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, Claims 1-4, 6, 8, 9, 11-13, 15, 17-23, 25, and 30 in the reply filed on 10/24/25 is acknowledged.
Claims 26, 27, and 29 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/24/25.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claims 1, 6, 9, 15, 17, 18, 21, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Iwata et al (US 2008/0260997 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 2-4, 8, 6, 9, 11, 15, 17, and 25, Iwata teaches anti-dazzling coating (i.e., composite coating) for use on displays (i.e., plastic or glass substrate or electrical component) (para 2-3, 42); wherein the coating may be multi-layer which would have suggested or otherwise rendered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention that the coating could comprise a coating I, II, and III deposited on a substrate; and that coating I, II, and III could comprise different combinations of the species of constituents to make-up these coatings or layers as taught by Iwata.
Iwata further teaches its coatings may comprise combinations of glycidyl methacrylate (i.e., α monomer) and butanediol di(meth)acrylate, 1,6-hexanediol di(meth)acrylate, ethylene glycol di(meth)acrylate, and neopentyl glycol di(meth)acrylate (i.e., β monomers) (para 97, 116, 129, 140). The following structures of the compounds given for the α monomer and β monomer are shown below:
glycidyl methacrylate
PNG
media_image1.png
152
279
media_image1.png
Greyscale
butanediol di(meth)acrylate
PNG
media_image2.png
106
271
media_image2.png
Greyscale
1,6-hexanediol di(meth)acrylate
PNG
media_image3.png
132
464
media_image3.png
Greyscale
ethylene glycol di(meth)acrylate
PNG
media_image4.png
93
286
media_image4.png
Greyscale
neopentyl glycol di(meth)acrylate
PNG
media_image5.png
125
262
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, since Iwata teaches glycidyl methacrylate as a species in its coating and butanediol di(meth)acrylate, 1,6-hexanediol di(meth)acrylate, ethylene glycol di(meth)acrylate, and neopentyl glycol di(meth)acrylate as species in its coating; Iwata teaches a combination of species for a layer or coating (i.e., coating I) that meet the requirements of formula 1-1 for monomer α and formula 2-1 for monomer β of the instant claims.
Iawata further teaches Iwata further teaches its coatings may comprise combinations of phenyl (meth)acrylate (i.e., monomer γ) and diethylene glycol di(meth)acrylate, butanediol di(meth)acrylate, 1,6-hexanediol di(meth)acrylate, ethylene glycol di(meth)acrylate, and neopentyl glycol di(meth)acrylate (i.e., δ monomers) (para 97, 116, 129, 140). The following structures of the compounds given for the α monomer and δ monomer are shown below:
phenyl (meth)acrylate
PNG
media_image6.png
155
276
media_image6.png
Greyscale
butanediol di(meth)acrylate
PNG
media_image2.png
106
271
media_image2.png
Greyscale
1,6-hexanediol di(meth)acrylate
PNG
media_image3.png
132
464
media_image3.png
Greyscale
ethylene glycol di(meth)acrylate
PNG
media_image4.png
93
286
media_image4.png
Greyscale
neopentyl glycol di(meth)acrylate
PNG
media_image5.png
125
262
media_image5.png
Greyscale
diethylene glycol di(meth)acrylate
PNG
media_image7.png
81
279
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Therefore, since Iwata teaches glycidyl methacrylate as a species in its coating and butanediol di(meth)acrylate, 1,6-hexanediol di(meth)acrylate, ethylene glycol di(meth)acrylate, and neopentyl glycol di(meth)acrylate as species in its coating; Iwata teaches a combination of species for a layer or coating (i.e., coating II) that meet the requirements of formula 3-1 for monomer α and formula 4-1 for monomer δ of the instant claims.
Based on the above teachings, Iwata would have suggested or otherwise rendered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention a composite coating, comprising a coating I and a coating II deposited on a substrate, wherein the coating I is a coating formed from a monomer α and a monomer β; wherein the coating II is coating formed on the coating I by contacting the coating I with a monomer γ and a monomer δ; wherein monomer α meets the structure of formula 1-1, monomer β meets the structure of formula 2-1, monomer γ meets the structure of formula 3-1, and monomer δ meets the structure of formula 4-1.
The limitations “plasmas“ and “plasma polymerization” of the instant claims are product by process limitations and do not determine the patentability of the product, unless the process results in a product that is structurally distinct from the prior art. The process of forming the product is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself, unless Applicant presents evidence from which the Examiner could reasonably conclude that the claim product differs in kind from those of the prior art (MPEP § 2113). No difference can be discerned between the product that results from the process steps recited in the instant claims and the product of Iwata.
Iwata teaches or would have suggested to one of ordinary at the time of invention α monomer comprising glycidyl methacrylate which is given by the formula:
PNG
media_image1.png
152
279
media_image1.png
Greyscale
And in this formula, R1 is a CH, and R2 or R3 are either a connecting bond or C1 alkylene, per the requirements of claim 1. Furthermore, A is C(O)-O-, and R22 is a C1 alkyl and R20 and R21 are hydrogen atoms, all of which meeting the structure required by formula 1-2.
Iwata teaches or would have suggested to one of ordinary at the time of invention β monomer comprising butanediol di(meth)acrylate (i.e., 1,4 butanediol di(meth)acrylate) (as well as other monomers) which is given by the formula:
PNG
media_image2.png
106
271
media_image2.png
Greyscale
And in this formula, R7 and R8 are methyl groups, R5, R6, R9, and R10 are hydrogens, and R23 is a C4 alkylene with y being 1.
And in this formula, R11 is a methyl group, and R12 and R13 are hydrogens.
Iwata teaches or would have suggested to one of ordinary at the time of invention γ monomer comprising phenyl (meth)acrylate which is given by the formula:
PNG
media_image6.png
155
276
media_image6.png
Greyscale
And in this formula, R11 is a methyl group, R12 and R13 are hydrogens. Furthermore, T1 is -C(O)-O-, and X1 and Y1 are connecting parts or connecting bonds, wherein X1 is shown as X11 and X12, X11 and X12 are connecting bonds or a connecting bond, and Ar is a benzene ring.
Iwata teaches or would have suggested to one of ordinary at the time of invention δ monomer comprising butanediol di(meth)acrylate (i.e., 1,4 butanediol di(meth)acrylate) (as well as other monomers) which is given by the formula:
PNG
media_image2.png
106
271
media_image2.png
Greyscale
And in this formula, R16 and R17 are methyl groups, R14, R15, R18, and R19 are hydrogens, and R27 is a C4 alkylene with y being 1.
Regarding claims 18-21, Iwata teaches the coating may be multi-layer (para 52) which would have suggested or otherwise rendered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention that the coating could comprise a coating I, II, and III deposited on a substrate.
Iwata further teaches its coatings may comprise 2-(perfluorooctyl)ethyl (meth)acrylate and 2-(perfluorodecyl)ethyl (meth)acrylate (i.e., monomer ε) (para 184). The following structures of the compounds given for the α monomer are shown below:
2-(perfluorooctyl)ethyl (meth)acrylate
PNG
media_image8.png
122
461
media_image8.png
Greyscale
2-(perfluorodecyl)ethyl (meth)acrylate
PNG
media_image9.png
152
281
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Therefore, since Iwata teaches 2-(perfluorooctyl)ethyl (meth)acrylate and 2-(perfluorodecyl)ethyl (meth)acrylate as species in its coating; Iwata teaches a layer or coating (i.e., coating III) that meet the requirements of formula 5-1 for monomer ε of the instant claims. More specifically, in regard to 2-(perfluorooctyl)ethyl (meth)acrylate, Z is a connecting part comprising a C2 alkylene, R30 is a C1 hydrocarbyl (e.g., methyl), R28 and R29 are hydrogens, and x is 7.
The limitations “plasmas“ and “plasma polymerization” of the instant claims are product by process limitations and do not determine the patentability of the product, unless the process results in a product that is structurally distinct from the prior art. The process of forming the product is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself, unless Applicant presents evidence from which the Examiner could reasonably conclude that the claim product differs in kind from those of the prior art (MPEP § 2113). No difference can be discerned between the product that results from the process steps recited in the instant claims and the product of Iwata.
Regarding claim 22, it is noted that change in size, scale, proportionality and shape is not patently distinct over the prior art absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed invention is significant. See In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966); In Gardner V. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). MPEP 2144.04[R-1].
A change in size (dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, Gardner V. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide the composite coating of Iwata with the dimension (i.e., thickness) necessary based on the prior art's intended application as in the present invention.
Regarding claim 23, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to adjust the molar ratios of the monomers in the coatings of Iwata to optimize the composite coatings final physical and/or mechanical properties (e.g., weight, density, flexibility, strength, wear and/or abrasion resistance, etc…). "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP § 2144.05 II A).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwata as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Inoue et al (EP 2 963 070 A1)
Iwata teaches the composite coating of claim 11.
Iwata fails to suggest wherein a structure of the monomer γ is shown as in formula (3-3).
Inoue teaches curable compositions (i.e., composite coatings) comprising allyl ester oligomers and polyfunctional (meth)acrylic compounds for use in optical films (para 8) for use in electronics (i.e., electrical component substrate) which is capable of obtaining an optical resin film or sheet being excellent in heat discoloration resistance, transparency and surface hardness (para 2); wherein the allyl ester oligomer may comprise diallyl terephthalate (para 25); and wherein the polyfunctional (meth)acrylic compounds may comprise 1,6-hexanediol di(meth)acrylate, 1,4-butanediol di(meth)acrylate, and ethylene glycol di(meth)acrylate (para 41); and reactive monomers such as glycidyl (meth)acrylate, phenyl (meth)acrylate, and diallyl terephthalate (para 51).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to combine the curable composition of Inoue with the composite coating composition of Iwata, It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose (MPEP § 2144.06 I). This would come with the additional motivation of a composite coating which is capable of obtaining an optical resin film or sheet being excellent in heat discoloration resistance, transparency and surface hardness.
In the alternative, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to substitute the diallyl terephthalate of Inoue for the phenyl (meth)acrylate of Iawata since Inoue teaches both are reactive components in compositions resulting in films for optical application; and substituting known equivalents for the same purpose as recognized in prior art is prima facie obvious (MPEP § 2144.06 II); and it is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use (MPEP § 2144.07).
Inoue teaches its coating comprises diallyl terephthalate (para 25) which would have suggested to one of ordinary at the time of invention γ monomer further comprising diallyl terephthalate; which structure is given by the formula:
PNG
media_image10.png
142
311
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Therefore, Inoue teaches the γ monomer in which T1 is -C(O)-O-, and X1 and Y1 are connecting parts or connecting bonds, Ar is a benzene ring, T2 is -C(O)-O-, and X2 and Y2 are connecting parts or connecting bonds, and R26 is a methyl group (i.e., C1 alkyl), R24 and R25 are hydrogens.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Multiple pieces of non-patent literature have been included to demonstrate chemical structures of compositions relevant to the instant claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN L VAN SELL whose telephone number is (571)270-5152. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur, Generally 7am-6pm.
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, M. Veronica Ewald can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
NATHAN VAN SELL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1783
/NATHAN L VAN SELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783