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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (USPub20150219801) in view of (USPub20130164521).
Regarding claims 1 and 3: ‘801 teaches a glass comprising a glass substrate having a first surface and a fluorine-silane compound film on the first surface wherein the fluorine compound film can provide water contact angle of at least 90oC (0031) and even 120oC (see Ex 3 in Table). Note that as Applicants define “water-repellent” to be having a water contact angle of at least 90oC (see published specification par 0079), ‘801’s fluorine compound film is taken to be water-repellent as claimed and the glass having said film is taken to be water-repellent glass as claimed.
Prior to application of the fluorine compound film on the glass, the glass surface is etched (see entire document) which as shown in Fig 4 of ‘801, the surface of the glass will have a region where part of the glass is an aggregate of granular formations seamlessly extending from the glass and wherein there are at least some granular features that include a narrowed part where a dimension decreases toward an inner side of the glass.
Regarding the claim limitations shown below,
PNG
media_image1.png
314
528
media_image1.png
Greyscale
note that ‘801’s glass has the same structure as that claimed but just does not explicitly disclose measurements of the features in the manner claimed.
However, the Examiner notes the following comparison between Applicants disclosure with that of ‘801,
Applicants’ method
‘801’s method
Prepare the glass by cleaning (Fig. 5, published par 0095-0099)
Prepare glass (0064)
Etch the glass with hydrogen fluoride compound, which can include a carrier gas of N or Ar, wherein the fluoride compound is present at 0.1-10vol% and the etching is done at normal pressure air atmosphere at 250-650oC, 275-600oC or more preferably 300-600oC (Fig. 5, published par 0102-0106)
Etch the glass with hydrogen fluoride compound, which can include a carrier gas of N or Ar, wherein the fluoride compound is present at 0.1-10vol% and the etching is done at normal pressure air atmosphere at 250-650oC, 275-600oC or more preferably 300-600oC (0022-0027, 0075-0078)
Deposit water-repellent film which is a fluorine-containing silane (Fig 5, 0108-0110)
Deposit water-repellent film which is a fluorine-containing silane (0023-0024)
As shown above, ‘801 is substantially the same as that disclosed by Applicants’ except ‘801 just does not specify that their glass preparation step includes cleaning. However, given that it is well known in the art of etched glass to clean the glass surface prior to etching (see for instance 0031 in ‘521), one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to include in ‘801 a cleaning step in their glass preparation in order to ensure a clean surface prior to etching.
Given that ‘801 as modified above is the same as Applicants’, one skilled in the art would reasonably conclude the same resulting feature measurements to be present (MPEP 2112).
Regarding claim 2: As ‘801 is the same as that claimed as discussed above, one skilled in the art would reasonably conclude the same resulting concentration relationship to result (MPEP 2112).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAUREN ROBINSON COLGAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3474. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 9AM to 5PM.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-0604. 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.
LAUREN ROBINSON COLGAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1784
/LAUREN R COLGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights