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
Amendments to the claims, filed on 9/3/26, have been entered in the above-identified application.
Any rejections made in the previous action, and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 2-6 and 9 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 2 recites the limitation "hydrophilic resin" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "hydrophilic resin" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "hydrophilic resin" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "hydrophilic resin" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "hydrophilic resin" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "hydrophilic resin" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Examiner Note: for examination purposes, it will be assumed that the hydrophilic resin of the instant claims is referring to the polyvinyl alcohol resin of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koito et al (US 2019/0264065 A1) in view of Nakao et al (US 2011/0274914 A1).
Regarding claims 1-3, 10, 11, 13, and 16-20, Koito teaches a composition, comprising: chain silica fine particles; an alkoxysilane hydrolyzed condensate; and a thickener or water absorption polymer (i.e., hydrophilic resin wherein the hydrophilic resin has a hydroxyl group) such as polyvinyl alcohol (para 25, 28, 103, 97-112, 115, 119, 126, 130-131, 263-269).
Koito further teaches the composition may be applied as a film (e.g., anti-fogging layer) on a glass or resin (i.e., plastic) base material (i.e., forming a laminate) such as a lens or monitoring camera (i.e., an optical member) (para 52, 62, 181-191); and the void volume (i.e., porosity) inside the anti-fogging layer (i.e., a film comprising a hydrophilic resin) is 5% or more, and gives an examples of 10% to 50% (para 12, 53, 83-84, 258, 267) which lies within the range of the instant claims.
Koito fails to suggest wherein a content of a vinyl alcohol structural unit contained in the polyvinyl alcohol resin is from 30 to 90 mol %; wherein a content of a hydroxyl group directly bonded to a main chain of the hydrophilic resin is 35 mol% or less; wherein the polyvinyl alcohol resin is a modified polyvinyl alcohol resin containing an oxyalkylene group, an acetoacetyl group, a carboxyl group, or a sulfoxyl group, or a caprolactone-modified polyvinyl alcohol resin.
Nakao teaches a hydrophilic anti-fogging coating film which has high transparency and which is excellent in abrasion resistance comprising chain-like silica particles and a polyvinyl alcohol and/or a modified polyvinyl alcohol having an acetoacetyl group; wherein the coating composition for forming a hydrophilic coating film contains a water-soluble polyvinyl alcohol, the pore characteristics of the hydrophilic coating film will be good, it becomes possible to simultaneously attain high hydrophilicity and transparency and to impart abrasion resistance, and further, the uniform forming property of the hydrophilic coating film will be excellent (abstract, para 39, 42, 45-50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the polyvinyl alcohol and/or a modified polyvinyl alcohol of Nakao for the polyvinyl alcohol of Koito, since substituting known equivalents for the same purpose as recognized in prior art is prima facie obvious (MPEP § 2144.06 II); and since it is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use (MPEP § 2144.07). Furthermore, this substitution comes with the additional motivation of forming a hydrophilic coating wherein the pore characteristics of the hydrophilic coating film will be good, and it becomes possible to simultaneously attain high hydrophilicity and transparency and to impart abrasion resistance, and further, the uniform forming property of the hydrophilic coating film will be excellent.
With regard to the limitations wherein a content of a vinyl alcohol structural unit contained in the polyvinyl alcohol resin is from 30 to 90 mol %; wherein a content of a hydroxyl group directly bonded to a main chain of the hydrophilic resin is 35 mol% or less; Nakao teaches it is possible to use, as the binder, a combination of a plurality of water-soluble polyvinyl alcohols of different types in e.g. the saponification degree, molecular weight, modification, etc (para 49).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the content of a vinyl alcohol structural unit contained in the polyvinyl alcohol resin and the content of a hydroxyl group directly bonded to a main chain of the hydrophilic resin through routine experimentation to optimize the final properties of the coating and resultant film. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP § 2144.05 II A).
Regarding claim 4, Koito teaches the content of the silica particles in the anti-fogging layer is preferably in a range of 10% by mass to 90% by mass with respect to the total mass of the anti-fogging layer; the content of the siloxane binder in the anti-fogging layer is preferably 80% by mass or less; and the thickener or water absorption polymer is preferably in a range of 0.01% by mass to 40% with respect to the total mass of the anti-fogging coating composition (para 122, 138, 269); which would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art that the content of the hydrophilic resin is more than 1 part by mass relative to 100 parts by mass of a total amount of the chain silica fine particles and the alkoxysilane hydrolyzed condensate.
Regarding claims 5-6, Koito teaches the content of the silica particles in the anti-fogging layer is preferably in a range of 10% by mass to 90% by mass with respect to the total mass of the anti-fogging layer; the content of the siloxane binder in the anti-fogging layer is preferably 80% by mass or less; and the thickener or water absorption polymer is preferably in a range of 0.01% by mass to 40% with respect to the total mass of the anti-fogging coating composition (para 122, 138, 269). These ranges substantially overlap that of the instant claims. It has been held that overlapping ranges are sufficient to establish prima facie obviousness. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Koito, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP § 2144.05).
Furthermore, "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP § 2144.05 II A).
Regarding claims 7 and 9, the Examiner takes official notice that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would have understood that both the weight-average molecular weight of the alkoxysilane hydrolyzed condensate and the average polymerization degree of the hydrophilic resin would have affected the properties (e.g., viscosity and/or processability) of the composition as well as the final film (e.g., tensile strength, toughness, and elongation at break), so it would have been obvious to ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to adjust the weight-average molecular weight of the alkoxysilane hydrolyzed condensate and the average polymerization degree of the hydrophilic resin to optimize the properties of the composition as well as the final film.
Regarding claim 8, Koito teaches the average primary particle diameter of the metal oxide particles is preferably 100 nm or less (para 172) which suggest values that lie within the range of the instant claims.
Regarding claim 12, Koito teaches the film thickness of the anti-fogging layer is more than 1 µm (i.e., 1,000 nm) and 10 µm (i.e., 10,000 nm) or less (para 53, 73) which lies within the range of the instant claims.
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Koitio teaches adjusting the particle diameter of the added metal oxide particles to optimize the index of refraction of the coating; and since the anti-fogging layer has appropriate voids (i.e., pores) therein, the water absorption organic polymer absorbs water at the time of the anti-fogging layer exhibiting the anti-fogging properties, and the voids play a role of compensating for an increase in volume even at the time of the anti-fogging layer being swollen (para 58, 167-172); so it would have been obvious to ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to adjust the particle diameter of the added metal oxide particles to optimize the index of refraction of the coating; as well as to adjust the size of the voids to properly compensate for an increase in volume at the time of the anti-fogging layer is swollen.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the instant claims have been considered but are moot due to the new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of a new combination of prior art of record. The Applicant is directed to the 35 USC § 103 section above.
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 NATHAN L VAN SELL whose telephone number is (571)270-5152. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur, Generally 7am-6pm.
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, M. Veronica Ewald can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
NATHAN VAN SELL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1783
/NATHAN L VAN SELL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights