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 .
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Claims 18-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 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].
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:
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.
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 ducting 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 2/26/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The examiner disagrees with Applicant’s analysis of Matsuura and Jing with respect to the coated layer thickness. Matsuura fairly teaches the range of 1-100 nm for the coated layer thickness, in a context where the coating method includes the inkjet method. Matsuura does not state, for example, that inkjet in unable to achieve such thicknesses. Jing’s disclosure of a different thickness range demonstrates that the inkjet method can be used to deposit material in a range of thicknesses, but this does not detract from that range including the claimed 2-10 nm.
Regarding the non-volatile viscosity modifier, Matsuura does teach the inclusion of a non-volatile viscosity modifier in Fomblin M03. Jing merely states possible difficulties associated with fluorinated solvents and the possible inclusion of vaporizable solvent, neither of which rise to the level of teaching away or are excluded by the claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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