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 without traverse of Group I and species A-D in the reply filed on 6/19/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim ends with 2 periods. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 6 fails to further limit claim 1 because the range for the layer thickness is broader than the range recited in claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7, 9-11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US 2017/0216818).
Regarding claims 1-2 and 5-6, Lee et al. (US 2017/0216818) discloses a photocatalytic functional film comprising a solid substrate and an amorphous TiO2 film (“barrier layer”) ([0008]). The reference further teaches that the barrier layer thickness may be 20nm-500 nm ([0016]).
Regarding claim 3, the Lee et al. teaches that the substrate may be plastic ([0036], [0075]).
Regarding claim 4, Lee et al. teaches that the metal oxide is TiO2 ([0008]) and that the substrate is plastic ([0075]).
Regarding claims 7 and 11, Lee et al. discloses a photocatalytic functional film comprising a solid substrate, an amorphous TiO2 film (“barrier layer”), and porous metal nanoparticles ([0008], [0013], Examples). The reference further teaches that the barrier layer thickness may be 20nm-500 nm ([0016]).
Regarding claims 9-10, Lee et al. teaches that the film further comprises a photocatalytic layer stacked on top of the barrier layer, which is also an amorphous TiO2 film, wherein the metal particles are embedded in and on a surface of the photocatalytic material ([0038]). Refer also to Figure 1. In this way, layer 30 is considered to correspond to the metal oxide matrix required by claim 10.
Regarding claim 14, Lee et al. teaches that the barrier layer may be 20nm-500nm ([0016]) and that the photocatalytic layer may be 50nm-500nm ([0017]).
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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2017/0216818) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Yoshioka et al. (US 2009/0317624).
The teachings of Lee et al. are applied as above for claim 7.
Lee et al. does not teach that the metal particles are silver (Ag) but does suggest that the metal particles are not particularly limited as long as they can provide photoactivity to the film such as deodorization or antibacterial effects ([0022], [0047]).
Yoshioka et al. (US 2009/0317624) discloses a photocatalytic film containing titanium dioxide particles ([0001]). The reference further teaches that providing silver particles to the film provides enhanced antifouling and antibacterial function to the photocatalytic film ([0005]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have modified the film taught by Lee et al. to include the silver particles suggested by Yoshioka et al. to provide a photocatalytic film having enhanced properties. Because both films are of a similar structure and used in the same or similar manner, one would have reasonable expectation of success from the combination.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2017/0216818) as applied to claims 7 and 10 above, and further in view of Yoshioka et al. (US 2009/0317624) and JP 2000-334309 (references are made with respect to the machine translation provided).
The teachings of Lee et al. are applied as above for claims 7 and 10.
The difference between the reference and the claims is that the reference does not teach the use of a PVA matrix material.
Yoshioka et al. (US 2009/0317624) discloses a photocatalytic film containing titanium dioxide particles ([0001]). The reference further teaches that providing silver particles to the film provides enhanced antifouling and antibacterial function to the photocatalytic film ([0005]).
The JP reference also teaches a photocatalytic film containing silver particles and further teaches that a layer providing such material may be provided as a colloid using PVA as a binder (matrix) material. Refer to page 3 of the translation.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have modified the film taught by Lee et al. to include the silver particles suggested by Yoshioka et al. to provide a photocatalytic film having enhanced properties. Because both films are of a similar structure and used in the same or similar manner, one would have reasonable expectation of success from the combination. The JP reference provides a method and structure for forming the structure suggested by the combined teachings, thereby providing one of ordinary skill motivation to make the modification.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINA ANN JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1176. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 6am - 2pm.
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, Alexa Neckel can be reached at 571-272-2450. 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.
/CHRISTINA A JOHNSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights