CTNF 18/888,589 CTNF 92289 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 12-13 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. Claims 12 and 13 use the indefinite term “chain-like” in describing the claimed particles. It is unclear at what threshold particles begin or cease to be “chain-like,” and in what manner are they “chain-like” (i.e., “chain-like” could refer to a distance between particles, in which case two particles in contact are chain-like, or instead, “chain-like” could refer to a specific, larger number of particles which are adjacent, in which case, 10 particles which are only adjacent but not touching could be considered “chain-like”). In the interest of compact prosecution, the claim will be interpreted as directed to particles which form a porous structure. Claim 13 uses the phrase “chain-like particles and hollow particles,” but it is unclear if the claim is attempting to specify a mixture of “chain-like” particles and hollow particles, or particles which are both “chain-like” and hollow. In the interest of compact prosecution, the claim will be interpreted as specifying separate “chain-like” chain-like (i.e., forming a porous structure, per the previous rejection of indefiniteness, as “chain-like” is indefinite) and hollow particles. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-12 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Janoski (US2018/0304576A1) in view of Takahashi et al (JP2012058590A). Takahashi is read from an English machine translation which has been placed in the application file . With regards to claim 1, Janoski discloses a film (i.e., a member) comprising a (meth)acrylic polymer base film layer 42 with an array of peaks 44 located thereon (i.e., a resin base material having a surface with a fine uneven structure), wherein the area between the peaks is filled with a filling material 45 (i.e., a layer made of material formed on the resin base material so as to be positioned on the fine uneven structure side, including a filling portion defined by an air gap of the fine uneven structure) (Janoski: para. [0031]-[0032]; Fig. 4). Additional amount of the filling material 45 is located over the array of peaks 44 (i.e., a surface layer located on the fine uneven structure) (Janoski: Fig. 4). The filling material may also include inorganic oxide nanoparticles such as silica nanoparticles (i.e., the layer positioned on the fine uneven structure side contains particles which are therefore formed on the resin base material) (Janoski: para. [0040]). The height of the array of peaks (i.e., height of the protruding portions) ranges from 25 nm to about 1 micron (assuming a nanostructured film is formed), which overlaps the claimed range of 120 nm or less (Janoski: para. [0056]). The filling material 45 may have a thickness which is greater than or equal to the array of peak structures 44, though it is noted that the thickness of the structure corresponding to the claimed surface layer is equivalent to the thickness of the filling material 45 minus the height of the array of peaks 44, though for a nanostructured film, the heights/thicknesses used are less than 1 micron, and therefore, as best understood, for a nanostructured film, the maximum surface layer thickness would then be one micron (i.e., the range of up to 1 micron overlaps the range of 150 nm or less) (Janoski: para. [0056] Fig. 4). Instances of overlapping ranges have been held sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness, per MPEP 2144.05. Janoski does not appear to disclose its layer located on the fine uneven structure side (i.e., its filling material) as constituting a porous layer. Takahashi is directed to an antireflection structure comprising an intermediate layer 12 having projection parts 13, and a porous layer 14 filling in regions between and above projection parts 13 (Takahashi – Translation: abstract; page 8, “DESCRIPTION OF SYMBOLS”; Fig. 1). The porous layer 14 includes mesoporous silica in order to impart excellent antireflection characteristics (Takahashi: page 5, “Although the porous layer…” and “As the mesoporous structure…”). The dimensions of the structure of Takahashi are similar to those of Janoski (i.e., Takahashi discloses a protrusion height of 30 nm to 1000 nm, with the thickness of the filling layer being depicted as a similar order of magnitude) (Takahashi: page 5, “In addition, the height of the protrusions…”; Fig. 1). Takahashi and Janoski are analogous art in that they are related to the same field of endeavor of uneven structures having filling materials located between and above adjacent peaks. In addition, Takahashi is considered reasonably pertinent to the claimed invention, since it solves the same problem (i.e., providing antireflection properties) using the same material (i.e., a porous material located between peaks within a fine uneven structure) (Takahashi: page 5, “Although the porous layer…” and “As the mesoporous structure…”). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have included the mesoporous silica of Takahashi in the filling material of Janoski (thereby rendering the filling material of Janoski a porous layer) in order to provide improved antireflection properties (Takahashi: page 5, “Although the porous layer…” and “As the mesoporous structure…”). With regards to claim 2, Janoski discloses a structure width, including either peaks or valleys (i.e., including a distance between protruding portions, as the “valleys” are the distance between protruding portions) of up to 2 mm, which overlaps the claimed range of 20 nm or more and 300 nm or less (Janoski: para. [0058]). Instances of overlapping ranges have been held sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness, per MPEP 2144.05. With regards to claim 3, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have selected a refractive index of 1.2 or more and 1.3 or less for the filling material (i.e., porous layer) of Janoski and Takahashi, in order to provide improved antireflection characteristics (Takahashi: page 6, “In the porous layer in the present invention…”). This range overlaps the claimed range of 1.15 or more and 1.30 or less, thereby stablishing a prima facie case of obviousness, per MPEP 2144.05. With regards to claim 4, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have selected a refractive index of 1.2 or more and 1.3 or less for the filling material (i.e., porous layer) of Janoski and Takahashi, in order to provide improved antireflection characteristics (Takahashi: page 6, “In the porous layer in the present invention…”). This range overlaps the claimed range of 1.18 or more and 1.26 or less, thereby stablishing a prima facie case of obviousness, per MPEP 2144.05. With regards to claim 5, Janoski depicts peak structures which are the same width and height as the valleys, which corresponds to a volume ratio of 50% (i.e., the peak volume is equal to the valley volume, the valleys corresponding to the filling portion, and the peaks corresponding to the fine uneven structure) (Janoski: Figs. 4 and 7). With regards to claim 6, Janoski teaches a transmission of visible light (which has a wavelength of 380 to 750 nm) of at least 95% (i.e., since the total amount of reflectance + transmittance + absorbance = 100%, this implies a reflectance of 5% or less) (Janoski: para. [0140]. These ranges taught by Janoski overlap the claimed ranges (i.e., a wavelength of from 400 nm to 700 nm, and an average reflectance of less than 0.50%), thereby stablishing a prima facie case of obviousness, per MPEP 2144.05. With regards to claim 7, the surface layer of Janoski and Takahashi has a thickness of less than 1 micron, which overlaps the claimed range of 120 nm or less (see above discussion). Instances of overlapping ranges have been held sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness, per MPEP 2144.05. With regards to claim 8, the surface layer of Janoski and Takahashi has a thickness of less than 1 micron, which overlaps the claimed range of 80 nm or less (see above discussion). Instances of overlapping ranges have been held sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness, per MPEP 2144.05. With regards to claim 9, the height of the array of peaks (i.e., height of the protruding portions) ranges from 25 nm to about 1 micron (assuming a nanostructured film is formed), which overlaps the claimed range of 10 nm or more (see above discussion). Instances of overlapping ranges have been held sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness, per MPEP 2144.05. With regards to claim 10, the resin base material is (meth)acrylic polymer (i.e., a polymethacrylic acid acrylic resin). With regards to claim 11, the particles are made of silica (see above discussion). With regards to claim 12, the particles form a mesoporous (i.e., porous) structure (see above discussion). With regards to claim 14, the resin base material may be further laminated to a backing comprising, for example, glass woven or nonwoven fabric (i.e., a glass base material) (Janoski: para. [0046]). With regards to claim 15, Janoski discloses a film (i.e., a member) comprising a (meth)acrylic polymer base film layer 42 with an array of peaks 44 located thereon (i.e., a resin base material having a surface with a fine uneven structure), wherein the area between the peaks is filled with a filling material 45 (i.e., a layer made of material formed on the resin base material so as to be positioned on the fine uneven structure side, including a filling portion defined by an air gap of the fine uneven structure) (Janoski: para. [0031]-[0032]; Fig. 4). Additional amount of the filling material 45 is located over the array of peaks 44 (i.e., a surface layer located on the fine uneven structure) (Janoski: Fig. 4). The filling material may also include inorganic oxide nanoparticles such as silica nanoparticles (i.e., the layer positioned on the fine uneven structure side contains particles which are therefore formed on the resin base material) (Janoski: para. [0040]). Janoski teaches a transmission of visible light (which has a wavelength of 380 to 750 nm) of at least 95% (i.e., since the total amount of reflectance + transmittance + absorbance = 100%, this implies a reflectance of 5% or less) (Janoski: para. [0140]. These ranges taught by Janoski overlap the claimed ranges (i.e., a wavelength of from 400 nm to 700 nm, and an average reflectance of less than 0.50%), thereby stablishing a prima facie case of obviousness, per MPEP 2144.05. Janoski does not appear to disclose its layer located on the fine uneven structure side (i.e., its filling material) as constituting a porous layer. Takahashi is directed to an antireflection structure comprising an intermediate layer 12 having projection parts 13, and a porous layer 14 filling in regions between and above projection parts 13 (Takahashi – Translation: abstract; page 8, “DESCRIPTION OF SYMBOLS”; Fig. 1). The porous layer 14 includes mesoporous silica in order to impart excellent antireflection characteristics (Takahashi: page 5, “Although the porous layer…” and “As the mesoporous structure…”). The dimensions of the structure of Takahashi are similar to those of Janoski (i.e., Takahashi discloses a protrusion height of 30 nm to 1000 nm, with the thickness of the filling layer being depicted as a similar order of magnitude) (Takahashi: page 5, “In addition, the height of the protrusions…”; Fig. 1). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have included the mesoporous silica of Takahashi in the filling material of Janoski (thereby rendering the filling material of Janoski a porous layer) in order to provide improved antireflection properties (Takahashi: page 5, “Although the porous layer…” and “As the mesoporous structure…”) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Janoski in view of Takahashi et al as applied to claim 11 above, and in further view of Tanabe et al (WO2008062605A1). Tanabe is read from an English machine translation which has been placed in the application file . With regards to claim 13, Janoski and Takahashi teach a member comprising mesoporous particles as applied to claim 11 above (see above discussion). However, Janoski and Takahashi fail to teach hollow particles. Tanabe is directed to an antireflection coating material and antireflection film comprising hollow particles, such as hollow silica particles (Tanabe: para. [0001]-[0003]). From the citations of Tanabe, it is noted that hollow particles are exceptionally well-known in the art (Tanabe: para. [0014]-[0015] and [0020]). Tanabe teaches that its hollow particles have improved refractive index and achieve low translucency, are less expensive, have improved strength, and are capable of providing improved distribution to corrosion inhibitors (Tanabe: para. [0031]-[0034] and [0041]). Janoski, Takahashi, and Tanabe are analogous art in that they are related to the same field of endeavor of antireflective articles. Tanabe is reasonably pertinent to the claimed invention in that it uses the same material (hollow particles) for the same purpose (providing low refractive index while maintaining strength) (Tanabe: para. [0031]-[0034] and [0041]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have added hollow particles to the porous material of Janoski and Takahashi, as such materials are well- known in the art, and further, to provide improved refractive index, translucency, cost, strength, and corrosion resistance (Tanabe: para. [0031]-[0034] and [0041]). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ETHAN WEYDEMEYER whose telephone number is (571)270-1907. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 - 5:00. 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, Maria V. 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. /ETHAN WEYDEMEYER/ Examiner, Art Unit 1783 Application/Control Number: 18/888,589 Page 2 Art Unit: 1783 Application/Control Number: 18/888,589 Page 3 Art Unit: 1783 Application/Control Number: 18/888,589 Page 4 Art Unit: 1783 Application/Control Number: 18/888,589 Page 5 Art Unit: 1783 Application/Control Number: 18/888,589 Page 6 Art Unit: 1783 Application/Control Number: 18/888,589 Page 7 Art Unit: 1783 Application/Control Number: 18/888,589 Page 8 Art Unit: 1783 Application/Control Number: 18/888,589 Page 9 Art Unit: 1783
Prosecution Insights