DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to an application filed with the US on 04/13/2023 and having an Effective Filing Date of 08/26/2016, in which claims 1-20 are pending and ready for examination.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 13 APRIL 2023 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and has/have been considered. An initialed copy of Form 1449 is enclosed herewith. Foreign and NPL documents as provided in parent application 16/327619 were reviewed.
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 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.
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 1-6, 11-15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2009291689 A (hereinafter “Abe”) in view of US 2001/0034414 A1 (hereinafter “Effenberger”).
Regarding Claim 1 Abe discloses a method of producing a fluororesin membrane material by forming a photocatalyst layer containing a photocatalyst (TiO2) and fluororesins on at least one outermost surface of a fluororesin layer containing a polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) as a fluororesin, the method comprising:
applying a dispersion containing the photocatalyst and the fluororesins to at least one outermost surface of the fluororesin layer;
drying the dispersion ( room temperature and the 60°C);
calcining the fluororesin layer having applied thereto the dispersion at a temperature equal to or more than a melting point of any fluororesin of the fluororesins incorporated into the dispersion (heating to above the melting point of the fluororesin /FEP, pg. 2, top para.); and
cooling the calcined fluororesin layer having applied thereto the dispersion to room temperature; Abstract, Claims, pg. 2, top para., Embodiment 1);
wherein the photocatalyst and the fluororesins in the dispersion to be applied to the fluororesin layer satisfy a photocatalyst ratio, wherein “the weight ratio of the photocatalyst powder to the fluororesin powder is preferably about 5:95 to 30:70” (pg. 2, near bottom), i.e. a ratio of a weight of the photocatalyst to a total weight of the photocatalyst and the fluororesins is 5-30 wt%,
wherein “[e]xamples of the fluororesin contained in the dispersion in the present invention include polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), tetrafluoroethylene-ethylene copolymer (ETFE), tetrafluoroethylene-hexafluoropropylene copolymer (FEP), a tetrafluoroethylene-perfluoroalkyl vinyl ether copolymer (PFA) can be mentioned. Two or more kinds of fluororesins may be used.” (pg. 2) and thus the fluororesins in the dispersion to be applied to the fluororesin layer may be formed of the PTFE and a second specific fluororesin chosen from tetrafluoroethylene-ethylene copolymer (ETFE), tetrafluoroethylene-hexafluoropropylene copolymer (FEP), a tetrafluoroethylene-perfluoroalkyl vinyl ether copolymer (PFA), i.e. that is a fluorinated resin copolymer.
Abe does not disclose (1) wherein the specific fluororesin and the PTFE in the dispersion satisfy a specific fluororesin ratio, which is a ratio of a weight of the specific fluororesin to a total weight of the specific fluororesin and the PTFE, of between 10% and 50%, both inclusive, or (2) second specific fluororesin that is a fluorinated resin copolymer having a melting point of 240°C or more and a continuous use temperature of 200°C or more.
However, with regard to the specific fluororesin and the PTFE, Effenberger discloses a blended solid composition (“blend”) containing: (1) a fluoroplastic; and (2) a fluoroelastomer, the blend can be formed from a dispersion that is coated to provide a film. ([0017], [0018], [0022], [0061]). The fluoroplastic can be PTFE [0017], and the fluoroelastomer may be selected from the group consisting of polymers and copolymers of TFE, VF, HFP, fluorovinyl ethers including perfluorovinyl ethers, CTFE, ethylene, and propylene, and are preferably of high molecular weight. Where FEP is a copolymer of TFE and HFP and PFA is a copolymer of TFE and a perfluorovinyl ether [0052] and blending FEP with PTFE is directly taught [0063];
wherein, “PTFE is present at greater than 35% by weight based on total polymer solids of the composition” [0059] and separately up to 80% by weight [0060], and including specifically 50% (Table 2 and [0076]) i.e. the polymer other than PTFE, i.e. which may be FEP, is less than 65% by weight, or separately 20% or more, or 50%, of the total weight of the specific fluororesin (FEP) and the PTFE; and
wherein the blend has superior performance properties in regards to mechanical behavior—for instance, reduced wear rate and resistance to chemically induced stress-cracking and (A) that the exceptional properties of its blend derive from its use of PTFE as a filler; and (B) that PTFE is the preferred filler from the viewpoint of the development of resistance to chemically induced stress-cracking and has properties which exceed those of the fluoroelastomers; [0019], [0022], [0064].
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Abe such that the dispersion comprises a blend of PTFE and FEP, including using FEP in an amount less than 65% by weight, or separately 20% or more, or specifically 50%, of the total weight of the specific fluororesin (FEP) and the PTFE in the dispersion and resulting photocatalyst layer as taught by Effenberger in order to yield the predictable result/improvement of a photocatalyst layer made of PTFE and FEP, said layer having superior performance properties such as reduced wear rate and resistance to chemically induced stress-cracking, because this would improve the similar devices in the same way, and because Effenberger suggests that such FEP concentration values (i.e. specific fluororesin ratio) were suitable for its blend.
With regard to melting temperature melting point and continuous use temperature of the second specific fluororesin, the specific fluororesin of the instant combination is FEP (the same specific fluororesin used by Applicant, Spec. p. 7, first para.). It is well-established that when a product of the prior art possesses a structure or composition that is identical or substantially identical to that of the claims, any claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent and the burden of proving otherwise is shifted to the applicant. See MPEP 2112.01. Given that both the specific fluororesin of the instant combination and the claimed specific fluororesin are the same, the claimed melting point and continuous use temperature are presumed to be inherent to both specific fluororesins until such time as Applicant provides evidence proving otherwise.
Regarding Claim 2 Abe in view of Effenberger discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the produced fluororesin membrane material may be considered a final product.
Regarding Claim 3 Abe in view of Effenberger discloses the method of claim 2, which discloses the same method and composition as that recited in claim 3, i.e. having the claimed photocatalyst ratio and specific fluororesin ratio. Since the composition is the same as the composition recited, it is asserted, absent evidence to the contrary, that one would reasonably expect that the produced fluororesin membrane material disclosed by Abe in view of Effenberger inherently has the same properties recited. Specifically, it is asserted that due to the photocatalyst ratio and the specific fluororesin ratio, reducing occurrence of tortoise shell-like cracks in the photocatalyst layer while still permitting thermal welding of the produced fluororesin membrane material. See MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding Claim 4 Abe in view of Effenberger discloses the method of claim 1, which discloses the same method and composition as that recited in claim 4, i.e. having the claimed cooling, photocatalyst ratio and specific fluororesin ratio. Since the composition is the same as the composition recited, it is asserted, absent evidence to the contrary, that one would reasonably expect that the photocatalyst layer disclosed by Abe in view of Effenberger inherently has the same properties recited. Specifically, it is asserted that after the cooling, a photocatalyst ratio of the photocatalyst layer is the same as the photocatalyst ratio of the dispersion, and a specific fluororesin ratio of the photocatalyst layer is the same as the specific fluororesin ratio of the dispersion. See MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding Claim 5 Abe in view of Effenberger discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the calcining is completed without applying a shear stress (none is disclosed or required by Abe), and which discloses the same method and composition as that recited in claim 5, i.e. having the claimed applying, drying, calcining, cooling, photocatalyst ratio and specific fluororesin ratio. Since the composition is the same as the composition recited, it is asserted, absent evidence to the contrary, that one would reasonably expect that the photocatalyst layer disclosed by Abe in view of Effenberger inherently has the same properties recited. Specifically, it is asserted that wherein due to the applying, the drying, the calcining, and the cooling, the photocatalyst layer is not fibrillated. See MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding Claim 6 Abe in view of Effenberger discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising melting both the PTFE and the specific fluororesin in the dispersion at the time of the calcining (it is disclosed that it is heated to above the melting point of the fluororesin,= (pg. 2, top para.), which is embodiment 1 is FEP, but would obviously include above the melting point any fluororesins in the dispersion).
Regarding Claim 11 Abe in view of Effenberger discloses the method of claim 1, which discloses the same method and composition as that recited in claim 11, i.e. having the claimed specific fluororesin ratio. Since the composition is the same as the composition recited, it is asserted, absent evidence to the contrary, that one would reasonably expect that the photocatalyst layer disclosed by Abe in view of Effenberger inherently has the same properties recited. Specifically, it is asserted that due to the specific fluororesin ratio, reducing cracks occurring in the photocatalyst layer while also permitting thermal welding of the fluororesin membrane material. See MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding Claim 12 Abe in view of Effenberger discloses the method of claim 1, wherein “the weight ratio of the photocatalyst powder to the fluororesin powder is preferably about 5:95 to 30:70” (pg. 2, near bottom), i.e. the photocatalyst and the fluororesins in the dispersion to be applied to the fluororesin layer satisfy a photocatalyst ratio of 3-30%.
Since the range(s) disclosed overlaps the range(s) claimed, the range(s) recited in the claim is/are considered prima facie obvious. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the portion of the disclosed range(s) that corresponds to the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding Claim 13 Abe in view of Effenberger discloses the method of claim 1, wherein “the weight ratio of the photocatalyst powder to the fluororesin powder is preferably about 5:95 to 30:70” (pg. 2, near bottom), i.e. the photocatalyst and the fluororesins in the dispersion to be applied to the fluororesin layer satisfy a photocatalyst ratio of 3-30%.
Since the range(s) disclosed overlaps the range(s) claimed, the range(s) recited in the claim is/are considered prima facie obvious. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the portion of the disclosed range(s) that corresponds to the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding Claim 14 Abe in view of Effenberger discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the specific fluororesin ratio is less than 65% by weight, or separately 20% or more, or specifically 50%, supra.
Regarding Claim 15 Abe in view of Effenberger discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the specific fluororesin is FEP, supra.
Regarding Claim 20 Abe discloses a method of producing a fluororesin membrane material by forming a photocatalyst layer containing a photocatalyst (TiO2) and fluororesins on at least one outermost surface of a fluororesin layer containing a polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) as a fluororesin, the method comprising:
applying a dispersion containing the photocatalyst and the fluororesins to at least one outermost surface of the fluororesin layer;
drying the dispersion ( room temperature and the 60°C);
calcining the fluororesin layer having applied thereto the dispersion at a temperature equal to or more than a melting point of any fluororesin of the fluororesins incorporated into the dispersion (heating to above the melting point of the fluororesin /FEP, pg. 2, top para.); and
cooling the calcined fluororesin layer having applied thereto the dispersion to room temperature;
thereby forming the fluororesin membrane material, which may be considered a final product, with a photocatalyst layer containing the photocatalyst and the fluororesins on the at least one outermost surface of the fluororesin layer; Abstract, Claims, pg. 2, top para., Embodiment 1);
wherein the photocatalyst and the fluororesins in the dispersion to be applied to the fluororesin layer satisfy a photocatalyst ratio, wherein “the weight ratio of the photocatalyst powder to the fluororesin powder is preferably about 5:95 to 30:70” (pg. 2, near bottom), i.e. a ratio of a weight of the photocatalyst to a total weight of the photocatalyst and the fluororesins is 5-30 wt%,
wherein “[e]xamples of the fluororesin contained in the dispersion in the present invention include polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), tetrafluoroethylene-ethylene copolymer (ETFE), tetrafluoroethylene-hexafluoropropylene copolymer (FEP), a tetrafluoroethylene-perfluoroalkyl vinyl ether copolymer (PFA) can be mentioned. Two or more kinds of fluororesins may be used.” (pg. 2) and thus the fluororesins in the dispersion to be applied to the fluororesin layer may be formed of the PTFE and a second specific fluororesin chosen from tetrafluoroethylene-ethylene copolymer (ETFE), tetrafluoroethylene-hexafluoropropylene copolymer (FEP), a tetrafluoroethylene-perfluoroalkyl vinyl ether copolymer (PFA), i.e. that is a fluorinated resin copolymer;
Abe does not disclose (1) wherein the specific fluororesin and the PTFE in the dispersion satisfy a specific fluororesin ratio, which is a ratio of a weight of the specific fluororesin to a total weight of the specific fluororesin and the PTFE, of between 10% and 50%, both inclusive, or (2) second specific fluororesin that is a fluorinated resin copolymer having a melting point of 240°C or more and a continuous use temperature of 200°C or more.
However, with regard to the specific fluororesin and the PTFE, Effenberger discloses a blended solid composition (“blend”) containing: (1) a fluoroplastic; and (2) a fluoroelastomer, the blend can be formed from a dispersion that is coated to provide a film. ([0017], [0018], [0022], [0061]). The fluoroplastic can be PTFE [0017], and the fluoroelastomer may be selected from the group consisting of polymers and copolymers of TFE, VF, HFP, fluorovinyl ethers including perfluorovinyl ethers, CTFE, ethylene, and propylene, and are preferably of high molecular weight. Where FEP is a copolymer of TFE and HFP and PFA is a copolymer of TFE and a perfluorovinyl ether [0052] and blending FEP with PTFE is directly taught [0063];
wherein, “PTFE is present at greater than 35% by weight based on total polymer solids of the composition” [0059] and separately up to 80% by weight [0060], and including specifically 50% (Table 2 and [0076]) i.e. the polymer other than PTFE, i.e. which may be FEP, is less than 65% by weight, or separately 20% or more, or 50%, of the total weight of the specific fluororesin (FEP) and the PTFE; and
wherein the blend has superior performance properties in regards to mechanical behavior—for instance, reduced wear rate and resistance to chemically induced stress-cracking and (A) that the exceptional properties of its blend derive from its use of PTFE as a filler; and (B) that PTFE is the preferred filler from the viewpoint of the development of resistance to chemically induced stress-cracking and has properties which exceed those of the fluoroelastomers; [0019], [0022], [0064].
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Abe such that the dispersion comprises a blend of PTFE and FEP, including using FEP in an amount less than 65% by weight, or separately 20% or more, or specifically 50%, of the total weight of the specific fluororesin (FEP) and the PTFE in the dispersion and resulting photocatalyst layer as taught by Effenberger in order to yield the predictable result/improvement of a photocatalyst layer made of PTFE and FEP, said layer having superior performance properties such as reduced wear rate and resistance to chemically induced stress-cracking, because this would improve the similar devices in the same way, and because Effenberger suggests that such FEP concentration values (i.e. specific fluororesin ratio) were suitable for its blend.
With regard to melting temperature melting point and continuous use temperature of the second specific fluororesin, the specific fluororesin of the instant combination is FEP (the same specific fluororesin used by Applicant, Spec. p. 7, first para.). It is well-established that when a product of the prior art possesses a structure or composition that is identical or substantially identical to that of the claims, any claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent and the burden of proving otherwise is shifted to the applicant. See MPEP 2112.01. Given that both the specific fluororesin of the instant combination and the claimed specific fluororesin are the same, the claimed melting point and continuous use temperature are presumed to be inherent to both specific fluororesins until such time as Applicant provides evidence proving otherwise.
Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abe in view of Effenberger further in view of US 7,641,940 B1 (hereinafter “Linkous”).
Regarding Claim 7 Abe in view of Effenberger discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the sheet is mainly used as building materials (Abe pg. 1 para starting “Among sheet-like materials…”) but does not disclose specifically using the fluororesin membrane material in a roof of architecture.
However Linkous discloses similar sheets/membranes coated in photocatalyst layer by modifying a thermoplastic sheet with a photocatalyst so that the sheet has a desirable function in manmade structures, such as rooftops, i.e. as roofing membranes, and that roof barriers are formed by butting and welding adjacent sheets together (C4/L36-55, Example).
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Abe in view of Effenberger by using the membrane in a roof (i.e. of architecture) as a roof barrier membrane as disclosed by Linkous because this a known use of a similar photocatalyst coated membranes and it would therefore have been obvious to use the similar membrane in the same way, for the same applications, and because Abe discloses the membrane is used as building materials.
Regarding Claim 8 Abe in view of Effenberger discloses the method of claim 1, but does not disclose cutting the fluororesin membrane material into a first part and a second part; and thermally welding the first part to the second part.
However Linkous discloses similar sheets/membranes coated in photocatalyst layer by modifying a thermoplastic sheet with a photocatalyst so that the sheet has a desirable function in manmade structures, such as rooftops, i.e. as roofing membranes, and that roof barriers are formed by butting and welding adjacent sheets together (C4/L36-55, Example).
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Abe in view of Effenberger by using the membrane in a roof (i.e. of architecture) as a roof barrier membrane, including butting and welding adjacent sheets together as disclosed by Linkous because this a known use of a similar photocatalyst coated membranes and it would therefore have been obvious to use the similar membrane in the same way, for the same applications, and because Abe discloses the membrane is used as building materials.
While thermal welding is not specifically disclosed it would have been an obvious type of welding to select because thermal welding is old ad well-known means to accomplish welding of polymer membranes.
With regard specifically to cutting the fluororesin membrane material into a first part and a second part, this is not disclosed by the references, as Linkous only discloses starting with two sheets to be butted and welded together (C4/L36-55). However it would have been obvious to cut one sheet into multiple parts/sheets in order to fit to the dimensions of a roof and/or to cut individual sheets from a roll.
Regarding Claim 9 Abe in view of Effenberger and Linkous discloses the method of claim 8, wherein “the following dispersion liquid is applied to one surface of a sheet base material” (Abe pg. 3, “First Embodiment”), and therefore the fluororesin membrane material comprises a single-sided coated product in which the photocatalyst layer is applied to only one outermost surface of the fluororesin layer.
Regarding Claim 10 Abe in view of Effenberger and Linkous discloses the method of claim 8, wherein “the dispersion can also be applied to both surfaces of the sheet substrate” (Abe pg. 3, “First Embodiment”), an therefore the fluororesin membrane material may comprise a double-sided coated product in which the photocatalyst layer is applied to a first outermost surface of the fluororesin layer and to a second outermost surface of the fluororesin layer opposite to the first outermost surface, and,
wherein “the weight ratio of the photocatalyst powder to the fluororesin powder is preferably about 5:95 to 30:70” (pg. 2, near bottom), i.e. the photocatalyst and the fluororesins in the dispersion to be applied to the fluororesin layer satisfy a photocatalyst ratio of 3-30%.
Since the range(s) disclosed overlaps the range(s) claimed, the range(s) recited in the claim is/are considered prima facie obvious. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the portion of the disclosed range(s) that corresponds to the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claims 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abe in view of Effenberger further in view of US 2005/0277543 A1 (hereinafter “Takahashi”).
Regarding Claims 16-17 Abe in view of Effenberger discloses the method of claim 1, but does not disclose including in the photocatalyst layer a carbonate, or (claim 17) wherein a weight of the carbonate in the photocatalyst layer is between 20 wt% and 5 wt%, both inclusive, with respect to the weight of the photocatalyst in the photocatalyst layer.
However Takahashi discloses a photocatalytic coating material (Title; Abstract), the photocatalytic coating material can comprise a fluorine resin and photocatalytic particles [0161]–[0162], additionally, the photocatalytic coating material can comprise an inorganic extender pigment [0056], [0062], the inorganic extender pigment can be carbonates such as calcium carbonate or barium carbonate [0166]. Wherein “[t]o obtain a crack-preventing effect, preferably the amount of these inorganic extender pigments added is more than 5% by weight of the total solid matter of the coating composition…. Further, the amount is preferably 50% by weight or less” and that said pigments “provide a coating film to be formed with excellent weatherability” [0166].
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Abe in view of Effenberger such that the photocatalyst layer includes calcium carbonate and/or barium carbonate in an amount of 5%-50% of the total solid matter of the coating composition (i.e. the photocatalyst dispersion and/or layer) as disclosed by Takahashi in order to obtaining a crack-preventing effect and provide weatherability.
As the photocatalyst may be included in the photocatalyst dispersion and/or layer in an amount of 5-30 wt% of the total solid matter of the photocatalyst dispersion and/or layer; this equates to 16.6%-1000% (5/30-50/5) with respect to the weight of the photocatalyst in the photocatalyst layer.
Regarding Claim 18 Abe in view of Effenberger and Takahashi discloses the method of claim 16, wherein the photocatalyst may be included in the photocatalyst dispersion and/or layer in an amount of 5-30 wt% of the total of the photocatalyst and fluororesins in the dispersion and/or layer, supra; and the carbonate is included in the photocatalyst dispersion/layer in an amount of 5%-50% of the total solid matter of the coating composition, supra (i.e. of the total of the photocatalyst, fluororesins and carbonates since that is all the solids in the layer). Thus as each range includes values as low as 5% the range disclosed includes a total weight of the photocatalyst and the carbonate in the photocatalyst layer is 40% or less with respect to a total weight of the photocatalyst, the carbonate, and the fluororesins in the photocatalyst layer.
Since the range(s) disclosed overlaps the range(s) claimed, the range(s) recited in the claim is/are considered prima facie obvious. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the portion of the disclosed range(s) that corresponds to the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding Claim 19 Abe in view of Effenberger and Takahashi discloses the method of claim 16, but does not disclose including in the photocatalyst layer an inorganic pigment for coloring the photocatalyst layer, wherein a total weight of the photocatalyst, the carbonate, and the inorganic pigment in the photocatalyst layer is 40% or less with respect to a total weight of the photocatalyst, the carbonate, the inorganic pigment, and the fluororesins in the photocatalyst layer.
However Takahashi further discloses that photocatalyst-containing coatings can include inorganic coloring pigments and that using an inorganic coloring pigment and inorganic extender pigment to a coating composition can provide improved durability of the resultant coating, [0168]-[0169], [0224].
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Abe in view of Effenberger and Takahashi to include one or more inorganic coloring pigments in the photocatalyst layer of the instant combination as disclosed by Takahashi in order to (1) yield the predictable result of coloring the photocatalyst layer; and (2) improving the durability of the photocatalyst layer.
With regard to the total weight of the photocatalyst, the carbonate, and the inorganic pigment in the photocatalyst layer, the photocatalyst may be included in the photocatalyst dispersion and/or layer in an amount of 5-30 wt% of the total of the photocatalyst and fluororesins in the dispersion and/or layer, supra; and the carbonate is included in the photocatalyst dispersion/layer in an amount of 5%-50% of the total solid matter of the coating composition, supra (i.e. of the total of the photocatalyst, fluororesins and carbonates since that is all the solids in the layer). Thus as each range includes values as low as 5% the range disclosed includes a total weight of the photocatalyst, the carbonate and the inorganic pigment in the photocatalyst layer is as low as 10% with respect to a total weight of the photocatalyst, the carbonate, the inorganic pigment and the fluororesins in the photocatalyst layer.
The amount of inorganic coloring pigments is not disclosed, however its amount will effect at least the color of the layer, and is thus a variable which achieves a recognized result, and it would therefore have been obvious for one of skill in the art to optimize this variable through routine experimentation, by using values including those within the scope of the present claims, so as to produce desired end results. See MPEP § 2144.05 (B). Notably, as coloring is optional, the range is seen to extend for a maximum amount down to minimum required to achieve coloring as low as zero.
It is therefore seen as obvious to have a total weight of the photocatalyst, the carbonate, and the inorganic pigment in the photocatalyst layer with respect to a total weight of the photocatalyst, the carbonate, the inorganic pigment, and the fluororesins in the photocatalyst layer, which overlaps the range claimed.
Since the range(s) disclosed overlaps the range(s) claimed, the range(s) recited in the claim is/are considered prima facie obvious. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the portion of the disclosed range(s) that corresponds to the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eric J. McCullough whose telephone number is (571)272-8885. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:00-6:00.
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, Magali Slawski can be reached at 571-270-3960. 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.
/ERIC J MCCULLOUGH/ Examiner, Art Unit 1773
/Magali P Slawski/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1773