of a base material with an antifogging agent (Yasumasa, FIG. 1, P3, L38, test piece 7) by treating a principal surface of a base material with an antifogging agent (Yasumasa, P6, L10, “Specimen C is an antifog agent solution”) …;
a second step of capturing, by a camera device, an image of an object (Yasumasa, FIG. 1, P4, L19, “digital camera 9 is installed as an image capturing device”) having a pattern in which a plurality of regions having predetermined brightness are disposed in a predetermined area (Yasumasa, FIG. 2, P3, L12, “check sheet 2 has a checkerboard pattern”), through the sample having a water film formed on the principal surface treated with the antifogging agent, to obtain an image for evaluation (Yasumasa, FIG. 1, P4, L6-7, “the lid of the packaging container or the packaging container is directly 6 exposed as steam to be evaluated to photograph Fogging resistance may be evaluated”); …
… determining whether the derived water film uniformity index is (Yasumasa, P5, L25-29, “When judging whether the anti-fog property is good or bad, from the values obtained by 25 applying the standard deviation of the histogram or the image definition method defined in JIS-K 26 7374, that is, the maximum value M and the minimum value m of the luminance, M - m) / (M + 27 m) or the inter-class variance or degree of separation in the threshold value when image data is 28 binarized by discriminant analysis method may be used”) …
Yasumasa discloses the above, but does not explicitly disclose:
… the antifogging agent includes silica, …
However, Margel, in a similar field of endeavor (inorganic and inorganic-organic hybrid particles-in situ coated sheets), discloses:
… an antifogging agent including silica (Margel, [0293], “Excellent anti-fog durable coatings were also obtained were the coating of the PE film with silica, via Si(OEt).sub.4 and with organic derivatized silica, via MPS, was done for 1-2 minutes”); …
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yasumasa with the silica of Margel. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of silica and its anti-fogging characteristics as disclosed by Margel and how to use them to modify Yasumasa. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(B)), specifically the use of silica and its known anti-fogging characteristics.
The combination of Yasumasa and Margel discloses the above, but does not explicitly disclose:
… a third step of obtaining a frequency distribution of areas having predetermined brightness obtained from the image for evaluation, and then deriving a water film uniformity index indicating uniformity of the water film, which is represented by the proportion (%) of the number of particles (frequency) included in the predetermined area range in the frequency distribution; and …
However, Kawai, in a similar field of endeavor (LIGHT-RESISTANT, HEAT-RESISTANT AND DURABLE ULTRAVIOLET ABSORBER), disloses:
… a third step of obtaining a frequency distribution of areas having predetermined brightness obtained from the image for evaluation, and then deriving a water film uniformity index indicating uniformity of the water film, which is represented by the proportion (%) of the number of particles (frequency) included in the predetermined area range in the frequency distribution (Kawai, [0256], “the “average particle size” means a particle size that corresponds to a cumulative frequency of 50% in the distribution of equivalent spherical diameters based on the particle volumes,” and “An average value A of the top 10% of the respective maximum lengths of the fine particles present in a cross-section of the film observed with a SEM or a TEM is not below the value of the “average particle size” defined as above,” and “Introduction of the absorber in form of a solute is a method that can be readily be implemented and also is desired for achieving more uniform distribution of the ultraviolet absorber a in the ultraviolet shielding film”), …
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Yasumasa and Margel with the distribution and distribution detection of Kawai. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of distribution and distribution detection as disclosed by Kawai and how to use them to modify the combination of Yasumasa and Margel. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a use of known technique to improve similar methods in the same way; (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(B)), specifically the use of means to distribute, monitor, and detect particle distributions.
The combination of Yasumasa, Margel, and Kawai discloses the above, but does not explicitly disclose:
… uniformity index is equal to or greater than 65% ...
However, Yasumasa on P2, L19-20, discloses:
A checkered pattern composed of two colors of different luminance is photographed 19 through a steamy packaging container or a sheet of a lid of a packaging container and if the 20 shape of the histogram of the obtained image is bimodal, anti- It is judged that it is high, and if 2] the shape of the histogram is unimodal, it is judged that anti-fogging property is low.
Additionally, on P5, L31-34:
… if the standard deviation of the test piece 7 is equal to or larger than the 31 predetermined value, it is judged that the anti-fog ging property of the test piece 7 is good, and if 32 the standard deviation is less than the predetermined value, the anti-fogging property of the test 33 piece 7 is good It can be determined that there is nothing.
Margel, in [0136], discloses:
… the average or the median size of at least e.g., 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%, 60%, 70%, 80%, 90%, or 95% of the particles, ranges from: …
Additionally, in [0138]-[0139]:
By “uniform” or “homogenous” it is meant to refer to size distribution that varies within a range of less than e.g., ±60%, ±50%, ±40%, ±30%, ±20%, or ±10%, including any value therebetween. In some embodiments, plurality of the particles is characterized by an average hydrodynamic diameter of less than 30 nm with a size distribution of that varies within a range of less than e.g., 60%, 50%, 40%, 30%, 20%, or 10%, including any value therebetween.
Examiner notes that particle size is inherently tied into distribution and determination of uniformity, as Margel and other references discuss.
Kawai, in [0257], discloses:
It is preferred that the ultraviolet absorber a be contained in an amount of 0.01 to 90%, more preferably 0.1 to 80%, even more preferably 1 to 80%, particularly preferably 5 to 60%, more particularly preferably 5 to 50%, even more particularly preferably 7 to 30%, in terms of % by mass with respect to the silicon oxide in the ultraviolet shielding film. In view of this, though not particularly limited, the ultraviolet absorber a shall preferably be added in an amount of, for example, 0.5 to 25%, more preferably 0.5 to 15%, also in terms of % by mass with respect to the amount of the film-forming solution.
Examiner grants that in Kawai the distribution discussed is the film, not water, but notes that Kawai is able to determine various percentages and distributions.
The water film uniformity index, as claimed, is a result-effective variable. In that, if the index is too low the material would fog up too much and if the index is too high it could interfere with the transparency of the material.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s filing date to include “uniformity index is equal to or greater than 65%,” since determining the optimum index is based on a result effective variable and would require routine skill in the art. Furthermore, it has been held that that determining the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 (II (A) and (B)).
Conclusion
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 Examiner should be directed to CHAD ANDREW REVERMAN whose telephone number is (571) 270-0079. Examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5 EST (8-4 CST).
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 Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, Examiner’s Supervisor, Uzma Alam can be reached on (571) 272-3995. 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.
/CHAD ANDREW REVERMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/UZMA ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877