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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed, as the claims are directed to a product and not a method.
Claim Objections
Claim 24 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“formulae” should be “formula”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 17-21 and 25-26 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.
Regarding Claim 17, there is an issue of antecedent basis with regard to “at least a part of a surface of a substrate (F1)” that renders the claim indefinite. There is an issue of antecedent basis with regard to “at least a part of a surface of the substrate” that renders the claim indefinite. There is also an issue of antecedent basis regarding to “the composite (B1F1)” that renders the claim indefinite. There is an issue of antecedent basis with regard to “a composite (F1B1)” that renders the claim indefinite, as it is uncertain if F1B1 and B1F1 are the same or different.
Regarding Claim 18, the term “it” renders the claim indefinite, as it is uncertain what it is. There is an issue of antecedent basis with regard to “a coating composition (B2a)” that renders the claim indefinite. There is an issue of antecedent basis with regard to “a composite (B2B1F1)” that renders the claim indefinite.
Regarding Claim 19, there is an issue of antecedent basis with regard to “the composite (F1B1)” that renders the claim indefinite.
Regarding Claim 20, there is an issue of antecedent basis with regard to “a coating (B1)). There is an issue of antecedent basis with regard to “the composite (B1F1). There is an issue of antecedent basis with regard “a composite” that renders the claim indefinite. There is an issue of “film web (F1)”, which is already assigned a substrate.
Regarding Claim 21, there is an issue of antecedent basis with regard to “the composite (B1F1)” that renders the claim indefinite.
Regarding Claim 25, the term “easily separatable” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “easily” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. There is an issue of antecedent basis with regard to “the composite (B1F1)” that renders the claim indefinite.
Regarding Claim 26, there is an issue of antecedent basis with regard to “composite (B1F1)” that renders the claim indefinite.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16, 22-23, and 27-30 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The closest prior art is Leitgeb (NPL). However, Leitgeb does not teach the specific component (a) as recited in Claim 16, as detailed in the Arguments filed on 08/05/2024 in the parent Application of No. 17/041,487, and the arguments therein have been found persuasive.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-0358. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday: 9:30am-3:30pm, 8:30PM-10:30PM.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571) 270-1547. 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.
/Michael Zhang/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights