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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b ) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the appl icant regards as his invention. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 5 recites the broad recitation “the hydrophilic solvent is an amide solvent” , and the claim also recites “and is specifically at least one of…” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. 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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2011/0045301 to Okawara et al. in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2017/0299779 to Mita et al. and U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2016/0032081 to Ieda. As to claim s 1 -4 , Okawara discloses a weather-resistant coating comprising a polyvinyl alcohol component (0097-0100), a crosslinking component, dibutyltin dilaurate catalyst, and silane coupling agent wherein the ratio of polyvinyl alcohol to crosslinking agent is 1/1 to 1/20 and more preferably 1/1 to 1/10 (0109) and the preferred crosslinking agent from the viewpoint of fastness, gas barrier property and weather resistance are the isocyanurates of hexamethylene diisocyanate (0106). The content of polyvinyl alcohol to crosslinking agent overlaps the claimed range. It is well settled that where prior art describes components of a claimed compound or compositions in concentrations within or overlapping the claimed concentrations a prima facie case of obviousness is established. See MPEP 2144.05. At the time of filing it would have been obvious to maintain the content of polyvinyl alcohol to crosslinking agent within the amounts taught in Okawara to provide the coating with improved adhesiveness, high temperature high-humidity resistance, gas barrier property, and blocking resistance (0110). Okawara does not expressly disclose the content of tin based catalyst. However, Mita within the same field of transparent layers containing polyisocyanate crosslinking agents that can includes polyvinyl alcohol as a main component (0165) teaches the addition of 0.01 to 5 parts by weight of dibutyltin dilaurate (0160). At the time of filing it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to add dibutyltin dilaurate to the coating composition of Okawara within the amounts taught in Mita to control the crosslinking reaction rate, avoid foaming in the layer, and the provide sufficient adhesion (0160). Okawara does not teach the compound with low surface energy However, Ieda discloses polyvinyl alcohol coating compositions (Abstract) comprising a surface tension regulator (Abstract) in including monohydroxy functional polyether silicone components (0045) that is used in amounts that range from 0.01 to 10 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of PVA (0066). At the time of filing it would have been obvious to add the surface tension regulator taught in Ieda to the coating composition of Okawara to limit bubbles and droplets (0066). It is noted that claims 5-7 claim a anti-bacterial and low-adhesion crosslinked polyvinyl alcohol coating, all elected claims are recited in the product-by-process format by use of the language, “characterized in that: the polyvinyl alcohol is prepared…” Case law holds that: Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe , 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). To the extent that the process limitations in a product-by-process claim do not carry weight absent a showing of criticality, the reference discloses the claimed product in the sense that the prior art product structure is seen to be no different from that indicated by the claims. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 8-9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT MICHAEL L LEONARD whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-7450 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M - F 7:00-4:00 . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Joseph Del Sole can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-1130 . 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. /MICHAEL L LEONARD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763