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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/03/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 08/12/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed 08/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues Sugiyama fails to teach wherein a resin material constituting the resin reflective film is a fluorine-containing resin because Sugiyama provides no working example of a fluorine-containing resin. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding applicant’s argument that Sugiyama fails to teach wherein a resin material constituting the resin reflective film is a fluorine-containing resin because Sugiyama provides no working example of a fluorine-containing resin, Examiner notes that although the working examples include a polypropylene resin and nylon 6 resin, [0022] clearly outlines the use of fluorine-based resin as a substitute to or in combination with a thermoplastic resin or polyolefin resin. The argument that there are no working examples of a fluorine-containing resin is not viewed to be persuasive because [0022-0023] provide preferred fluorine-based resins that explicitly can be used alone or as a mixture.
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.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugiyama et al. (Examiner provided machine translation of JP 2019176987 A, of record) in view of Han et al. (2014/0316022).
Regarding claim 1, Sugiyama discloses a resin reflective film (Figure 1, at least 5, covering portion; at least [0014] teaches 5, covering portion, is formed of a sheet-like member made of thermoplastic resin fibers and has improved reflectivity), which comprises two or more kinds of regions having different refractive indexes from each other ([0016] teaches the sheet-like member includes pores; thus Examiner interprets two regions having different refractive indexes, i.e. refractive index of the fiber and the refractive index of the pores), wherein a thickness of the resin reflective film is 20 to 5,000 micrometers (at least [0016] teaches the sheet-like member has a thickness of 50-150 micrometers), and wherein a total reflectance is 60% or more (at least [0024] teaches a reflectance of more than 90%), wherein a resin material constituting the resin reflective film is a fluorine-containing resin (at least [0022]).
Sugiyama fails to teach a diffuse reflectance is 60% or more for deep ultraviolet rays having a wavelength of 220 to 300 nm, and wherein the resin reflective film contains fine particles or contains fine columnar structures inside a bubble and/or pore.
However, Examiner notes that Sugiyama discloses in [0024] high deep-ultraviolet reflectivity due to Mie scattering. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to adjust the diffuse reflectance for deep ultraviolet rays to be 60% or more, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233). Doing so would allow for improved reflectivity thereby preventing ultraviolet light form leaking through the covering portion.
The modified Sugiyama fails to teach wherein the resin reflective film contains fine particles or contains fine columnar structures inside a bubble and/or pore. The modified Sugiyama and Han are related because both teach a resin reflective film.
Han teaches a resin reflective film (Figure 1; [0020]), wherein the resin reflective film contains fine particles or contains fine columnar structures (11, polymer particles) inside a bubble and/or pore (12, first voids).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have further modified Sugiyama to incorporate the teachings of Han and provide wherein the resin reflective film contains fine particles or contains fine columnar structures inside a bubble and/or pore. Doing so would allow for improved reflectance and control of the color tone of the resin reflective film.
Regarding claim 2, the modified Sugiyama discloses the resin reflective film according to claim 1, wherein the thickness of the resin reflective film is 50 to 1,000 micrometers (at least [0016] teaches the sheet-like member has a thickness of 50-150 micrometers).
Regarding claim 3, the modified Sugiyama discloses the resin reflective film according to claim 1, wherein the two or more kinds of regions constituting the resin reflective film each have a light transmittance of 30 to 100% for deep ultraviolet rays having a wavelength of 220 to 300 nm ([0023] teaches using for example polytetrafluoroethylene, which Examiner notes that by material property, has a light transmittance of greater than 30% for deep ultraviolet light).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Sugiyama discloses the resin reflective film according to claim 1, wherein at least one kind of the two or more kinds of regions constituting the resin reflective film comprises a bubble ([0016] teaches the sheet-like member includes pores).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Sugiyama discloses the resin reflective film according to claim 1, comprising a repeating structure portion in which a resin portion (resin region) and a void portion (gas region) repeat ([0016] teaches the sheet-like member is made of thermoplastic resin fibers and includes pores).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Sugiyama discloses the resin reflective film according to claim 5, wherein a width of at least one resin portion and/or a width of at least one void portion that constitute the repeating structure portion are 0.1 λ to 20 λ with respect to a wavelength λ of incident ultraviolet rays (at least [0014] teaches the thermoplastic resin fibers have an optical characteristic length of 10 to 1000 nm, thus interpreted to include values within 0.1 to 20 λ, where λ is in the ultraviolet region).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Sugiyama discloses the resin reflective film according to claim 1, wherein a resin material constituting the resin reflective film is a fluorine-containing resin (at least [0022]); and wherein the resin reflective film is obtained by allowing an inert gas impregnated into a film of the fluorine-containing resin to effervesce (at least [0025]; furthermore, the claim limitation is directed towards a process to obtain the product in the apparatus claim, and thus may not be given patentable weight).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Sugiyama discloses the resin reflective film according to claim 1, wherein a resin material constituting the resin reflective film is a fluorine-containing resin (at least [0022]); and wherein the resin reflective film is obtained by stretching a film of the fluorine-containing resin to generate a bubble and/or pore inside (the claim limitation is directed towards a process to obtain the product in the apparatus claim, and thus is not given patentable weight).
Regarding claim 9, the modified Sugiyama discloses the resin reflective film according to claim 7, wherein a density (Q) of the resin reflective film to a density (P) of the resin material constituting the resin reflective film satisfies Q/P = 0.2 to 0.99 ([0014] teaches between 20%-90% porosity of the sheet-like member, thus the Q/P ratio is interpreted to be from 0.1 to 0.8, which includes values in the claimed range).
Regarding claim 10, the modified Sugiyama discloses the resin reflective film according to claim 8, wherein a density (Q) of the resin reflective film to a density (P) of the resin material constituting the resin reflective film satisfies Q/P = 0.2 to 0.99 ([0014] teaches between 20%-90% porosity of the sheet-like member, thus the Q/P ratio is interpreted to be from 0.1 to 0.8, which includes values in the claimed range).
Regarding claim 11, the modified Sugiyama discloses a sterilization device (Figure 1, 1, fluid sterilization module), comprising: an ultraviolet light source (6, light source; [0009]); and the resin reflective film according to claim 1 (5, covering portion).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugiyama et al. (Examiner provided machine translation of JP 2019176987 A, of record) in view of Han et al. (2014/0316022), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hoang et al. (11,723,998).
Regarding claim 12, the modified Sugiyama discloses the resin reflective film according to claim 1, but fails to teach wherein both a deep ultraviolet total reflectance and a deep ultraviolet diffuse reflectance are 80% or more. The modified Sugiyama and Hoang are related because both teach a resin reflective film.
Hoang teaches a resin reflective film wherein both a deep ultraviolet total reflectance and a deep ultraviolet diffuse reflectance are 80% or more (at least col 6 lines 33-36).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have further modified Sugiyama to incorporate the teachings of Hoang and provide wherein both a deep ultraviolet total reflectance and a deep ultraviolet diffuse reflectance are 80% or more. Doing so would allow for improved light spreading in a uniform manner, thereby improving the efficiency with higher reflectance.
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 the examiner should be directed to BALRAM T PARBADIA whose telephone number is (571)270-0602. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm, Monday - Friday.
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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at (571) 272-2713. 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.
/BALRAM T PARBADIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872