DETAILED ACTION
This is an Office action based on application number 18/259,508, filed 7 September 2023, which is a national stage entry of PCT/KR2021/019999 filed 28 December 2021, which claims priority to KR10-2020-0184218 filed 28 December 2020. Claims 11-21 are pending. Claims 1-10 are canceled.
Amendments to the claims, filed 21 November 2025, have been entered into the above-identified application.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 21 November 2025 has been entered.
Withdrawn Rejections
The prior art rejections, made of record in the previous Office action, are withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendments.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claims 11-13, 15, and 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heo et al. (Surfactant-free preparation of poly(vinylidene fluoride) nanoparticle dispersions and their use as surface coating agents) (Heo) in view of Villeneuve et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0155225 A1) (Villeneuve).
Claim Interpretation – Applicant has amended the claims from an optical substrate to an optical device comprising an optical substrate. The claimed “optical device” is broad in scope, and any combination of the optical substrate and fluorine-based polymer coating is construed to meet the limitations of the claimed device.
Regarding instant claims 11, 13, 15, 17-19, and 21 :
Heo discloses poly(vinylidene fluoride) (PVDF) nanoparticle-coated glass surfaces (page 504, column 2, second paragraph).
FIG. 3 (reproduced below) illustrates that the PVDF nanoparticles are in contact and bound to each other. Further, Heo discloses that the PVDF particles are firmly attached to a substrate by annealing (page 504, column 2, second paragraph); therefore, the particles are also bound to each other via the substrate.
Heo further discloses exemplary PVDF nanoparticles having average particle sizes of 204.2 nm, 226.4 nm, 216.6 nm, 199.7 nm, 237.8 nm, and 235.8 nm (page 504, TABLE 2). Therefore, the nanoparticles of Heo fall within the claimed range.
Heo teaches that PVDF is used in optical industries due to its enhanced thermal stability, good chemical resistance, and outstanding mechanical/electrical characteristics (page 502, column 1, first paragraph).
Heo does not disclose any other components present in the PVDF-coating necessary for the structure to perform its intended use; therefore, Heo is construed to meet the limitations of claim 13 requiring a coating film consisting of the fluorine-based polymer nanoparticles.
Heo does not teach that the use of the optical substrate and its properties.
However, Villeneuve discloses a pulsed laser for a LIDAR system (Title), wherein said laser system comprises an optical filter (paragraph [0006]).
Villeneuve teaches that LIDAR is a technology that can be used to measure distances to remote targes (paragraph [0005]).
Villeneuve further discloses that the optical filter comprises a transparent optical substrate (e.g., glass) with a series of thin-film optical coatings (paragraph [0120]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of the prior art before him or her, to use the coated glass substrate of Heo as the optical substrate in Villeneuve. The motivation for doing so would have been that the PVDF-coated glass substrates of Heo are usable in optical applications and present its enhanced thermal stability, good chemical resistance, and outstanding mechanical/electrical characteristics.
As to the detection properties, transmittance improvement properties, and transmittance reduction properties recited by claims 11, 15, 18-19, and 21,
Applicant’s invention is exemplified as a PVDF nanoparticle coating film on a glass substrate (see Specification at page 12, line 12 to page 13, line 10), of which the structure of Heo is construed as substantially identical. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the structure of Heo and Applicant’s invention to have the same properties (i.e., the detection properties, transmittance improvement properties, and transmittance reduction properties).
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP §2112.01(I).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Villeneuve with Heo to obtain the invention as specified by the instant claims.
Regarding instant claim 12:
Heo further discloses that the PVDF-nanoparticle-coated glass substrates are prepared by depositing a PVDF dispersion on a glass substrate using a spray gun, and the PVDF particles are firmly attached to the substrate by annealing at 100°C (page 504, col. 2, second paragraph). Said annealing is construed to meet the claimed heat-treating of the applied dispersion.
Regarding instant claim 20:
The prior art combination discloses the optical substrate comprising the coating of nanoparticles having the particle size cited above.
One of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize that any coatings formed of the disclosed nanoparticles would have a thickness of at least one nanoparticle thick; therefore, Heo necessarily encompasses those coatings having the thickness recited by the instant claim; however, “in the case where claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” See MPEP § 2144.05.
Claims 14 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heo in view of Villeneuve as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Zheng et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. US 2013/912209 A1) (Zheng).
Regarding instant claims 14 and 16:
Heo in view of Villeneuve discloses the optical device comprising the optical substrate of claim 11, as cited above.
Heo does not explicitly disclose the particle sizes recited by the claims.
Though Heo discloses exemplary particle sizes (TABLE 2) outside of the claimed range, nothing in Heo discloses that deviation from these particle sizes would render the structure insufficient or inoperable for its intended use. In other words, nothing in Heo limits their invention to the exemplary particle sizes. Further, the exemplary sizes of Heo appear to be the mere selection of PVDF starting material, and the selection of starting material is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art.
Further, Zheng discloses PVDF dispersions having excellent processing properties that are useful in high solid and low VOC coatings (paragraph [0007]). Zheng teaches that the particles in the dispersion have a particle size in the range of from, preferably, 50-1000 nm (paragraph [0031]), which overlaps the range recited by the instant claim; however, “in the case where claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” See MPEP § 2144.05.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of the prior art before him or her, to form the PVDF nanoparticle dispersion of Heo with those particles having the size range disclosed by Zheng. The motivation for doing so would have been that those PVDF dispersions having the broader particle size and their use in forming coatings are recognized in the art, and the wider particle size range would necessarily provide a greater range of freedom in production. Furthermore, the dispersions of Zheng have excellent process properties and are useful in producing high solid and low VOC coatings.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Zheng with Heo in view of Villeneuve to obtain the invention as specified by the instant claims.
Answers to Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the prior art rejections of record are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Thomas A Mangohig whose telephone number is (571)270-7664. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 Eastern.
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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at (571)272-1490. 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.
/TAM/Examiner, Art Unit 1788 01/22/2026
/Alicia Chevalier/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1788