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 1-6 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 1 contains “…” in formula (1) in line 5. It is unclear what “…” is intended to represent in the formula. For the purposes of examination, “…” will be considered to not be in the formula.
Claims 2-6 depend from claim 1 and, therefore, also contain this limitation.
Claim 1 contains the limitation “the solid content concentration change rate represents a solid concentration in the coating film 10 seconds after the spray coating with respect to a solid content concentration in the transparent porous film-forming paint before the spray coating” in lines 6-8. It is unclear what relationship “with respect to” is intended to encompass, e.g. difference between the values or ratio of the values. For the purposes of examination, “the solid content concentration change rate represents a solid concentration in the coating film 10 seconds after the spray coating with respect to a solid content concentration in the transparent porous film-forming paint before the spray coating” will be considered to mean that the solid content concentration change rate is a ratio of solid concentration in the coating film 10 seconds after the spray coating to a solid content concentration in the transparent porous film-forming paint before the spray coating.
Claims 2-6 depend from claim 1 and, therefore, also contain this limitation.
Claim 3 contains “…” in formula (2) in line 4. It is unclear what “…” is intended to represent in the formula. For the purposes of examination, “…” will be considered to not be in the formula.
Claim 3 contains formula (2) which includes both a “viscosity of the coating film 10 seconds after spray coating” and “x” where x “represents a solid content concentration in the coating film 10 seconds after the spray coating. However, neither the viscosity or solid content concentration contains units, nor do they have any indication of what units are intended. For the purposes of examination, both the viscosity and the solid content concentration in formula (2) will be considered to use any units.
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) 1-2 and 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koyo et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0115263, hereafter Koyo ‘263).
Claim 1: Koyo ‘263 teaches a method of producing a transparent porous film (abstract, claim 1) comprising:
spray coating a base material with a transparent porous film forming composition (abstract, claim 1, [0080]) containing a solvent, which corresponds to the claimed dispersion medium, containing particles (abstract, [0025]) to form a coating film (abstract, claim 1).
Koyo ‘263 further teaches that the rate of drying, and, therefore, the rate at which solvent is removed and, therefore, the rate of change of solid content concentration of the film forming composition, affects the leveling of the film of film forming composition and uniformity of appearance ([0075]).
With respect to claim 1, Koyo ‘263 does not explicitly teach that the solid content concentration change rate satisfies the formula 1.3≤solid content concentration change rate≤60.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the solid content concentration change rate in the method taught by Koyo ‘263 because the rate of drying, and, therefore, the rate at which solvent is removed and, therefore, the rate of change of solid content concentration of the film forming composition, affects the leveling of the film of coating liquid and uniformity of appearance, as taught by Koyo ‘263. See MPEP 2144.05.II.
Claim 2: With respect to claim 2, Koyo ‘263 does not explicitly teach that the solid concentration in the film forming composition is from 0.1 wt % to 6.0 wt%, or that the solid concentration 10 seconds after the spray coating is from 3.7 wt% to 6.5 wt%.
However, the claimed method differs from the method taught by Koyo ‘263 only in concentration, and it has been held that, generally, differences in concentration will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating that said concentration is critical. See MPEP 2144.05.II.A.
Claims 4-5: Koyo ‘263 teaches that the solvent can consist of, and therefore be 100 wt%, ethanol which has a boiling point of 78°C ([0075]).
Claim(s) 3 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koyo et al. ‘263 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hattori et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0215124, hereafter Hattori ‘124).
Claim 3: Koyo ‘263 teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. With respect to claim 3, Koyo ‘263 does not explicitly teach that a viscosity of the coating film 10 seconds after the spray coating satisfies the formula 0.0549e1.2x≤viscosity of coating film 10 seconds after spray coating≤0.0549e3.3x.
Hattori ‘124 teaches a method of making a transparent porous film ([0003], [0049], [0062]) comprising spray coating a base material with a film forming composition containing particles and a dispersion medium (abstract, [0131], [0165]). Hattori ‘124 teaches that the viscosity of the sprayed film forming composition affects the formation of streaks and defects and affects the formable thickness of a film formed from the film forming composition ([0147]). Both Koyo ‘263 and Hattori ‘124 teach methods of making a transparent porous film (‘263, abstract, claim 1; ‘124, [0003], [0049], [0062]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the viscosity of the film forming composition in the method taught by Koyo ‘263 because viscosity of the sprayed film forming composition affects the formation of streaks and defects and affects the formable thickness of a film formed from the film forming composition, as taught by Hattori ‘124. See MPEP 2144.05.II.
Claim 6: Koyo ‘263 teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Koyo ‘263 further teaches that the particles can be solid silica particles (abstract).
With respect to claim 6, Koyo ‘263 does not explicitly teach that the silica particles are porous particles.
Hattori ‘124 teaches a method of making a transparent porous film ([0003], [0049], [0062]) comprising spray coating a base material with a film forming composition containing particles and a dispersion medium (abstract, [0131], [0165]), where the particles can be silica particles ([0036], [0044], [0142]). Hattori ‘124 teaches that the silica particles can be porous ([0142]). Hattori ‘124 teaches that solid silica particles and porous silica particles are functional equivalents for the silica particles ([0044]). Both Koyo ‘263 and Hattori ‘124 teach methods of making a transparent porous film (‘263, abstract, claim 1; ‘124, [0003], [0049], [0062]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the porous silica particles taught by Hattori ‘124 for the solid silica particles used in the method taught by Koyo ’263 because solid silica particles and porous silica particles are functional equivalents for the silica particles in a transparent porous layer, as taught by Hattori ‘124. See MPEP 2144.06.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADFORD M GATES whose telephone number is (571)270-3558. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5.
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, Joshua Allen can be reached at (571) 270-3176. 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.
/BG/
/SHAMIM AHMED/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights