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 .
Introduction
Any rejections and/or objections, made in the previous Office Action, and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn. The amendment to claim 1 is sufficient to overcome the prior art rejections based upon Mogi et al. (WO 2012/176665 A1) made in the previous action. A new ground of rejection over Mogi et al. and Ono et al. is made below.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mogi et al. (WO 2012/176665 A1) in view of Ono et al. (JPH11347418 A).
The citations to Mogi et al. are to the translation which accompanies the previous action.
The citations to Ono et al. are to the translation which accompanies this Office action.
As to claims 1 and 13, Mogi et al. discloses a light diffusion multilayer film for use with LEDs or displays. See the abstract. The multilayer film includes a diffusion layer (1)(corresponding to the claimed base layer), a hard coat layer (4) and a photocatalytic film (2). See the abstract, and Figure 2.
PNG
media_image1.png
382
966
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The hard coat layer is a layer curable by radiation of a wavelength of 200 to 450 nm (i.e., ultra violet radiation. See paragraph [0059].
The photocatalytic layer includes a binder and photocatalyst particles. See paragraph [0033]. The binder is formed from Si(OR)X(OH)4-X and is hydrolyzed to form a condensate. See paragraph [0037] and [0046].
The photocatalyst particles may be tungsten oxide. See paragraph [0034].
Mogi et al. teaches a binder that is a tetraalkoxysilane hydrolyzed condensate but fails to disclose the condensate is a siloxane compound having a linear portion.
The term “siloxane” means containing a molecular portion containing a O-Si-O structure. Paragraphs [0032]-[0036] of the specification (as originally filed) teach linear portions of the condensate molecular structure are formed when the siloxanes form a two dimensional structure (i.e., O-Si-O-Si- chains in which the remained two bonds in each silicon atom are taken up by hydroxyl groups rather than forming additional Si-O chains, paragraph [0033]) rather than a three dimensional molecular structure.
Ono et al. teaches a binder for photocatalytic particles. See the abstract. The binder is formed from a tetraalkoxysilane solution that polymerizes to form more “chain” molecules (as compared to a greater amount of crosslinking and three-dimensional network molecules). See paragraph [0024]. The teaching of a “chain” molecule indicates the binder has a “linear portion” as recited in claim 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have substituted the siloxane binder of Ono et al. for the binder of Mogo et al. The Ono et al. binder “cures sufficiently at a temperature below the softening point of the base resin film, has good adhesion to the base film and bending followability, is not acidic, and does not corrode the coating equipment….” See paragraph [0005] of Ono et al.
As to claim 8, Mogi et al. teaches the thickness of the hard coat layer is 0.5 to 30 µm (paragraph [0059]), which is sufficiently specific to anticipate the range recited in claim 8. See MPEP 2131.03.
Claims 2-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mogi et al. (WO 2012/176665 A1) in view of Ono et al. (JPH11347418 A) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Tian et al. (US 2021/0371615 A1).
Mogi et al. and Ono et al. render obvious claim 1 for the reasons recited above.
As to claim 2-5, Mogi et al. fails to disclose the presence of particles in the hard coat layer.
Tian et al. teaches a hard coat layer for use in a film construction. See paragraph [0032]. The hard coat layer contains nanoparticles such as silver or silica (among others) in an amount of 10 to 70 wt%. See paragraphs [0065] and [0074]. The amount of nanoparticles overlaps the range recited in claim 2.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have substituted the hard coat layer of Mogi et al. with the hard coat layer of Tian et al. containing 10 to 70 wt% nanoparticles. The rationale for doing so is that it would have been obvious to have employed a known product (such as a hard coat film) based upon its suitability for its intended purpose (i.e., in a multilayer film having a hard coat layer). See MPEP 2144.07.
As to claims 3 and 5, Tian et al. teaches the hard coat may include silica or silver particles in paragraph [0065].
As to claim 4, Tian et al. teaches the inorganic particles have an average particle size (i.e., D50) of 10 to 100 nm. See paragraph [0064]. This range overlaps the claimed range.
As to claim 6, Tian et al. teaches the hard coat layer may be various compounds including hydroxyl containing polymers (e.g., neopentylglycol hydroxypivalate diacrylate modified caprolactone, hydroxypivalaldehyde modified trimethylolpropane diacrylate, tris(2-hydroxyethyl)isocyanurate triacrylate). See paragraphs [0037]-[0042].
As to claim 7, Tian et al. teaches the hard coat layer includes a polymerization initiator such as acylphosphine oxides. See paragraph [0063].
Claims 9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mogi et al. (WO 2012/176665 A1) in view of Ono et al. (JPH11347418 A) as applied to claim 1 above.
As to claim 9, Mogi et al. teaches the photocatalytic particles have a size of 1 to 50 nm. See paragraph [0034]. If the particle size is 1 to 50 nm, the D50 must inherently be somewhere between 1 and 50 nm. This range overlaps the claimed range and overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by the reference, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
As to claim 12, Mogi et al. teaches the photocatalytic layer has a thickness of 1 to 500 nm (i.e., 0.001 to 0.500 µm). This range overlaps the claimed range and overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by the reference, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mogi et al. (WO 2012/176665 A1) in view of Ono et al. (JPH11347418 A) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Watanabe et al. (US 6,337,129 B1).
Mogi et al. anticipates claim 1 for the reasons recited above. Mogi et al. fails to disclose the presence of fluororesin in the photocatalytic layer.
Watanabe et al. discloses a photocatalytic layer containing a mixture of a silicone binder, fluororesin and photocatalytic particles. See Figure 1, and col. 3, lines 1-5. The fluororesin provides the coating with hydrophobicity and the combination of the silicone and fluororesin results in a coating in which “both hydrophilic deposits and hydrophobic deposits cannot be deposited on the surface of the member.” See col. 4, lines 26-34.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have provided the photocatalytic layer of Mogi et al. and Ono et al. with a fluororesin as suggested by Watanabe et al. because the fluororesin would prevent hydrophobic deposits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 26 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue Mogi et al. does not teach a tetraalkoxysilane because Mogi et al. teaches the formula Si(OR)x(OH)4-x which is different than Si(OR)4. The examiner notes the inadvertent typographical error in the action. However, it is clear from the teachings of Mogi et al. that x may equal 4 because the preferred compounds are tetramethoxysilane and tetraethoxysilane both of which have a formula of Si(OR)4 where R is a methyl group or ethyl group, respectively. See paragraph [0039].
Applicants further argue that Mogi et al. fails to disclose a siloxane having a linear portion. The argument is deemed persuasive and a new ground of rejection has been made above to address the limitation.
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 David Sample whose telephone number is (571)272-1376. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 7AM to 3:30 PM.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at (571)272-0604. 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.
/David Sample/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784