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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/19/2025 was filed and is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 6-9, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being disclosed by Tada (US 2022/0128738, of record).
Regarding claim 1, Tada discloses a multilayer film that is provided on a substrate (see Fig 1; Para [0207]; a dielectric multilayer film 100 provided on a glass substrate 101), the multilayer film comprising: a silicon oxide layer that has a moth eye structure on a surface thereof and exhibits hydrophilicity (see Fig 1; Para [0181, 0207]; a multilayer film comprises a layer of SiO2, layer 106, which exhibit a hydrophilic function; examiner is taking moth eye structure as micro/nano optical structures such as the microstructures 31); and a titanium oxide layer that is disposed in contact with the silicon oxide layer and exhibits a photocatalytic function (see Fig 1; Para [0180 and 0207]; a functional layer 105 is in contact with the SiO2 layer and exhibits photocatalytic capabilities).
Regarding claim 2, Tada discloses the multilayer film according to claim 1 (see Fig 1). Tada further discloses wherein the titanium oxide layer is disposed between the silicon oxide layer and the substrate (see Fig 1; Para [0180, 0207]; the titanium oxide layer 105 is disposed between the oxide layer 106 and the substrate 101).
Regarding claim 3, Tada discloses the multilayer film according to claim 1 (see Fig 1), wherein the silicon oxide layer includes a functional group exhibiting hydrophilicity (see Fig 1; Para [0182]; Hydrophilic Silicon dioxide contains Silanol groups on the surface layer which produce the hydrophilic effect).
Regarding claim 6, Tada discloses the multilayer film according claim 1 (see Fig 1). Tada further discloses wherein a water contact angle is 5° or less (see Fig 1; see Table VI; Water contact angle of the embodiment of dielectric multilayer film 51 is 5 degrees).
Regarding claim 7, Tada discloses the multilayer film according to claim 1(see Fig 1). Tada further discloses wherein a haze is 3.2% or less (see Fig 1; see Table VI; Haze of dielectric multilayer film no. 51 is rated at BB or less than 1.0%).
Regarding claim 8, Tada discloses the multilayer film according to claim 1 (see Fig 1). Tada further discloses wherein an interlayer having an antireflection function is provided between the substrate and the titanium oxide layer (see Fig 1; Para [0207-208]; a dielectric film 100 contains an interlayer having antireflective properties, layers 104-102, and is provided between the Titanium layer 105 and the glass substrate 101).
Regarding claim 9, Tada discloses an optical member (see Fig 1; Para [0196]) comprising: the multilayer film according to claim 1; and the substrate with the multilayer film provided on a surface thereof, wherein the substrate is a flat substrate having a flat surface or an optical lens having a predetermined curvature (see Figs 22A; Para [0405]; the substrate 101 is provided with multilayer film on a surface; the substrate is flat as see in Figs 22A-E).
Regarding claim 11, Tada further discloses an imaging device comprising: the optical member according to claim 9 (see Fig 1; Para [0196]).
Regarding claim 12, Tada further discloses a method of producing the multilayer film according to claim 1 (see Fig 1; Para [0185]; discloses a method of producing the multilayer film).
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tada (US 2022/0128738, of record).
Regarding claim 4, Tada discloses the multilayer film according to claim 1(see Fig 1). Tada further discloses wherein the moth eye structure has a height of 120 nm to 400 nm (see Fig 1; Para [0080]; height is equivalent to max pore depth as seen in Fig 1; in a range of 10 to 300nm), and a period of 80 nm to 220 nm (see Fig 1; Para [0085]; average period length is in the range of 20 to 5000nm).
Since Tada’s range of height and period is similar to the claimed range (i.e., claimed height 120 nm to 400 nm and period 80 nm to 220 nm similar to prior art range 10 to 300nm and 20 to 5000nm), a prima facia case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05. OVERLAPPING, APPROACHING, AND SIMILAR RANGES, AMOUNTS, AND PROPORTIONS In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tada (US 2022/0128738, of record) in view of Ozaki (US 2016/0158738).
Regarding claim 5, Tada discloses the multilayer film according to claim 1 (see Fig 1). wherein the titanium oxide layer has a film thickness of 250 nm to 500 nm (see Fig 1; see Table II; Dielectric film 10 has a functional layer thickness of 270nm).
Tada does not disclose wherein the ultraviolet irradiation energy necessary for photocatalytic activity is 7 J/cm2 or less. Tada and Ozaki are related because both disclose multilayer films.
Ozaki discloses a multilayer film (see Fig 3) wherein the ultraviolet irradiation energy necessary for photocatalytic activity is 7 J/cm2 or less (see Fig 3; Para [0273]; amount of radiant energy applied can be at least 1.0 J/cm^2 for irradiation energy needed for photocatalytic activity)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Tada with wherein the ultraviolet irradiation energy necessary for photocatalytic activity is 7 J/cm2 or less for the purpose of properly activating said layer in order to induce the photocatalytic effect (Para [0273])
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tada (US 2022/0128738, of record) in view of Nakayama (US 2017/0176644).
Regarding claim 10, Tada discloses the multilayer film according to claim 1(see Fig 1).
Tada does not disclose wherein reflectivity is 0.05% or less in a case where light having a wavelength of 400 nm to 700 nm is vertically incident. Tada and Nakayama are related because both disclose multilayer films.
Nakayama discloses a multilayer film (see Fig 2) wherein reflectivity is 0.05% or less in a case where light having a wavelength of 400 nm to 700 nm is vertically incident (see Fig 2; Para [0142, 0151]; see Table 1; reflectance of the multilayer film may be of an average of 0.025% for the wavelength 400nm to 700nm)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Tada with wherein reflectivity is 0.05% or less in a case where light having a wavelength of 400 nm to 700 nm is vertically incident of Nakayama for the purpose of obtaining an excellent antireflection effect and environmental reliability (Para [0009])
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Terada (US 2011/0014432) discloses a multilayer film that has hydrophilic properties and may comprise a top layer with microstructures.
Jin (US 2014/0011013) discloses a multilayer film with super hydrophilic properties together with photocatalytic properties.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL ANDRES SANZ whose telephone number is (571)272-3844. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 am -5:30 pm.
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, Pinping Sun can be reached at (571) 270-1284. 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.
/G.A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/WILLIAM R ALEXANDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights