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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed February 5, 2026, have been considered. Applicant’s arguments are persuasive with respect to Claims 1–3, 8, and 9. However, Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 7 and 10 are not persuasive.1 Applicant’s arguments focus mostly on the size and shape of the semispherical portions, which are not recited in Claim 7, meaning those arguments do not apply to the rejection of Claim 7.
While Hiroyuki (US 2021/0231853) makes no mention of forming a concave part and/or a convex part on a surface of an inorganic structure (as noted on page 9 of Applicant’s Reply), Hiroyuki was not relied on for these features, but instead Couderc (US 2020/0131083) was relied on to provide the suggestion for such.
Hiroyuki teaches a protective film and water repellent film (paragraph [0068]) and teaches the water repellent film may be an organic material, “a fluorine-based silane compound such as perfluorodecyltriethoxysilane (FDTS),” but Hiroyuki does not explicitly disclose the grid-like projections “having a surface on at least a part of which an inorganic structure capable of expressing water repellency exists.”
Couderc discloses “providing a transparent article having a face provided with a nanostructure wherein a top part of the nanostructure has hydrophobic or superhydrophobic properties” (paragraph [0017]), where the structure includes an organic-inorganic resin, that is etched to “preferentially etch the organic part of the organic-inorganic resin” to achieve a roughness structure (e.g., paragraphs [0162]]-[0168] and Figs. 6A–C).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the water repellent film of Hiroyuki to be formed as a nanostructure wherein a top part of the nanostructure has hydrophobic or superhydrophobic properties, as suggested by Couderc, as a suitable configuration for the desired function (e.g., MPEP §§ 2144.06–07).
In view of the above, Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 7 and 10 are not persuasive, and the previous rejection is maintained, modified in view of the amendments to the claims, as set forth below.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
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 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0231853 to Hiroyuki et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0131083 to Couderc et al.
Regarding Claim 7, Hiroyuki discloses (e.g., at least Figs. 1 and 2 and their description) a wire grid polarizing element comprising: a transparent substrate 10; and grid-like projections arranged on one surface of the transparent substrate with a pitch shorter than the wavelength of light in a used band (paragraph [0051]), and extending in a predetermined direction (Figs. 1 and 2), the transparent substrate being transparent to light in the used band (paragraph [0036]), and the grid-like projections each having a reflective layer 42, a dielectric layer 44, and an absorption layer 46.
Hiroyuki teaches a protective film and water repellent film (paragraph [0068]) and teaches the water repellent film may be an organic material, “a fluorine-based silane compound such as perfluorodecyltriethoxysilane (FDTS),” but Hiroyuki does not explicitly disclose the grid-like projections “having a surface on at least a part of which an inorganic structure capable of expressing water repellency exists.”
Couderc discloses “providing a transparent article having a face provided with a nanostructure wherein a top part of the nanostructure has hydrophobic or superhydrophobic properties” (paragraph [0017]), where the structure includes an organic-inorganic resin, that is etched to “preferentially etch the organic part of the organic-inorganic resin” to achieve a roughness structure (e.g., paragraphs [0162]]-[0168] and Figs. 6A–C).
Hiroyuki also does not explicitly disclose that the water repellent film has a surface on which a concave part and/or a convex part is formed, and having an angle of contact with water of equal to or greater than 110°, and the convex part has a shape of one or more types selected from a group consisting of a fractal shape, a pillar shape, a whisker shape, and a tetrapod shape.
Couderc teaches, as part of the suitable water repellent film, a nanopillar shape which includes a generally concave/convex configuration (e.g., at least Fig. 6C), where the structure achieves hydrophobic or superhydrophobic properties (paragraph [0017], where a specific contact angle is not taught by Couderc, but the teaching of superhydrophobic properties reasonably suggests a large contact angle, such as greater than 110° in paragraph [0054]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the device of Hiroyuki such that the grid-like projections have a surface on at least a part of which an inorganic structure capable of expressing water repellency exists, as suggested by Couderc, and also that the water repellent film has a surface on which a concave part and/or a convex part is formed, and having an angle of contact with water of equal to or greater than 110°, and the convex part has a shape of one or more types selected from a group consisting of a fractal shape, a pillar shape, a whisker shape, and a tetrapod shape, as also suggested by Couderc, as a suitable configuration of a water repellent film to achieve hydrophobic or superhydrophobic properties (e.g., MPEP §§ 2144.06–07). Note that Applicant in the specification provides no further description of what materials might be used or exemplify the claimed "inorganic structure." As such, the "organic-inorganic resin" of Couderc, where reactive ion etching preferentially etches the organic portion of the resin, is considered to reasonably correspond to the claimed "inorganic structure".
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Hiroyuki and Couderc would have rendered obvious wherein the inorganic structure has an angle of contact with water of equal to or greater than 150° (paragraphs [0017] and [0054] of Couderc).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1–3, 8, and 9 are allowed.
Conclusion
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 RYAN CROCKETT whose telephone number is (571)270-3183. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am to 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, Michael Caley can be reached at 571-272-2286. 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.
/RYAN CROCKETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
1 Note that Applicant’s arguments indicate that new Claim 10 depends from Claim 1; however, the listing of claims has Claim 10 depending from Claim 7 (compare pages 4 and 12 of the Reply).
Prosecution Insights