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 .
Remark
This Office Action is in response to applicant’s preliminary amendment filed on April 22, 2025 which has been entered into the file.
By this amendment, the applicant has amended claims 1-3 and 6-10.
Claims 1-14 remain pending in this application.
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.
Claim 5 is 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.
The phrase “intermediate film” recited in claim 5 is confusing and indefinite since it is not clear this intermediate film structural and logical relates to the transparent base and the transparent superhydrophobic layer recited in its base claim. The scopes of the claim are unclear and the claim can only be examined in the broadest interpretation.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6 and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakamatsu (US 2020/0290330 A1).
Nakamatsu teaches, with regard to claim 1, teaches a super water-repellent film that serves as the light-transmitting plate, that is comprised of a transparent base (2, Figures 1 and 8D), and a transparent polymer layer (3) that serves as the transparent superhydrophobic layer which is comprised of a polymer film body and a plurality of projections (4) and recesses serves as the nano array structure. The polymer film body is formed on a surface of the transparent base (2) and the nano array structure or the plurality of projections (4) is integrally formed on a surface of the polymer film body away from the transparent base (2, please see Figures 1 and 8D). The nano array structure or the plurality of projections (4) is arranged at a single layer and a periodicity or pitch of the nano array structure is less than or equal to a wavelength of incident light or a target light ray transmitting through the light-transmitting plate, (please see the abstract).
With regard to claim 4, Nakamatsu teaches that the transparent superhydrophobic layer (3) is prepared on the transparent base (2) by using a first raw material (5, Figures 8A-8D) through a die (6) that can be included in a nanoimprinting process. Although this reference does not teach explicitly that the die is included in a nanoimprint process, this feature is a considered to be a product-by-process limitation that is not given patentable weight for it does not differentiate the final product from the prior art, (please see MPEP 2173.05(p)).
With regard to claim 6, Nakamatsu teaches that the nano array structure or the plurality of projections (4, Figures 1 and 8D) comprises a conical shape or conical-like shape.
With regard to claim 8, the ratio of an area of the upper surface of the nano array structure or the plurality of projections to an area of a plane in which the nano array structure is located is less than 30%.
With regard to claim 9, Nakamatsu teaches that the average diameter or width of the plurality of nanostructures or the plurality of the projections may be in the range of 100 nm to 300 nm, (please see paragraph [0039]) and the average height may be in the range of 100 nm to 300 nm, (please see paragraph [0037]). For the light transmits through the light transmitting plate to be visible, (please see the abstract), the wavelength range will be in 400 nm to 700 nm. This means the ratio of the average diameter or width to the wavelength is in he range of 1:40 to 1:2 and the ratio of the average height to the wavelength is in the range of 1:10 to 1:1.
This reference has therefore anticipated the claims.
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) 2-3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamatsu in view of the US patent application publication by Thompson et al (US 2022/0177303 A1).
The super water-repellent film taught by Nakamatsu as described in claim 1 above has met all the limitations of the claims.
With regard to claim 2, Nakamatsu teaches that the nano array structure of the transparent superhydrophobic layer or the transparent polymer layer (3) comprises fluorine-containing agent, (please see paragraph [0034]). This reference however does not teach explicitly that the content of the fluorine element increases from inside of the nano array structure to a surface of the nano array structure. Thompson et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a nanostructure (803, Figure 8) that may be hydrophobic, (please see paragraph [0001]). Thompson et al teaches to include a fluorinated polymer layer (801, please see paragraph [0043]) deposited on the nanostructure (803). Thompson et al teaches that the degree of hydrophobicity can be increased by increasing the fluorine content, (please see paragraph [0022]). As shown in Figure 8 of Thompson et al teaches that the content of the fluorine increases from the inside of the nano array structure to a surface of the nano array structure. It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Thompson et al to make the content of the fluorine increases from inside of the surface and to the surface of the nano array structure for the benefit of increasing the hydrophobicity of the super water-repellent film.
With regard to claim 3, these references do not teach explicitly about the contents of the fluorine element at the upper surface of the nano array structure and at a position 50 nm from the surface. However, since Thompson et al teaches that the hydrophobicity may be increased by increasing the fluorine content, (please see paragraph [0022]), it would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Thompson et al to modify the contents of the fluorine element at different positions of the nano array structure for the benefit of controlling the hydrophobicity of the super water-repellent film.
With regard to claim 5, it is rejected under 35 USC 112, second paragraph, for the reasons set forth above. It therefore can only be examined in the broadest interpretation. Nakamatsu teaches that the nano array structure or the plurality of projections (4, Figures 1 and 8D) is prepared on the transparent base (2) by using a second raw material (5, Figures 8A-8D) through a die (6) that can be included in a nanoimprinting process. Although this reference does not teach explicitly that the die is included in a nanoimprint process, this feature is a considered to be a product-by-process limitation that is not given patentable weight for it does not differentiate the final product from the prior art, (please see MPEP 2173.05(p)).
Thompson et al further teaches that the nano array structure is prepared on a transparent base (805, Figure 8) from by using a hydrophobic substance to form a hydrophobic film (801, Figure 8) on the nano array structure or nanostructure (803).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamatsu in view of the US patent application publication by Sekhar (US 2021/0331220 A1).
The super water-repellent film taught by Nakamatsu as described in claim 1 above has met all the limitations of the claims.
With regard to claim 7, Nakamatsu teaches that the nano array structure comprises a plurality of nanostructures or projections (4, Figures 1 and 8D). This reference however does not teach explicitly a nano-level rough structure is on a surface of each of the plurality of nanostructures. Sekhar in the same field of endeavor teaches a nanostructure that has super-hydrophobic characteristics wherein on each surface of the nanostructure a nano-level rough structure is formed, (please see Figure 7). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Sekhar to modify the plurality of projections or the nano array structure of Nakamatsu to add nano-level rough structure for the benefit of improving the hydrophobicity of the structure.
Claim(s) 10-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamatsu in view of the US patent application publication by Sorensen et al (US 2022/0175224 A1).
The super water-repellent film taught by Nakamatsu as described in claim 1 above has met all the limitations of the claims.
With regard to claim 10, Nakamatsu teaches that the super water-repellent film may be attached to a display service, (please see paragraph [0030]). It however does not teach explicitly to include a mechanical part comprises a window portion. Sorensen et al in the same field of endeavor teaches an endoscope comprises a housing (1, Figure 9) serves as the mechanical part that comprises a front surface (15) serves as the window portion. The housing implicitly comprises a side frame portion that is disposed on the outer side of the window portion. Sorensen et al teaches that the front surface or the window portion may comprise a nano-structure (18, Figure 8) that provides hydrophobic properties, (please see paragraphs [0041] and [0044]). It would then have been obvious to apply the teachings of Sorensen et al to make the super water-repellent film of Nakamatsu be utilized in an endoscope device.
With regard to claim 11, Sorensen et al teaches that the front surface or window (15, Figure 9) may be formed within the housing that implicitly includes a side frame. Although this reference does not teach explicitly that the side frame portion has a connection structure to detachably connect the side frame portion to the housing or device body, such is either implicitly included or obvious modification to one skilled in the art for the benefit of allowing the front surface with the nano-structure be detachably connected to the housing. Furthermore, using thread as the connection means is common practice in the art. One skilled in the art would use art well-known thread structure to connect the frame portion to the housing.
With regard to claim 12, Sorensen et al teaches that the device is an endoscope including a camera which implicitly makes the endoscope a photosensitive apparatus.
With regard to claim 13, Sorensen et al teaches that the photosensitive apparatus or the endoscope has a light transmitting portion (15 and 13, Figure 9) that is connected to the housing and seals the light transmitting portion (please see Figure 9). Sorensen et al teaches that the nano-structure with hydrophobic properties may be either formed on front surface (15) or inner surface (13, please see paragraph [0045]). This means that the window and the light transmitting portion may be opposite to each other.
With regard to claim 14, Sorensen et al teaches the photosensitive device or the endoscope may comprise a cleaning nozzle serves as the cleaning mechanism that is configured to clean the window, (please see paragraph [0017]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUDREY Y CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-2309. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 900AM-430PM.
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, Stephone B Allen can be reached at 571-272-2434. 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.
AUDREY Y. CHANG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/AUDREY Y CHANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights