DETAILED ACTION 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 Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) submitted on 01/15/2024, 04/03/2025 and 10/05/2025 are considered and signed IDS forms are attached. Claim Objections Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 12, line 1 recites “The composition”, which should be “The coating composition”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 12, lines 1-2 recite “the (meth)acrylate monomer”, which should be “the tri- or higher functional (meth)acrylate monomer”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 13, line 1 recites “The composition”, which should be “The coating composition”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 13, lines 1-2 recite “the (meth)acrylate monomer”, which should be “the tri- or higher functional (meth)acrylate monomer”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 14, line 1 recites “The composition”, which should be “The coating composition”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 14, line 3 recites “the composition”, which should be “the coating composition”. Appropriate correction is required. 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. 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. Claim s 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hattori et al. (US 2019/0338141 A1 cited in IDS ). Regarding claim s 1 -3 and 8 , Hattori et al. disclose an article (laminate) comprising a substrate , a hard coat (first layer) and a hydrophilic layer (second layer) (see page 7, claim 1) . The laminate is used to prepare articles (see Abstract). Accordingly, Hattori et al. disclose an article comprising the laminate. The hard coat (first layer) comprises 5 to 60 wt% of a binder and 60 to 90 wt% of nanoparticles (see page 7, claim 1 and page 8, claim 4). The binder comprises a cured (meth)acrylic oligomer or monomer, i.e. a cured product of a binder precursor (see page 8, claim 3 and paragraph 0021 ). A specific example of the binder includes trifunctional aliphatic urethane acrylate such as EBECRYL 8701 (see paragraph 0023). The nanoparticles include SiO 2 nanoparticles (silica), ZnO nanoparticles (zinc oxide), ZrO 2 nanoparticles (zirconium oxide), indium-tin-oxide nanoparticles or antimony-doped tin oxide nanoparticles (see page 8, claim 7). That is, the nanoparticles are inorganic nanoparticles. The nanoparticles can be surface modified nanoparticles (see paragraph 0030). A specific example of the surface modified nanoparticles include silica particles modified using 3-methacryoxypropyl-trimethoxysilane (see paragraphs 0079-0081). As evidenced by the present specification, surface modification using 3-methacryoxypropyl-trimethoxysilane introduces a (methyl)acryloyl group (see page 9, lines 3-8 of present specification). Accordingly, the inorganic nanoparticles have a (meth)acryloyl group. In light of the overlap between the claimed laminate and article, and that disclosed by Hattori et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a laminate and a n article that is both disclosed by Hattori et al. and is encompassed within the scope of the present claims, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention . Regarding claim 4, Hattori et al. disclose that the hydrophilic layer (second layer) contains zwitterionic silane (see paragraph 0044). Regarding claim 5, Hattori et al. disclose that the substrate includes a transparent substrate (see paragraph 0015). Regarding claim 6, Hattori et al. disclose the laminate as set forth above. The laminate comprises the substrate, the first layer comprising the binder and the inorganic particles and the second layer as hydrophilic layer. The laminate has a haze value of less than 10% (see page 7, Table 3, Ex-1, Ex-2 and Ex-3) Further, given that the laminate including the substrate, the first layer comprising the binder and the inorganic particles and the second layer as hydrophilic layer are identical to that presently claimed, the binder and the inorganic particles identical to that presently claimed, with the amounts of the binder and the inorganic particles overlapping with that presently claimed, within the overlapping ranges, the laminate has necessarily inherently a haze value as presently claimed. Regarding claim 7, Hattori et al. disclose an adhesive layer can be applied on the opposite surface of the substrate having the hard coat layer (first layer) thereon (see paragraph 0051). Given that the hydrophilic layer (second layer) is formed on the first layer, the adhesive layer is opposite to a side of the second layer. Regarding claims 9 and 10, Hattori et al. disclose the article as set forth above. Hattori et al. do not disclose the article is used as a medical device or a microfluidic chip. However, the recitation in the claims that the article is used as a medical device or a microfluidic chip is merely an intended use. Applicants attention is drawn to MPEP 2111.02 which states that intended use statements must be evaluated to determine whether the intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists, does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. It is the examiner’s position that the intended use recited in the present claims does not result in a structural difference between the presently claimed invention and the prior art and further that the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use. Given that Hattori et al. disclose article as presently claimed, it is clear that the article would be capable of performing the intended use, i.e. medical device or a microfluidic chip, presently claimed as required in the above cited portion of the MPEP, and thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention. Regarding claim 11, Hattori et al. disclose the hard coat layer comprising the binder as a cured product of the binder precursor and the inorganic nanoparticles including their amounts as presently claimed as set forth above . A composition used for preparing the hard coat layer reads on a coating composition as presently claimed. That is, the coating composition forms a layer (hard coat layer) on which the hydrophilic layer is applied. In light of the overlap between the claimed coating composition and that disclosed by Hattori et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a coating composition that is both disclosed by Hattori et al. and is encompassed within the scope of the present claims, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention. Regarding claim 12 and 13, Hattori et al. disclose the coating composition as presently claimed. The coating composition used for preparing the hard coat layer includes the binder such as trifunctional aliphatic urethane acrylate such as EBECRYL 8701 (see paragraph 0023) which is identical to that used in the present invention and therefore would inherently possess (meth)acryloyl equivalent as presently claimed (see page 21 of the specification, Table 1, Binder precursor, Monomer 7). Regarding claim 14, Hattori et al. disclose the coating composition as presently claimed. The coating composition used for preparing the hard coat layer includes 60 to 90 wt% of inorganic nanoparticles as noted above. According to the present claim, the amount of inorganic nanoparticles is greater than 33 wt% (33 = 50/150 x 100) as presently claimed . Citation of Relevant Prior Art The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Tian et al. (WO 2018/234916 A1) disclose a film comprising an organic polymeric substrate, an acrylic hard coat layer and a superhydrophilic surface layer (see Abstract). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT KRUPA SHUKLA whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-5384 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 7:00-3:00 PM . 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 Callie Shosho can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-1123 . 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. /KRUPA SHUKLA/ Examiner, Art Unit 1787