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 .
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.
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the centre to centre distance" in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the centre to centre distance" in line 1 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
(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) 1-5, 7-14, 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Okamoto et al. (EP4001347).
Regarding claim 1, Okamoto et al. discloses a method of manufacturing a water-soluble sheet having an area of structured surface pattern, the structured surface pattern having one or more structural features having a measurement of less than 1000 micron wherein the method comprises the steps of:
Providing a substrate having an area of complementary structured surface pattern;
Depositing a solution comprising a water-soluble polymer onto the substrate; and
Drying the solution to form a water-soluble sheet comprising an area of structured surface pattern (see abstract, para 66-83, table 1, claim 2, 4-6, fig. 1-2).
Regarding claim 2, Okamoto et al. discloses a method of manufacturing a water-soluble sheet having an area of structured surface pattern, the structured surface pattern having one or more structural features having a measurement of less than 1000 micron, the method comprising the steps of:
Providing a mixture comprising a water-soluble polymer;
Extruding the mixture through a die;
Contacting the mixture with a substrate having an area of complementary structured surface pattern; and
Forming a water-soluble sheet comprising an area of structured surface pattern form the mixture (see abstract, para 66-83, 103-106, table 1, claim 2, 4-6, fig. 1-2).
Regarding claims 3 and 12, Okamoto et al. discloses wherein the area of complementary structured surface pattern covers from 1-50% of the surface of at least one side of the substrate (see fig. 1-2).
Regarding claim 4 and 13, Okamoto et al. discloses wherein the complementary structured surface pattern comprises one or more depressions and/or protrusions (fig. 1-2, claim 2, table 1, para 82).
Regarding claim 5 and 14, Okamoto et al. discloses wherein the depression is a groove, a rectangular depression, a circular depression, a cross shaped depression, and/or a hexagonal shaped depression (fig. 1-2, claim 2, table 1, para 82).
Regarding claim 7 and 16, Okamoto et al. discloses wherein the depressions and/or protrusion have a centre to centre distance between adjacent depression and/or protrusion of from 1 nm – 100 micron (table 1).
Regarding claim 8 and 17, Okamoto et al. discloses wherein the centre to centre distance between adjacent depression and/or protrusions is substantially the same (fig. 1-2, table 1).
Regarding claim 9 and 18, Okamoto et al. discloses wherein the protrusions and/or depressions are parallel (see fig. 1-2).
Regarding claim 10 and 19, Okamoto et al. discloses wherein the water-soluble polymer is PVOH (para 67-69, 103, table 1, claim 1).
Regarding claim 11 and 20, Okamoto et al. discloses wherein the substate is a metal, polymeric material, silicon, or silicon derivative (para 70, 104).
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) 6 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okamoto et al. (EP4001347).
Regarding claim 6 and 15, Okamoto et al. discloses wherein the complementary structured surface pattern comprises depressions. Okamoto et al. does not teach wherein the protrusion is a groove, a rectangular protrusion, a circular protrusion, a cross shaped protrusion, and/or a hexagonal shaped protrusion. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select protrusion as the complementary structured surface pattern since it’s a matter of design choice which does not affect the function of providing surface roughness to the film surface.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XUE H LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-5522. The examiner can normally be reached 1PM - 10PM.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached at 5702721176. 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.
/X.H.L/Examiner, Art Unit 1742 /CHRISTINA A JOHNSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1742