DETAILED ACTION
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract is more than one paragraph. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 5 and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities: please amend the limitations “described in claim 1” and “described in claim 5” to read “according to claim 1” and “according to claim 5” for consistency. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(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.
Claims 1 and 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kanetani (JP 2007-009079).
Kanetani discloses an optical coating composition having high transparency. Concerning claims 1 and 3-4, Kanetani discloses the coating composition comprises a cationically polymerizable silsesquioxane having a 3,4-epoxycyclohexyl reactive functional group and a solvent that can be a cyclohexanone (abstract; para. 0008-0028, 0033-0043, and 0048). With respect to claim 5, the resulting coating composition is coated onto a substrate and subsequently cured to form a coating (para. 0057-0060 and 0074).
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanetani (JP 2007-009079).
Kanetani discloses the above, including the solid content concentration is 20 to 70% in view of coatability, wherein the viscosity is also adjusted for proper coatability and can include and encompass the claimed range (para. 0043 and 0056). As such, in order to allow for the composition to be coated onto a substrate, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have the claimed viscosity for the composition.
Claims 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanetani (JP 2007-009079) in view of Oshima et al. (US 20050171310).
Kanetani discloses the above, including the coating composition is applied to plastic or glass substrates used as lenses or as part of a display device (para. 0057 and 0077). However, Kanetani is silent to the substrate being formed from a cycloolefin.
Oshima discloses cycloolefin optical materials. With respect to the claimed cycloolefin, Oshima discloses the cycloolefin optical material is used to form articles such as lenses or substrates for display devices (para. 0305-0306). Cycloolefins are used in optical applications because such materials have good optical transparency while also having heat resistance (para. 0306). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the cycloolefin of Oshima to form the optical substrate or lens of Kanetani, in order to produce substrates that are optically transparent and also heat resistant. Oshima further discloses the resins also have good adhesion to other materials; since the combination teaches the claimed structure and materials, the limitations of claims 7 and 8 would be met by the combination of references.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PRASHANT J KHATRI whose telephone number is (571)270-3470. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-6:30PM.
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, 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.
PRASHANT J. KHATRI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1783
/PRASHANT J KHATRI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights