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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/24/26 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 18-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 10/24/25.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-8, 10-12, 14-17, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuura (US 2021/0348024) in view of Jing (US 2004/0241395).
Claims 1-2, 4, 7:
Matsuura teaches a method for forming a water/oil repellency surface layer (i.e., easy-to-clean coating) on a glass substrate such as a touch panel [0288]. The surface layer is formed by wet coating methods such as ink jet [0297]. The composition that forms the surface layer is the combination of compounds 1, 2, and 3 [0261]. Commercial products for the compound 1 and 2 include OPTOOL UD509 [0226] and for the compound 3 include Fomblin M03 [0270]. These are the same commercial products used in the present invention, see Spec. [00199] and [00133]. Specifically, OPTOOL UD509 is a silane functionalized PFPE which comprises the polymer dispersed in a HFE 7200 (hydrofluoroether) solvent and Fomblin M03 is a non-functionalized PFPE having a MW of 3900 (relevant to claim 10). After the coating is applied to the substrate, the coating is dried/cured to form the surface layer [0479]. The thickness is 1-100 nm [0286]. The resulting properties of average static water contact angle and tolerance after abrasion are deemed inherent to the coating composition and the inkjet deposition method.
Matsuura does not specifically state the viscosity of the coating composition.
However, Jing teaches a method for depositing a fluoropolymer on a substrate by inkjet printing (abstract). Jing explicitly states that techniques and formulation guidelines for inkjet printing are well known and are within the capability of one of ordinary skill in the art [0041]. For example, inkjet printable compositions are commonly formulated to have a viscosity of less than or equal to 35 millipascal-second (equivalent to cP) at the jetting temperature (Id.). Further, it is by the addition of solvent that the viscosity is adjusted to less than or equal to 30 cP [0031] with a specific example having a viscosity of 4.1 cP [0050].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to practice the method of Matsuura and set the viscosity of less than 35 cP because Jing states this is the common viscosity for inkjet formulations. There is no technical barrier to achieving this because Jing states simple addition of solvent results in the desired viscosity.
Claim 3:
The solvent is 70-99.99 mass % [Matsuura 0281]. Therefore, the polymer is 0.01-30 mass%. Although this is not measured in vol%, it is clear that the amount of polymer is adjusted to achieve the desired properties.
Claims 5-6:
A variety of solvents are listed that may be used in combination [Matsuura 0242]. One example includes Novec-7300 [Matsuura 0246] which is stated as having a viscosity of 1.2 cP in Table 1. Jing also teaches the NOVEC and FLUORINERT series of solvents [0031].
Claim 8:
The surface layer may be applied over other optical layers [Matsuura 0291].
Claims 10-11:
The viscosity modifier Fomblin M03 is discussed above and is non-volatile. The molecular weight is adjustable by adjusting the composition [0267-0269]. The amount varies [0279, 0281], but would have been obvious to achieve the desired properties.
Claim 12:
The contact angle is an inherent property of the resulting layer. It is noted that OPTOOL UD509 produces a contact angle of 116° (see TDS).
Claims 14-17, 21:
Jing teaches an inkjet printer having a nominal drop volume of 70 pL [0048]. The desire for high resolution [0040] is taken to include a narrow variance in droplet size. The resolution can be changed [0044], which would necessarily result in a change in thickness. It is the position of the examiner that Matsuura teaches deposition by inkjet method. Therefore, the resulting tolerance in inherent. Additionally, it would have been obvious to maintain the actual thickness to be the desired thickness with the smallest variance possible.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuura (US 2021/0348024) in view of Jing (US 2004/0241395) in view of Takeda (US 2020/0055771).
Previously cited prior are does not teach applying the coating to a glass ribbon and cutting the ribbon into individual articles. However, Takeda does teach applying a coating onto a glass ribbon in-line and then cutting the glass into desired dimensions [0154]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the glass coating technique to apply the coating on a glass ribbon during the float process or down draw process and then cut the ribbon into individual articles of the desired size. Takeda establishes it is suitable to do this.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/24/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the amendment to claim 1, it is admitted in the specification and the response that the claimed properties are the result of depositing this particular composition by inkjet. It is the position of the examiner that Matsuura teaches the same composition deposited by inkjet method. Therefore, the resulting properties, such as average static water contact angle and its tolerance after abrasion, are inherent.
Regarding claim 3, the rejection is maintained. In addition, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. [W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.05
Regarding claim 16, the rejection is maintained. It would have been obvious to maintain the actual droplet size to be the nominal droplet size with the smallest variance possible, to maintain uniformity of printing.
Regarding claim 9, the rejection is maintained. The difference between coating then cutting vs. cutting then coating is an obvious change in sequence resulting in the same product. MPEP 2144.04 IV C.
Regarding claim 21, it is admitted in the specification and response that the claimed tolerance is a consequence of the inkjet method. It is the position of the examiner that Matsuura teaches deposition by inkjet method. Therefore, the resulting tolerance in inherent. Additionally, it would have been obvious to maintain the actual thickness to be the desired thickness with the smallest variance possible.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX A ROLLAND whose telephone number is (571)270-5355. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6:30.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 5712721234. 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.
/ALEX A ROLLAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights