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 Amendment
The amendments to Claims 3, 5, 7-10 in the preliminary amendment filed 12/8/2023 are acknowledged and accepted.
The cancellation of Claims 2, 4 in the preliminary amendment filed 12/8/2023 is acknowledged and accepted.
The addition of Claims 11-25 in the preliminary amendment filed 12/8/2023 is acknowledged and accepted.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The originally filed drawings were received on 12/8/2023. 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 19-21, 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Murata et al. (CN 1662466A).
Murata et al. discloses an antifog-film-attached transparent article (See for example Abstract on Page 2, Paragraph 1 of English translation) for security cameras, the antifog-film-attached transparent article comprising a transparent base (See for example Page 7, Paragraphs 3-4 of English translation); and an antifog film (See for example Abstract on Page 2, Paragraph 1 of English translation) on a surface of the transparent base, wherein the antifog film includes at least one selected from the group consisting of a silane coupling agent (See for example Page 4, Paragraph 8 of English translation) and a cross-linked structure derived from the silane coupling agent; a water-absorbing polymer (See for example Abstract on Page 2, Paragraph 1 of English translation; See also Page 2, Paragraphs 11-12; Page 3, Paragraphs 2, 4, 6-9); a polyether-modified siloxane (See for example Page 11, Paragraph 7); and a C2-C₈ diol (See for example Page 3, Paragraphs 8-9; Page 5, Paragraphs 9-10; Page 6, Paragraph 1-2). Murata et al. further discloses the diol includes at least one selected from the group consisting of ethylene glycol, diethylene glycol, propylene glycol, dipropylene glycol, butanediol, pentanediol, and hexanediol (See for example Page 3, Paragraphs 8-9; Page 5, Paragraphs 9-10; Page 6, Paragraph 1-2); the diol includes at least one selected from the group consisting of butanediol, propylene glycol, and dipropylene glycol (See for example Page 3, Paragraphs 8-9; Page 5, Paragraphs 9-10; Page 6, Paragraph 1-2); and the transparent base is float glass (See for example Page 7, Paragraphs 3-4; Page 8, Paragraph 3 of English translation), and the antifog film is formed on a bottom surface of the float glass film (See for example Abstract on Page 2, Paragraph 1 of English translation).
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.
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) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murata et al. in view of Ishioka (CN 104736399 A).
Murata et al. discloses the invention as set forth above, except for the water-absorbing polymer including a polyvinyl acetal resin. However, Ishioka teaches a conventional antifogging film for use on a windshield of a vehicle (See for example Abstract; Figures 1-3), wherein the antifogging film (See for example 4 in Figures 1-2) includes a water absorbing polymer made of polyvinyl acetal resin (See for example Paragraphs 0069-0073). Thus, 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 water-absorbing polymer of Murata et al., include a polyvinyl acetal resin, as taught by Ishioka, to take advantage of the hydrophilicity of the polyvinyl acetal resin to aid in the antifogging function of the article.
Claim(s) 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murata et al. in view of Mo (CN 211791722 U).
Murata et al. discloses the invention as set forth above, except for the transparent base has a concave surface adjacent to a space in which a lens of a security camera is to be placed; and a security camera comprising a camera; and the above antifog-film-attached transparent article for security cameras disposed in front of a lens of the camera. However, Mo teaches a conventional application of antifogging films for use with security cameras (See for example Abstract; Figures 1-2). In particular, Mo teaches the transparent base (See for example 4 in Figures 1-2) of the antifogging film (See for example 5 in Figures 1-2) has a concave surface adjacent to a space in which a lens (See for example 7 in Figures 1-2) of a security camera (See Figures 1-2) is to be placed; and a security camera comprising a camera (See Figures 1-2); and the above antifog-film-attached transparent article (See for example 4, 5 in Figures 1-2) for security cameras disposed in front of a lens of the camera. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the transparent base have a concave surface adjacent to a space in which a lens of a security camera is to be placed; and a security camera comprising a camera; and the above antifog-film-attached transparent article for security cameras disposed in front of a lens of the camera, as taught by Mo, in the article of Murata et al., to allow the security camera to always have a clear, unobstructed field of view, even when changes in temperature and/or humidity would normally cause misting or fogging to occur.
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, 8-10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-15 of copending Application No. 18/568203 (See U.S. Patent Application Publication US 2024/0280733 A1) (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claims 1-15 of copending Application No. 18/568203 similarly claims and discloses an antifog-film-attached transparent article for security cameras (See for example Claim 1), the antifog-film-attached transparent article comprising a transparent base (See for example Claim 1, line 3); and an antifog film (See for example Claim 1, line 4) on a surface of the transparent base, wherein in a test (See for example Claim 1, lines 5-25) in which the antifog-film-attached transparent article is immersed in water at 25°C for 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 1-15 of copending Application No. 18/568203 further similarly claims and discloses the transparent base is float glass, and the antifog film is formed on a bottom surface of the float glass (See for example Claim 6); the transparent 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 7); and a security camera comprising a camera; and the above antifog-film-attached transparent article for security cameras disposed in front of a lens of the camera (See for example Claim 8).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 3, 5-7, 11-15, 19-22 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1, 3, 5-20 of copending Application No. 18/569101 (See U.S. Patent Application Publication US 2024/0279416 A1) (reference application). 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 transparent article for security cameras (See for example Claim 1), the antifog-film-attached transparent article comprising a transparent base (See for example Claim 1, line 2); and an antifog film (See for example Claim 1, line 3) on a surface of the transparent base, wherein in a test (See for example Claim 1, lines 4-24) in which the antifog-film-attached transparent article is immersed in water at 25°C for 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 1, 3, 5-20 of copending Application No. 18/569101 further similarly claims and discloses the antifog film includes at least one selected from the group consisting of a silane coupling agent and a cross-linked structure derived from the silane coupling agent; a water-absorbing polymer; a polyether-modified siloxane; and a C2-C₈ diol (See Claim 3); the diol includes at least one selected from the group consisting of ethylene glycol, diethylene glycol, propylene glycol, dipropylene glycol, butanediol, pentanediol, and hexanediol (See Claim 5); the diol includes at least one selected from the group consisting of butanediol, propylene glycol, and dipropylene glycol (See Claim 5); and the water-absorbing polymer includes a polyvinyl acetal resin (See Claim 6).
Claims 1, 3, 5-20 of copending Application No. 18/569101 additionally similarly claims and discloses an antifog-film-attached transparent article (See for example Claim 10) for security cameras, the antifog-film-attached transparent article comprising a transparent base (See Claim 10, line 2); and an antifog film on a surface of the transparent base (See Claim 10, line 3), wherein the antifog film includes a water-absorbing polymer (See Claim 10, line 4), and when (See Claim 10, lines 5-13) a test is performed in which: the antifog-film-attached transparent article is immersed in water at 25°C for 24 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 1, 3, 5-20 of copending Application No. 18/569101 further similarly claims and discloses the antifog film includes at least one selected from the group consisting of a silane coupling agent and a cross-linked structure derived from the silane coupling agent; a water-absorbing polymer; a polyether-modified siloxane; and a C2-C8 diol (See Claim 11); the diol includes at least one selected from the group consisting of ethylene glycol, diethylene glycol, propylene glycol, dipropylene glycol, butanediol, pentanediol, and hexanediol (See Claim 12); the diol includes at least one selected from the group consisting of butanediol, propylene glycol, and dipropylene glycol (See Claim 12); and the water-absorbing polymer includes a polyvinyl acetal resin (See Claim 13).
Finally, Claims 1, 3, 5-20 of copending Application No. 18/569101 additionally similarly claims and discloses an antifog-film-attached transparent article (See Claim 16) for security cameras, the antifog-film-attached transparent article comprising a transparent base (See Claim 16, line 2); and an antifog film on a surface of the transparent base (See Claim 16, line 3), wherein the antifog film includes at least one selected from the group consisting of a silane coupling agent and a cross-linked structure derived from the silane coupling agent; a water-absorbing polymer; a polyether-modified siloxane; and a C2-C₈ diol (See Claim 16, line 4-10). Claims 1, 3, 5-20 of copending Application No. 18/569101 further similarly claims and discloses the diol includes at least one selected from the group consisting of ethylene glycol, diethylene glycol, propylene glycol, dipropylene glycol, butanediol, pentanediol, and hexanediol (See Claim 17); the diol includes at least one selected from the group consisting of butanediol,
propylene glycol, and dipropylene glycol (See Claim 17); and the water-absorbing polymer includes a polyvinyl acetal resin (See Claim 18).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 3, 5-8, 11-16, 19-23 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 (See U.S. Patent Application Publication US 2024/0279110 A1) (reference application). 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 transparent article for security cameras (See for example Claim 1), the antifog-film-attached transparent article comprising a transparent base (See for example Claim 1, line 2); and an antifog film (See for example Claim 1, line 3) on a surface of the transparent base, wherein in a test (See for example Claim 1, lines 4-23) in which the antifog-film-attached transparent article is immersed in water at 25°C for 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 1, 3, 5-20 of copending Application No. 18/569088 further similarly claims and discloses the antifog film includes at least one selected from the group consisting of a silane coupling agent and a cross-linked structure derived from the silane coupling agent; a water-absorbing polymer; a polyether-modified siloxane; and a C2-C₈ diol (See Claim 3); the diol includes at least one selected from the group consisting of ethylene glycol, diethylene glycol, propylene glycol, dipropylene glycol, butanediol, pentanediol, and hexanediol (See Claim 5); the diol includes at least one selected from the group consisting of butanediol, propylene glycol, and dipropylene glycol (See Claim 6); the water-absorbing polymer includes a polyvinyl acetal resin (See Claim 7).
Claims 1, 3, 5-20 of copending Application No. 18/569088 additionally similarly claims and discloses an antifog-film-attached transparent article (See for example Claim 10) for security cameras, the antifog-film-attached transparent article comprising a transparent base (See Claim 10, line 2); and an antifog film on a surface of the transparent base (See Claim 10, line 3), wherein the antifog film includes a water-absorbing polymer (See Claim 10, line 4), and when (See Claim 10, lines 5-13) a test is performed in which: the antifog-film-attached transparent article is immersed in water at 25°C for 24 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 1, 3, 5-20 of copending Application No. 18/569088 further similarly claims and discloses the antifog film includes at least one selected from the group consisting of a silane coupling agent and a cross-linked structure derived from the silane coupling agent; a water-absorbing polymer; a polyether-modified siloxane; and a C2-C8 diol (See Claim 11); the diol includes at least one selected from the group consisting of ethylene glycol, diethylene glycol, propylene glycol, dipropylene glycol, butanediol, pentanediol, and hexanediol (See Claim 12); the diol includes at least one selected from the group consisting of butanediol, propylene glycol, and dipropylene glycol (See Claim 13); the water-absorbing polymer includes a polyvinyl acetal resin (See Claim 14); and the transparent base is float glass, and the antifog film is formed on a bottom surface of the float glass (See Claim 15).
Finally, Claims 1, 3, 5-20 of copending Application No. 18/569088 additionally similarly claims and discloses an antifog-film-attached transparent article (See Claim 16) for security cameras, the antifog-film-attached transparent article comprising a transparent base (See Claim 16, line 2); and an antifog film on a surface of the transparent base (See Claim 16, line 3), wherein the antifog film includes at least one selected from the group consisting of a silane coupling agent and a cross-linked structure derived from the silane coupling agent; a water-absorbing polymer; a polyether-modified siloxane; and a C2-C₈ diol (See Claim 16, line 4-10 Claims 1, 3, 5-20 of copending Application No. 18/569088 further similarly claims and discloses the diol includes at least one selected from the group consisting of ethylene glycol, diethylene glycol, propylene glycol, dipropylene glycol, butanediol, pentanediol, and hexanediol (See Claim 17); the diol includes at least one selected from the group consisting of butanediol,
propylene glycol, and dipropylene glycol (See Claim 18); the water-absorbing polymer includes a polyvinyl acetal resin (See Claim 19); and the transparent base is float glass, and the antifog film is formed on a bottom surface of the float glass (See Claim 20).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17-18 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.
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 et al.
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
1/9/2026
/ARNEL C LAVARIAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872