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 .
Drawings/Specification
The drawings are objected to because Fig. 1 e) has a line pointing to a part without a label. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "20" and "30" have both been used to designate printing ink, see [0038] of the specification. This appears to be an error in the specification however should the reference characters in the drawings be in error corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, requires the specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” The specification is replete with terms which are not clear, concise and exact. The specification should be revised carefully. Examples of some unclear, inexact or verbose terms used in the specification and drawings:
reference character “20” has been used to designate “water-soluble layer” and “masking layer” [0032], “printing ink” and “masking ink” and “ink” [0035], “printing ink” and “ink” [0038]”coating” [0039], “printing ink” [0040], “water-soluble substance” [0041]. Applicant must review the specification for further inconsistencies with reference character 20 and revise.
Reference character “30” has been used to designate “the coating”, “the printing ink” [0038], printing ink [0039], “coating” [0040], “layer”, “layer system”, “the printed substance” [0041], “material” [0042]. Applicant must review the specification for further inconsistencies with reference character 30 and revise.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
The term “large-area” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “large-area” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what Applicant constitutes as large in claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, recites multiple ranges in a single claim. Use of a narrow numerical range that falls within a broader range in the same claim may render the claim indefinite when the boundaries of the claim are not discernible. Description of examples and preferences is properly set forth in the specification rather than in a single claim. A narrower range or preferred embodiment may also be set forth in another independent claim or in a dependent claim. If stated in a single claim, examples and preferences lead to confusion over the intended scope of the claim. The claim is indefinite because of the multiple overlapping ranges in a single claim. See MPEP § 2173.05(c).
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8-14 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hori et al. (US 20190031559) referred to as Hori herein after.
Regarding claims 1, Hori discloses a method for coating what is considered a “large-area” glass substrates (10) comprising;
applying a layer M to a first predetermined region in any pattern [0034] where the masking material M is water-soluble [0061].
Coating the surface of the glass substrate with another material of ink print layer P (abstract, [0021], [0041], [0071]) the ink print layer P is not water soluble [0031] does not come off or react with water [0060].
Hori suggests repeatedly conducting the printing [0057] however does not explicitly state masking and removing the mask with each successive printing step on a single substrate carrying it out on multiple substrates (10).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Hori to include masking and removing the mask with each successive printing step as motivated to apply the ink in the desired location.
Regarding claim 2, Hori does not disclose the area of the substrate.
MPEP 2144.04 states In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) ("mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled." 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.).
In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Furthermore, It would be obvious to try the method of Hori on any size glass substrate as motivated to produce the coated glass substrate of the desired size.
Regarding claim 3, Given the broadest reasonable interpretation Hori is considered to coating directly after applying the water-soluble layer. Furthermore, no invention is involved in the broad concept of performing simultaneously operations which have previously been performed in sequence. In re Tatincloux, 108 USPQ 125 and the transposition of process steps or the splitting of one step into two, where the processes are substantially identical or equivalent in terms of function, manner and result, was held to not patentably distinguish the processes. Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. Pat. App. 1959).
Regarding claim 4, Hori suggests the water-soluble layer M is applied by screen printing, inkjet printing, pad printing, film transfer printing, and spray printing such as electrostatic spraying or twin-fluid spraying [0032] or film transfer printing [0037] rotary printing [0036].
Regarding claim 8, Hori discloses coating with a directional coating via a spray nozzle [0071].
Regarding claims 9 and 11, Hori discloses removing the water-soluble layer with a water solvent [0060]-[0061] after printing. Hori suggests repeating the steps then any printed layer on top of a water-soluble layer would necessarily be removed.
Regarding claim 10, Hori discloses removing the water-soluble layer with a water solvent [0060]-[0061].
Regarding claim 12 and 19, Hori discloses removal of the water-soluble layer with a brushing method with supply of water [0064]
Regarding claim 13, Hori does not specify cleaning the substrate before applying the water-soluble layer however it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a clean substrate, thus requiring a cleaning step, such that there is no contamination to the water-soluble layer.
Regarding claims 14 and 20, Hori suggests repeating the coating however does not indicate a repetition of the coating steps differing from the prior coating procedure. It would be obvious to modify the repetitive steps of Hori as motivated to achieve the desired coating laminate product. These coated areas on the glass yield filtered wavelengths and considered optical filters given the broadest reasonable interpretations
Claim(s) 6 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hori et al. (US 20190031559) referred to as Hori herein after as applied above and further in view of Kim (US 20170150626).
Regarding claims 6 and 15-16, Hori discloses the water-soluble mask M however does not indicate the water-soluble mask containing a water-soluble ink.
In an analogous art of masking a glass substrate with a water-soluble mask Kim suggests a water-soluble ink to provide a mask and to be removed by water [0017], [0091] claim 14. “Ink” by definition contains a dye, color, or pigment thus a water-soluble ink has a dissolved colorant or pigment dispersed in water given the broadest reasonable interpretation.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Hori with the substitution of the water soluble ink of Kim as motivated to provide a water-soluble mask to be washed off the glass.
Claim(s) 5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hori et al. (US 20190031559) referred to as Hori herein after as applied above and further in view of Matsuzaki (JP 2018116089).
Regarding claims 5 and 7, Hori does not disclose reducing the surface energy of the glass substrate or plasma polymerization of hexamethyldisiloxane.
In analogous art of patterning, or masking, a glass substrate, Matsuzaki discloses a glass substrate (2), applying an adhesion material of HMDS (3), hexamethyldisiloxane, applying a masking material (4). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply adhesion of HMDS layer as motivated to adhere the masking material to the glass. The HMDS necessarily reduces the surface energy of the surface of the glass. It would furthermore be obvious to continuously mask and coat the glass to obtain the desired patterning structures as motivated to achieve a desired optical filter.
Claim(s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hori et al. (US 20190031559) referred to as Hori herein after as applied above and further in view of Matsuzaki (JP 2018116089) and Choi (KR-20180007562).
Regarding claims 17-18, Matsuzaki fails to indicate coating the hexamethyldisiloxane with plasma polymerization and sputtering or ion.
In analogous art of coating glass with hexamethyldisiloxane Choi discloses HMDSO can be deposited with plasma polymerization (page 6; paragraphs 1-6) or sputtering (page 5 last paragraph and ; paragraphs 1-11)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the 112 second paragraph rejections. All the previous reasons for 112 indefiniteness rejections are withdrawn in view of the present amendments except for the “large-area” the specification dimensions are not brought into the claim. dependent claim 2, recites the areas applicant argues are a “large-area” on page 9 of the remarks thus the dimensions applicant argues would not be able to be a limiting dependent.
Applicant argues it would not be obvious to repeat the removal of the mask and printing steps taught by Hori.
In response to this argument, Claim 1 recites a method for coating large-area glass substrates plural, thus in doing more than one substrate, which Hori suggests repeatedly conducting the printing [0057] however does not explicitly state masking and removing the mask with each successive printing step on a single substrate carrying it out on multiple substrates (10). Alternatively Examiner maintains it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Hori to include masking and removing the mask with each successive printing step as motivated to apply the ink in the desired location.
Applicant argues the mask of Kim requires acid etching removal and thus would not be a substitute for the mask of Hori. Examiner reads [0091]-[0092] where the masking printed layer using a cleaning solution and the cleaning solution including water and does not indicate the masking layer 360 necessarily removed by an acid. The [0073], [0087] of Kim Applicant sites do not refer to the masking layer being removed by etching.
In regards to claims 5, 7, and 17 the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). The recitation of improved adhesion due to the hexamethyldisiloxane in [0038] does not make the present claims novel. A skilled artisan would want good adhesion to the substrate for areas where the coating is desired to remain and the masking still serves the purpose of creating the desired pattern for desired product.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JODI COHEN FRANKLIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3966. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 am-4 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, Alison Hindelang can be reached at (571) 270-7001. 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.
JODI COHEN FRANKLIN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1741
/JODI C FRANKLIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights