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 .
Withdrawn Rejections
Any rejections made in the previous Office Action mailed 5/1/2025 and not repeated below are hereby withdrawn due to Applicant's amendments and arguments filed in the response dated 7/23/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5, 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Omori et al. (JP 2019-116048) [hereinafter Omori].
Regarding claim 1, Omori discloses a functional film (hard coat layer 3) provided on a base material (base 2) and having a fine uneven structure (particles) on a surface of the functional film, comprising a coating that is a coating film or a coating layer of the fine uneven structure (layer 3/3b), the coating (layer 3/3b) being on a surface of the base material (base 2) or a constituent layer (layer 3/3b) and covering at least a bumpy portion or an entire surface of the base material (Figs. 1-2), wherein the fine uneven structure includes bumps and dents whose mutual positional relationship and shape have randomness with no regularity in terms of identity and periodicity (Figs. 1-2; irregularities formed by particles 4) and does not generate diffracted light, the fine uneven structure has an arithmetic average roughness Ra in a range of 2 to 50 nm (abstract), and the bumps have an average diameter in range of 10 to 1000 nm (average particle diameter; claim 3; Examples 2-7).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, the limitation “dry-processed layer” is deemed a process limitation. Claims 5 and 6 define the product by how the product was made. Thus, claims 5 and 6 are product-by-process claims. For purposes of examination, product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. See MPEP 2113. In the present case, the recited step implies forming a coating layer. As shown above, Omori suggests such a product. The method of forming the product is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself. MPEP 2113.
Regarding claim 13, a reflectance adjustment layer (3a or 3b) between the base material (2) and the bumpy portion (4), and a photocatalytic layer (3c), since includes TiO2, between the base material (2) and the bumpy portion (4), wherein the coating is hydrophilic since it includes an agent including a hydrophilic group.
Claims 1, 5-10, 14, 15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kondo et al. (US 2018/0050956) [hereinafter Kondo].
Regarding claim 1, Kondo discloses a functional film (coating film) provided on a base material (glass sheet) and having a fine uneven structure on a surface of the functional film (Figs. 1-5), comprising at least coating that is a coating film or a coating layer of the fine uneven structure (Figs. 1-5), the coating being on a surface of the base material (glass sheet) or a constituent layer and covering at least a bumpy portion or an entire surface of the base material (Figs. 1-5), wherein the fine uneven structure includes bumps and dents whose mutual positional relationship and shape have randomness with no regularity in terms of identity and periodicity (Figs. 1-5) and does not generate diffracted light, the fine uneven structure has an arithmetic average roughness Ra in a range of 2 to 50 nm (2-5nm; paragraph [0035]), and the bumps (granules) have an average diameter in a range of 10 to 1000 nm (20-100nm; paragraph [0044]).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, the limitation “dry-processed layer” is deemed a process limitation. Claims 5 and 6 define the product by how the product was made. Thus, claims 5 and 6 are product-by-process claims. For purposes of examination, product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. See MPEP 2113. In the present case, the recited step implies forming a coating layer. As shown above, Kondo suggests such a product. The method of forming the product is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself. MPEP 2113.
Regarding claim 7, Kondo discloses at least one compound that has a solubility in water at 20oC of 0.5g/100mL or more (aluminum chloride; paragraph [0130]).
Regarding claim 8, Kondo discloses an inorganic salt in a part of the functional film (aluminum chloride; paragraph [0130]).
Regarding claim 9, Kondo discloses an alkali metal salt in a part of the functional film (NaCl; paragraph [0089]).
Regarding claim 10, Kondo teaches the fine uneven structure having a gap (pore) between the bumps and dents adjacent to each other (Fig. 1), the gap inherently having a size that allows active chemical species generated by a photocatalyst reaction to pass through the gap, since the diameter of the gap (pore) can be between 5-10 nm (paragraph [0038]) which falls within the claimed range of 0.1 to 10 nm for the gap (see Applicant’s Specification, paragraph [0132]).
Regarding claim 14, Kondo discloses the coating including SiO2 as a main component (paragraph [0052]).
Regarding claim 15, the limitation “formed by etching” is deemed a process limitation. Claim 15 defines the product by how the product was made. Thus, claim 15 is a product-by-process claims. For purposes of examination, product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. See MPEP 2113. In the present case, the recited step implies forming a bumpy portion. As shown above, Kondo suggests such a product. The method of forming the product is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself. MPEP 2113.
Regarding claim 18, Kondo discloses wherein total transmittance of the functional film is 70% or more (paragraph [0097]; claim 1).
Claims 1-12, 14-18, 24-32 and 34-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yabuta et al. (US 2018/0292577) [hereinafter Yabuta].
Regarding claim 1, Yabuta discloses a functional film (coating film) provided on a base material (glass sheet) and having a fine uneven structure on a surface of the functional film (Fig. 1), comprising a coating that is a coating film or a coating layer of the fine uneven structure (Fig. 1), the coating being on a surface of the base material (glass sheet) or a constituent layer and covering at least a bumpy portion or an entire surface of the base material (Fig. 1), wherein the fine uneven structure includes bumps and dents whose mutual positional relationship and shape have randomness with no regularity in terms of identity and periodicity (Fig. 1) and does not generate diffracted light, the fine uneven structure has an arithmetic average roughness Ra in a range of 2 to 50 nm (2-3 nm; paragraph [0039]), and the bumps (granules) have an average diameter in a range of 10 to 1000 nm (20-100nm; paragraph [0038]).
Regarding claim 2, Yabuta discloses a functional film (coating film) provided on a base material (glass sheet) and having a fine uneven structure on a surface of the functional film (Fig. 1), comprising at least one uneven layer (dense layer having 2-5nm arithmetic average roughness; paragraph [0023]), and a coating (porous layer) that is a coating layer on the uneven layer, wherein the fine uneven structure has an arithmetic average roughness Ra in a range of 2 to 50 nm (2-3 nm; paragraph [0039]), and the bumps (granules) have an average diameter in a range of 10 to 1000 nm (20-100nm; paragraph [0038]).
Regarding claim 3, Yabuta discloses the fine uneven structure further including dents (Fig. 1), wherein mutual positional relationship and shape of the bumps and the dents have randomness with no regularity in terms of identity or periodicity and does not generate diffracted light (Fig. 1).
Regarding claims 4 and 24, Yabuta discloses the bumps having a maximum height in a range of 10 to 500 nm (claims 22 and 25).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, the limitation “dry-processed layer” is deemed a process limitation. Claims 5 and 6 define the product by how the product was made. Thus, claims 5 and 6 are product-by-process claims. For purposes of examination, product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. See MPEP 2113. In the present case, the recited step implies forming a coating layer. As shown above, Yabuta suggests such a product. The method of forming the product is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself. MPEP 2113.
Regarding claims 7 and 27, Yabuta discloses at least one compound that has a solubility in water at 20oC of 0.5g/100mL or more (aluminum chloride; paragraphs [0056] and [0179]).
Regarding claims 8 and 28, Yabuta discloses an inorganic salt in a part of the functional film (aluminum chloride; paragraphs [0056] and [0179]).
Regarding claims 9 and 29, Yabuta discloses an alkali metal salt in a part of the functional film (paragraph [0179]).
Regarding claims 10 and 30, Yabuta teaches the fine uneven structure having a gap (pore) between the bumps and dents adjacent to each other (Fig. 1), the gap inherently having a size that allows active chemical species generated by a photocatalyst reaction to pass through the gap, since the diameter of the gap (pore) can be between 5-10 nm (paragraph [0032]) which falls within the claimed range of 0.1 to 10 nm for the gap (see Applicant’s Specification, paragraph [0132]).
Regarding claims 11-12 and 31-32, Yabuta discloses a photocatalytic layer that includes TiO2 as a main component and that is between the base material and the bumpy portion (dense layer; paragraph [0027]).
Regarding claims 14 and 34, Yabuta discloses the coating including SiO2 as a main component (paragraphs [0040-0041]).
Regarding claims 15 and 35, the limitation “formed by etching” is deemed a process limitation. Claims 15 and 35 define the product by how the product was made. Thus, claims 15 and 35 are product-by-process claims. For purposes of examination, product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. See MPEP 2113. In the present case, the recited step implies forming a bumpy or uneven portion. As shown above, Yabuta suggests such a product. The method of forming the product is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself. MPEP 2113.
Regarding claims 16 and 36, Yabuta discloses the bumpy portion including a particle containing layer (porous layer including granules) and an intermediate layer (dense layer), the particle containing layer having an uneven structure (Fig. 1), and the intermediate layer adjusting shapes of particles of the particle containing layer (Fig. 1), and the base material, the intermediate layer, and the particle containing layer are arranged in this order (claim 1).
Regarding claims 25 and 26, the limitation “dry-processed layer” is deemed a process limitation. Claims 25 and 26 define the product by how the product was made. Thus, claims 25 and 26 are product-by-process claims. For purposes of examination, product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. See MPEP 2113. In the present case, the recited step implies forming a coating layer. As shown above, Yabuta suggests such a product. The method of forming the product is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself. MPEP 2113.
Regarding claims 17 and 37, the limitation “formed by etching” is deemed a process limitation. Claims 17 and 37 define the product by how the product was made. Thus, claims 17 and 37 are product-by-process claims. For purposes of examination, product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. See MPEP 2113. In the present case, the recited step implies forming dents in the intermediate layer. As shown above, Yabuta suggests such a product. The method of forming the product is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself. MPEP 2113.
Regarding claims 18 and 38, Yabuta discloses wherein total transmittance of the functional film is 70% or more (paragraph [0134]; claim 7).
Regarding claims 31-32, Yabuta discloses a photocatalytic layer that includes TiO2 as a main component and that is between the base material and the uneven layer (dense layer; paragraph [0027]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 33 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 7/23/2025, with respect to claims 1-18 and 24-38 have been considered, but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection and because the new grounds of rejection do not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CATHERINE A SIMONE whose telephone number is (571)272-1501. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at 571-270-1547. 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.
CATHERINE A. SIMONE
Examiner
Art Unit 1781
/Catherine A. Simone/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781