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 of Invention I (Claims 1-3, 5-8, 12-15) in the reply filed on 3/9/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 9-11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 3/9/2026.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The originally filed drawings were received on 12/7/2023. The replacement drawings were received on 12/14/2023. These drawings are acceptable.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Abstract, line 3- ‘The present invention provides an’ should read ‘An’.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 6-8 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1, 3, 5-25 of copending Application No. 18/568507 (reference application) (See U.S. Patent Application Publication US 2024/0279486 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claims 1, 3, 5-25 of copending Application No. 18/568507 similarly claims and discloses an antifog-film-attached glass article for security cameras (See for example Claims 1, 8), the antifog-film-attached glass article comprising a transparent base (See for example Claim 1, line 4; Claim 8, line 3); and an antifog film on a surface of the transparent base (See for example Claim 1, line 5), wherein in a test in which the antifog-film-attached glass article is immersed in water at 25°C for 24 hours and removed from the water; subsequently the antifog film is exposed for 30 seconds to water vapor generated from water at 90°C to 100°C disposed at a distance of 60 mm from the antifog film downward in a vertical direction; and subsequently a judgment is made as to whether information of a QR code disposed at a distance of 110 mm from the antifog film downward in the direction is readable with a camera from an opposite side to a formation side of the antifog film, information of a QR code of a 40 mm square size is readable where the QR code is a two-dimensional code obtained by encoding, as the information, a character string "Rank:B" under a symbol size of 21 X 21 modules and a specification of error correction level H, in accordance with Japanese Industrial Standards (JIS) X 0510: 2018 (See for example Claim 1, lines 7-26). Claims 1, 3, 5-25 of copending Application No. 18/568507 further similarly claims and discloses the glass base is float glass, and the antifog film is formed on a bottom surface of the float glass (See for example Claim 8); the glass base has a concave surface adjacent to a space in which a lens of a security camera is to be placed (See for example Claim 9); and a security camera comprising a camera; and the above antifog-film-attached glass article for security cameras disposed in front of a lens of the camera (See for example Claim 10).
Claims 1, 3, 5-25 of copending Application No. 18/568507 similarly claims and discloses the invention as set forth above, but does not explicitly disclose the base being made of glass. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the base be made of glass, since it has been held to be within the ordinary skill of worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. One would have been motivated to have the base be made of glass, to take advantage of the high optical transmission and large mechanical rigidity provided by a glass substrate. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Claims 1, 3, 5-25 of copending Application No. 18/568507 similarly claims and discloses the invention as set forth above, but does not specifically disclose the glass article being immersed in water for 100 hours. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the glass article be immersed in water for 100 hours instead of 24 hours, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to have the glass article be immersed in water for 100 hours instead of 24 hours, to ensure that the glass article is fully hydrated prior to performing the water vapor test. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1, 3, 5-20 of copending Application No. 18/569101 (reference application) (See U.S. Patent Application Publication US 2024/0279416 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claims 1, 3, 5-20 of copending Application No. 18/569101 similarly claims and discloses an antifog-film-attached glass article for security cameras (See for example Claim 1), the antifog-film-attached glass article comprising a base (See for example Claim 1, line 2); and an antifog film on a surface of the base (See for example Claim 1, line 3), wherein in a test in which the antifog-film-attached glass article is immersed in water at 25°C for 100 hours and removed from the water; subsequently the antifog film is exposed for 30 seconds to water vapor generated from water at 90°C to 100°C disposed at a distance of 60 mm from the antifog film downward in a vertical direction; and subsequently a judgment is made as to whether information of a QR code disposed at a distance of 110 mm from the antifog film downward in the direction is readable with a camera from an opposite side to a formation side of the antifog film, information of a QR code of a 40 mm square size is readable where the QR code is a two-dimensional code obtained by encoding, as the information, a character string "Rank:B" under a symbol size of 21 X 21 modules and a specification of error correction level H, in accordance with Japanese Industrial Standards (JIS) X 0510: 2018 (See for example Claim 1, lines 4-24).
Claims 1, 3, 5-20 of copending Application No. 18/569101 similarly claims and discloses the invention as set forth above, but does not explicitly disclose the base being made of resin. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the base be made of resin, since it has been held to be within the ordinary skill of worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. One would have been motivated to have the base be made of resin, to take advantage of the high optical transmission and large variety of resin materials (and their associated refractive indices and costs) available for manufacturing the substrate, based on the intended application. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 6 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1, 3, 5-20 of copending Application No. 18/569088 (reference application) (See U.S. Patent Application Publication US 2024/0279110 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claims 1, 3, 5-20 of copending Application No. 18/569088 similarly claims and discloses an antifog-film-attached glass article for security cameras (See for example Claim 1), the antifog-film-attached glass article comprising a glass base (See for example Claim 1, line 2); and an antifog film on a surface of the glass base (See for example Claim 1, line 3), wherein in a test in which the antifog-film-attached glass article is immersed in water at 25°C for 24 hours and removed from the water; subsequently the antifog film is exposed for 30 seconds to water vapor generated from water at 90°C to 100°C disposed at a distance of 60 mm from the antifog film downward in a vertical direction; and subsequently a judgment is made as to whether information of a QR code disposed at a distance of 110 mm from the antifog film downward in the direction is readable with a camera from an opposite side to a formation side of the antifog film, information of a QR code of a 40 mm square size is readable where the QR code is a two-dimensional code obtained by encoding, as the information, a character string "Rank:B" under a symbol size of 21 X 21 modules and a specification of error correction level H, in accordance with Japanese Industrial Standards (JIS) X 0510: 2018 (See for example Claim 1, lines 4-23). Claims 1, 3, 5-20 of copending Application No. 18/569088 further similarly claims and discloses the glass base is float glass, and the antifog film is formed on a bottom surface of the float glass (See for example Claim 8).
Claims 1, 3, 5-20 of copending Application No. 18/569088 similarly claims and discloses the invention as set forth above, but does not specifically disclose the glass article being immersed in water for 100 hours. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the glass article be immersed in water for 100 hours instead of 24 hours, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to have the glass article be immersed in water for 100 hours instead of 24 hours, to ensure that the glass article is fully hydrated prior to performing the water vapor test. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the double patenting rejection(s) set forth in this Office action.
Claims 6-8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the double patenting rejection(s) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 12-15 are allowed.
Claims 2-3, 5 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 1 is allowable over the cited art of record for at least the reason that the cited art of record fails to teach or reasonably suggest an antifog-film-attached glass article as generally set forth in Claim 1, the article including, in combination with the features recited in Claim 1, wherein in a test in which the antifog-film-attached glass article is immersed in water at 25°C for 100 hours and removed from the water; subsequently the antifog film is exposed for 30 seconds to water vapor generated from water at 90°C to 100°C disposed at a distance of 60 mm from the antifog film downward in a vertical direction; and subsequently a judgment is made as to whether information of a QR code disposed at a distance of 110 mm from the antifog film downward in the direction is readable with a camera from an opposite side to a formation side of the antifog film, information of a QR code of a 40 mm square size is readable where the QR code is a two-dimensional code obtained by encoding, as the information, a character string "Rank:B" under a symbol size of 21 X 21 modules and a specification of error correction level H, in accordance with Japanese Industrial Standards (JIS) X 0510: 2018. Claims 2-3, 5-8 are dependent on Claim 1, and hence are allowable for at least the same reasons Claim 1 is allowable.
Claim 12 is allowable over the cited art of record for at least the reason that the cited art of record fails to teach or reasonably suggest an antifog-film-attached glass article as generally set forth in Claim 12, the article including, in combination with the features recited in Claim 12, wherein the antifog film includes an organic polymer having a betaine structure, and when a test is performed in which the antifog-film-attached glass article is immersed in water at 25°C for 100 hours and removed from the water; and subsequently the antifog film is exposed for 30 seconds to water vapor generated from water at 90°C to 100°C disposed at a distance of 60 mm from the antifog film downward in a vertical direction, a transparent continuous film is formed on a surface of the antifog film exposed to the water vapor. Claims 13-15 are dependent on Claim 12, and hence are allowable for at least the same reasons Claim 12 is allowable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent Application Publication US 2019/0375676 A1 to Liang- antifog coated glass substrate with particular transmission properties when exposed to either low temperature (<0 deg. C) or 100 deg. C steam.
CN 1662466 A to Murata- antifog film for use on transparent base materials, such as glass and plastic.
CN 104736399 A to Ishioka- Front windshield glass for a vehicle, and including an antifog film on the glass.
CN 211791722 U to Mo- Camera with an antifog film on a cover of the camera.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARNEL C LAVARIAS whose telephone number is (571)272-2315. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:30 AM-7 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, Stephone Allen can be reached at 571-272-2434. 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.
ARNEL C. LAVARIAS
Primary Examiner
Group Art Unit 2872
3/25/2026
/ARNEL C LAVARIAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights