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
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-7 in the reply filed on July 2, 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there are overlapping or related technical features between the two groups and there would be no undue burden for the Examiner to examine both groups of claims. This is not found persuasive given the technical feature linking the inventions of Groups I and II does not provide a contribution over the prior art (see below discussion), and no single general inventive concept exits. As such, there is a lack of unity between Groups I and II. Note that if the examiner finds that a national stage application lacks unity of invention under § 1.475, the examiner may in an Office action require the applicant in the response to that action to elect the invention to which the claims shall be restricted, see MPEP 1893.03(d).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim 8 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on July 2, 2025.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayakawa et al. (EP 2596864).
Regarding claim 1, the reference discloses a glass substrate for a display device with a photocatalyst layer on the substrate [0018 & 0027-0029]. Additionally, the reference discloses that the photocatalyst layer is a porous layer formed of a particulate material that is composed mainly of fine photocatalyst particles and fine inorganic oxide particles, which corresponds to an inorganic oxide that forms three-dimensional network bonds and protrusions and depressions formed on the surface of the layer by the inorganic oxide particles [0025]. The photocatalyst particles are preferably titanium oxide, and the inorganic oxide particles are preferably titania [0030-0033]. At least one metal or compound of metal may be added to the photocatalyst layer in order to provide antimicrobial and antifungicidal properties [0038].
Regarding claims 2, 4 and 5, although the reference does not specifically disclose the claimed properties, given the similar composition and surface structure between the disclosed and the claimed articles, it is expected they will have similar properties regarding refractive index, gloss and color tone; see above discussion and MPEP 2112.01 II: “if the composition is physically the same, it must have the same properties.”
Regarding claim 3, given the reference discloses the transmittance as not less than 97%, the reference is considered to disclose a reflectance of less than 3% [0085].
Regarding claim 6, the reference discloses the metal as copper [0038].
Regarding claim 7, the reference discloses the thickness of the layer as 0.3 to 3 microns, which overlaps the claimed range [0016]; see MPEP 2144.05 I: In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, absent a showing of criticality or that the prior art teaches away from the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA A AUER whose telephone number is (571)270-5669. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 am - 4 pm EST.
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, M. Veronica Ewald can be reached at (571)272-8519. 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.
/LAURA A AUER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights