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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed 2/2/2024 and 1/20/2026 have been fully considered; initialed copies of said IDSs are enclosed herein.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2019-035271 (herein referred to as “Shin-Etsu”) in view of JP2002-62406 (herein referred to as “Nakajima”).
Shin-Etsu teaches a water-repellent article comprising a substrate (abstract) which may comprise plastic (0010-“The substrate to which the present invention is applied is not particularly limited, but metal oxides, metals, resins, ceramics, quartz, glass, sapphire…”), a silicon oxide underlayer (abstract) with a thickness of 2nm to 500nm (0022-“The film thickness of the silica layer formed on the surface of the substrate is appropriately selected depending on the type of the substrate, but is usually 1 nm to 5 μm, preferably 2 nm to 0.5 μm”) and a water-repellent surface layer formed on the outer surface of the underlayer (abstract). The water repellent surface layer is based on the cured product of a fluorine-containing organosilicon compound (abstract) represented by any one of the general formulas (1)-(5) (page 16):
(A-Rf) .sub.alpha -ZW .sub.beta (1)
Rf- (ZW .sub.β ) .sub.2 (2)
Z '-(Rf-ZW .sub.β ) .sub.γ (3)
A-Rf-Q- (Y) .sub.δ -B (4)
Rf- (Q- (Y) .sub.δ -B) .sub.2 (5)
Wherein Rf is — (CF .sub.2 ) .sub.d —O— (CF .sub.2 O) .sub.p (CF .sub.2 CF .sub.2 O) .sub.q (CF .sub.2 CF .sub.2 CF .sub.2 O) .sub.r (CF .sub.2 CF .sub.2) CF .sub.2 CF .sub.2 O) .sub.s (CF (CF .sub.3 ) CF .sub.2 O) .sub.t- (CF .sub.2 ) .sub.d- , p, q, r, s, t each independently being an integer of 0 to 200, and , P + q + r + s + t = 3 to 500, and each unit shown in these brackets may be randomly bonded, d is independently an integer of 0 to 8, and the unit may be linear or branched It may be a letter. A is a fluorine atom, a hydrogen atom, or a monovalent fluorine-containing group in which the end is —CF .sub.3 group, —CF .sub.2 H group or —CH .sub.2 F group, and Z and Z ′ are independently a single bond or is a divalent to octavalent organic group which may contain a nitrogen atom, an oxygen atom, a silicon atom, a phosphorus atom or a sulfur atom, and W is a monovalent organic group having a hydrolyzable group at its terminal. α and β are each independently an integer of 1 to 7, preferably α is an integer of 1 to 3, more preferably 1 and β is an integer of 1 to 3, and α + β is an integer of 2 to 8, preferably Is an integer of 2 to 4. γ is an integer of 2 to 8, preferably 2 . Q is a single bond or a divalent organic group, δ is each independently an integer of 1 to 10, Y is a divalent organic group having a hydrolysable group, B is a hydrogen atom, carbon It is an alkyl group of the number 1 to 4 or a halogen atom (page 16). For example, formular 1 of the reference reads on the claimed formula 1 wherein A is a fluorine or a fluorine containing group as defined above, RF is as defined above, Q (as claimed) is a single bond, Z is a a divalent to octavalent organic group, and W is a hydrolysable group and B is 2 to 7.
Shin-Etsu teaches a silicon oxide layer is present and that the density of said layer may be optimized by heat treatment (0021), but does not teach the density is a result effective variable. However, Nakajima teaches the density of a silicon oxide layer may be optimized to optimize the adhesion to a plastic substrate and the refractive index of said layer (see all). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to optimize the density of silicon oxide layer disclosed in Shi-Etsu. The motivation for doing so would have been to optimize the adhesion and refractive properties of said layer.
With regards to claim 2, Shin-Etsu teaches the claimed formula (see e.g. formulas 1-2.
With regards to claim 3, Shin-Etsu teaches the claimed formula (see e.g., formula 5 of reference).
With regards to claim 4, the cured product may comprise the fluoropolyether-containing polymer described above and a fluoropolyether containing polymer having of claimed formula (10 -see formula 4).
With regards to claim 5, the antifouling coating agent containing a fluorine-containing organic silicon compound “can be applied to a substrate by a known method such as a wet coating method (brush coating, dipping, spray, ink jet), or a vapor deposition method.”
With regards to claim 6, the substrate may be pretreated with plasma, UV, or ozone treatment.
With regards to claim 7, Shin Etsu teaches the formula formulas 4 and 5 wherein Rf (poly) fluorooxyalkylene structure, Q may be a structures such as formulas 44 and 45, Y is a divalent organic group having a hydrolysable group such as formula 47. Such compounds are understood to read on the polymer having the formula 7.
With regards to claims 8-10, the antifouling coating agent containing a fluorine-containing organic silicon compound “can be applied to a substrate by a known method such as a wet coating method (brush coating, dipping, spray, ink jet), or a vapor deposition method.” Alternatively, the courts have held that the method of making a product does not patentably distinguish a claimed product from a product taught in the prior art unless the method of making the product inherently results in a materially different product. In the present application, no such showing has been made.
With regards to claim 11, Shin-Etsu teaches a silicon oxide layer is present and that the density of said layer may be optimized by heat treatment (0021), but does not teach the density is a result effective variable. However, Nakajima teaches the density of a silicon oxide layer may be optimized to optimize the adhesion to a plastic substrate and the refractive index of said layer (see all). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to optimize the density of silicon oxide layer disclosed in Shi-Etsu. The motivation for doing so would have been to optimize the adhesion and refractive properties of said layer.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103
With regards to the rejection of claims 1-6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over WO
2019/035271 (herein referred to as "Shin-Etsu") in view of JP 2002-62406 (herein referred to as "Nakajima"), applicant traverses the rejection on the grounds that Nakajima's invention aims to increase the density of the silica layer (adhesive silica layer) as much as possible, particularly to make density higher than that of the upper optical silica layer. Said argument is noted but is not persuasive as Nakajima establishes the density of said layer is a result effective variable that could be optimized in order to obtain predictable results. Thus, the examiner maintains a proper case of obviousness has bene established.
Applicant further argues the present inventors found "an article comprising a plastic substrate, an underlayer formed mainly of silicon oxide on the outer surface of the plastic substrate, and a water/oil repellent surface layer formed on the outer surface of the underlayer fails to exhibit satisfactory abrasion durability when the silicon oxide underlayer has a high film density." Specifically, "If the film density of the silicon oxide underlayer is less than 1.8 g/cm³, which means that more voids are present in the silicon oxide underlayer, the adhesion between the silicon oxide underlayer and the water/oil repellent surface layer is improved due to the increased surface area, but the strength of the silicon oxide underlayer itself is lowered. If the film density exceeds 2.2 g/cm³, the strength of the silicon oxide underlayer itself is kept, but the adhesion between the silicon oxide underlayer and the water/oil repellent surface layer is lowered." Said argument is noted but is not persuasive as applicant has failed to compare the claimed invention to the closest prior art. Furthermore, applicant has not demonstrates said argument is commensurate in scope with the pending claims or that said advantages are unexpected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2020/0056067 and US 6,200,684 teaches fluoropolyether containing polymers repellant layers reading on the composition of claim 1. US 2003/0139620 teaches a laminate comprising a plastic substrate, a silicon oxide layer, and a fluoropolyether containing repellant coating.
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 KEVIN R KRUER whose telephone number is (571)272-1510. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Callie Shosho can be reached at (571) 272-1123. 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.
KEVIN R. KRUER
Examiner
Art Unit 1787
/KEVIN R KRUER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights