DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after February 6, 2025, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Application
Receipt is acknowledged of Applicants claimed invention filed on 02/06/2025 in the matter of Application N° 19/101,686. Said documents are entered on the record. The Examiner further acknowledges the following:
Thus, claims 1-10 represent all claims currently under consideration.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito et al. (JP2020040934A), in view of Takashi et al. (JP2017217773A), and further in view of Yokozuka et al. (JP2018048320A), and Walther et al. (WO2021086750A1), and Mizuno et al. (WO2013125081A1), and Kaneko et al. (JP2011073363A), and Mizuno et al. (US20140295145A1), and Nishitani et al. Antibacterial effect on microscale rough surface formed by fine particle bombarding (2022), and Tanno et al. (EP3930060A1/WO2020170733A1), and Strube et al. (WO2016040122A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ito et al. discloses a structure comprising a substrate having a rough surface. Ito et al. teaches providing an antimicrobial-component containing cured binder on the surface of the substrate, wherein the cured binder may be provided in an island-like configuration or such that regions containing the cured binder and regions not containing the cured binder coexist on the surface, thereby forming irregularities comprising concave and convex portions on the surface (See Abstract and paragraph 13).
Ito et al. further teaches controlling the surface roughness to provide desirable antimicrobial properties. In particular, Ito et al. teaches that providing an appropriately roughened surface increases the surface area and increases the probability of contact between microorganisms and the antimicrobial component. Ito et al. further teaches that microorganisms may be trapped within valleys of the roughened surface, thereby increasing contact between the microorganisms and the antimicrobial component (See Description paragraph 9).
Ito et al. does not expressly disclose wherein the rough surface has an arithmetic mean heigh (Sa) of 0.09 µm or greater and 1.21 µm or less and a ratio (Sq/Sa) between a root mean square height (Sq) and the arithmetic mean height (Sa) of 1.22 or greater and 2.36 or less.
However, Takashi et al. disclose a resin-molded article comprising a hard-coat film having fine irregularities provided on at least a portion of its surface. Takashi et al. characterize the fine uneven surface using three-dimensional surface roughness parameters according to ISO 25178, including arithmetic mean heigh Sa and root mean square height Sq. Takashi et al. teach an Sa range of 0.05 µm to 0.5 µm, which overlaps the presently claimed range of 0.09 µm to 1.21 µm (See paragraph 5, 24, and 27).
Takashi et al. further disclose an exemplary fine uneven surface having an Sa of 0.063 µm and an Sq of 0.079 µm, corresponding to an Sq/Sa ratio of approximately 1.25, which falls within the claimed range of 1.22 to 2.36 (See Description paragraph 16). Takashi et al. additionally disclose a fine uneven surface having an Sa of 0.069 µm and an Sq of 0.089 µm, corresponding to an Sq/Sa ratio of approximately 1.29, which also falls within the claimed range (See Description paragraph 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the instant effective filing date of the claimed invention to characterized and control the rough surface of Ito et al. using the three-dimensional area surface roughness parameters Sa and Sq, as taught by Takashi et al., because Takashi et al. teach that such parameters provide quantitative characterization of fine surface irregularities. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated to characterize and control the surface topography in this manner in order to obtain a desired degree of surface roughness and associated surface properties.
Yokozuka et al. further teaches controlling the three-dimensional surface roughness of a resin surface using the arithmetic mean height Sa and root mean square height Sq according to ISO 25178. In particular, Example 1 of Yokozuka et al. discloses a surface having an Sa of 0.111 µm and an Sq of 0.211 µm. The disclosed Sa of 0.111 µm falls within the presently claimed range of 0.09 µm to 1.21 µm (See Example 1, paragraph 2).
Furthermore, the ratio between the root mean square height Sq and arithmetic mean height Sa disclosed in Example 1 is: Sq/Sa=0.211/0.111 = 1.90. Thus, the disclosed Sq/Sa ratio of approximately 1.90 falls within the presently claimed range of 1.22 to 2.36. Yokozuka et al. expressly demonstrates a surface having, simultaneously, an Sa and an Sq/Sa ratio within the presently claimed ranges.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the instant effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the rough surface of Ito et al., as characterized using the three-dimensional surface roughness parameters taught by Takashi et al., with surface roughness parameters as taught by Yokozuka et al. because the prior art recognizes surface roughness as a controllable parameter affecting the functional properties of a surface. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select and adjust the degree of surface roughness to obtain a desired surface topography and surface area suitable for the intended function, with the claimed values representing values known in the prior art to provide a roughened resin surface.
With respect to the recited “nanostructure,” the term is interpreted in view of the instant specification, which identifies a structure having a rough, uneven surface characterized by surface-height parameters as a nanostructure and does not require that the overall dimensions of the article itself be on the nanometer scale. Accordingly, the roughened surface structure disclosed by Ito et al. is considered to correspond to the recited nanostructure because it comprises a substrate having deliberately formed surface irregularities, including concave and convex portions, which define the surface topography. Moreover, Takashi et al. and Yokozuka et al. further demonstrate that such fine uneven or roughened resin surfaces were conventionally characterized by three-dimensional surface-height parameters, including Sa and Sq. Thus, when the term “nanostructure” is given its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the instant specification, the prior-art roughened surface structure, as modified by the teachings of Takashi et al. and Yokozuka et al., meets or suggests the recited nanostructure comprising a rough surface.
Regarding claim 2, Ito et al. in view of Takashi et al. and Yokozuka et al., as applied to claim 1 above, disclose or suggest the nanostructure comprising a rough surface and the use of three-dimensional surface roughness parameters, including Sa and Sq, for characterizing and controlling the topography of the rough surface, but do not expressly disclose wherein the arithmetic mean height (Sa) is 0.37 µm or greater and 0.89 µm or less and the ratio (Sq/Sa) is 1.24 or greater and 1.53 or less.
Walther et al. further discloses polymeric articles having surfaces characterized by the three-dimensional surface roughness parameters Sa and Sq. In particular, inventive Example 2 (IE2) discloses a polymeric surface having an Sa of approximately 830 nm (0.830 µm) and an Sq of approximately 1103 nm (1.103 µm).
The disclosed Sa of 0.830 µm falls within the presently claimed range of 0.37 µm to 0.89 µm. Further, based upon the expressly disclosed Sa and Sq values for the same specimen, the ratio Sq/Sa is approximately 1.33 (1.103/0.830), which falls within the presently claimed range of 1.24 to 1.53. Thus, Walther et al. expressly demonstrate a single polymeric surface having both an Sa and an Sq/Sa ratio within the ranges recited by claim 2.
Walther et al. further teach controlling the surface characteristics of polymeric articles and expressly disclose embodiments having an Sa of 400 nm to 900 nm and an Sq of 500 nm to 1200 nm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the instant effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the rough polymeric surface of the combined prior art with the surface topography taught by Walther et al. because Walther et al. demonstrate that Sa and Sq are known quantitative surface characteristics of polymeric surfaces and that such characteristics may be controlled through selection and processing of the polymeric material.
One of ordinary skill in the art seeking to obtain a desired degree of surface roughness would therefore have been motivated to select and optimize the known surface characteristics to obtain an Sa and Sq relationship by Walther et al., with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 3, Ito et al. in view of Takashi et al. and Yokozuka et al., as applied to claim 1 above, disclose or suggest the nanostructure comprising a rough surface having the claimed surface roughness characteristics, but do not expressly disclose wherein the rough surface has a trioleic acid contact angle of 8.5 degrees or greater and 14.8 degrees or less.
Mizuno et al. further teaches an antifouling surface configured to provide improved fingerprint wiping properties and teaches evaluating the wettability of the surface toward oily fingerprint components by contact angle measurement. In particular, Mizuno et al. teaches that oleic acid is a component associated with fingerprint contamination and that its contact angle provides a quantitative indication of the extent to which an oily fingerprint component wets and spreads on a material surface. Mizuno et al. teaches an advancing contact angle of oleic acid of 10 degrees or less in order to obtain desirable fingerprint wiping properties (See Description paragraph 1-3 and claims 1-6).
Thus, Mizuno et al. teaches controlling the contact angle of any oily fingerprint associated material within a range that overlaps or substantially corresponds to the presently claimed contact-angle region and further teaches that relatively low oily-liquid contact angles provide increased wetting and improved fingerprint wiping properties.
Kaneko et al. additionally teaches evaluating hard-coat films using contact angles of lipophilic fingerprint-associated materials, including triolein, and reports triolein contact angles of 11.7 degrees, 12.8 degrees, and 13.6 degrees for exemplary hard-coat surfaces. Each of these reported values falls within the presently claimed numerical range of 8.5 degrees to 14.8 degrees. Kaneko et al. further teaches that these contact-angle measurements are useful indicators of lipophilicity and fingerprint-resistant or antifouling surface performance (See paragraph 11, 13, Example 1, and Example 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the instant effective filing date of the claim invention to provide the rough surface of the combined prior art with a degree of lipophilicity characterized by a low contact angle toward oily fingerprint-associated materials, as taught by Mizuno et al. and Kaneko et al., because these references teach that oily-liquid contact angle is a known and controllable surface characteristic affecting fingerprint wetting, visibility, and wiping properties. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select a contact angle in the disclosed low-contact-angle region to obtain the known benefits of increased wetting and improved wiping of fingerprint contamination.
Selection of a rough surface exhibiting an oily-liquid contact angle within the presently claimed range of 8.5 degrees to 14.8 degrees would have been an obvious selection of a known surface-wettability characteristic for obtaining predictable lipophilic and fingerprint-wiping properties.
Regarding claim 4, the combination applied to claim 1 discloses or suggests the nanostructure comprising a rough surface having the claimed surface-roughness characteristics but does not expressly disclose wherein the rough surface has a trioleic acid contact angle of 8.3 degrees or greater and 9.4 degrees or less.
Mizuno et al. further teaches a lipophilic resin laminate comprising a structured surface having nanoscale surface features and teaches evaluating the wettability of the surface using oleic-acid contact-angle measurements. In particular, Example 11 discloses a structured resin surface having nanoscale surface morphology and an oleic-acid contact angle of 8.3 degrees, which falls within the presently claimed numerical range of 8.3 degrees to 9.4 degrees.
Although Mizuno et al. expressly reports an oleic-acid contact angle, the reference is relied upon for its teaching that wettability of a nanostructured resin surface toward an oily material is a controllable surface property and that surface morphology may be selected and adjusted to obtain a desired degree of lipophilicity. The Examiner does not rely upon the oleic-acid contact angle disclosed by Mizuno et al. as being necessarily numerically identical to the presently claimed trioleic-acid contact angle.
Rather, Mizuno et al. establishes that oily-liquid contact angle was a known surface characteristic affected by nanoscale surface morphology and that contact angles in the presently claimed numerical region were known to provide desirable lipophilic surface properties. The prior art further establishes that oily-liquid contact-angle measurements were conventionally employed to evaluate the interaction between surfaces and oily fingerprint-associated materials (See Abstract, claim 1. And paragraph 0006).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the instant effective filing date of the claimed invention when providing the rough nanostructured surface of the combined prior art, to optimize the surface morphology and resulting oily-liquid wettability to obtain a desired degree of lipophilicity. Once the desirability of controlling oily-liquid wettability was recognized, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to vary the known surface characteristics and evaluate the resulting contact angle toward the oily material of interest, including an oily material representative of human grease, using routine contact-angle measurements.
Therefore, determination of a surface morphology a trioleic-acid contact angle of 8.3 degrees to 9.4 degrees would have amounted to optimization and selection of a known surface property through routine experimentation. Absent evidence establishing that the claimed range is critical or produces an unexpected result relative to the known relationship between nanostructured surface morphology and oily-liquid wettability, selection of a surface providing the recited degree of lipophilicity would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 5, Takashi et al. discloses wherein the fine uneven surface is configured to provide desirable antifouling and wiping characteristics. Takashi et al. teach a resin-molded article having a fine uneven surface that reduces the visibility of adhered stains and facilitates removal of stains by wiping (See Abstract, and result measurement number 5). Thus, Takashi et al. teaches that the surface topography is selected not merely for appearance, but also to provide a surface from which contamination may be readily wiped.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the instant effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the rough surface of Ito et al., as modified by the surface-roughness teachings of Takashi et al. and Yokozuka et al., with the wiping property taught by Takashi et al. because such a property would predictably facilitate removal of contaminants from the surface while retaining the benefits associated with the controlled surface irregularities.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select and optimize the surface topography to provide both the desired roughness and ease of wiping, particularly because Takashi et al. expressly teaches that fine surface irregularities may be designed to reduce the visibility of adhered contamination and improve its removal by wiping. Such a modification would have amounted to the predictable use of a known surface configuration for its known wiping and antifouling properties, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Therefore, the combined teachings of the prior art render obvious the nanostructure of claim 1 wherein the rough surface has a wiping property, as required by claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, the combination applied to claim 1 discloses or suggests the nanostructure comprising the claimed rough surface but does not expressly disclose wherein the rough surface has an antibacterial activity value of 3.0 or greater against staphylococcus aureus.
Nishitani et al. further teaches that microscale surface roughness comprising fine concavities and convexities provides antibacterial activity against staphylococcus aureus. Nishitani et al. evaluate the antibacterial activity of the rough surfaces according to JIS Z 2801, based on ISO 22196, and determine the antibacterial activity value R based upon the logarithmic difference between the viable bacterial count on an untreated specimen and the viable bacterial count on an untreated specimen and the viable bacterial count on the treated rough-surface specimen. Nishitani et al. further teaches that antibacterial performance is related to surface roughness and explains that appropriately dimensioned surface concavities can restrict bacterial movement and inhibit bacterial growth and biofilm formation (See Abstract, pages 3 and 4).
Nishitani et al. do not expressly disclose an antibacterial activity value of 3.0 or greater against staphylococcus aureus.
Adib et al. further teaches antimicrobial articles having antibacterial efficacy measured in accordance with JIS Z 2801. The reference expressly teaches that, under JIS Z 2801 testing conditions, the antimicrobial articles can exhibit at least a 3-log reduction in the concentration of staphylococcus aureus and further teaches embodiments exhibiting still greater antibacterial efficacy (See paragraph 0014 and 0051).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the instant effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the rough surface of the combined prior art to provide increased antibacterial activity against staphylococcus aureus, including an antibacterial activity value of at least 3.0. Nishitani et al. expressly establish that antibacterial performance against staphylococcus aureus is affected by the characteristics of the rough surface, thereby identifying surface topography as a variable affecting antibacterial performance, while Adib et al. establishes that antibacterial performance corresponding to at least a 3-log reduction against staphylococcus aureus under JIS Z 2801 testing conditions was known and desirable.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to select and optimize the surface characteristics to increase antibacterial efficacy against staphylococcus aureus and would have evaluated the resulting surface using the known JIS Z 2801 methodology. Selection of surface characteristics providing an antibacterial activity value of 3.0 or greater would therefore have represented optimization of a known result-effective surface variable to obtain a known desirable level of antibacterial performance, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 7, Yokozuka et al. discloses that the roughened resin sheet possesses light transmissivity. In particular, Example 1 discloses a stretched resin sheet having an arithmetic mean height (Sa) of 0.111 µm and a root mean square height (Sq) of 0.211 µm and further reports that the same sheet has a total light transmittance of 90.0% and a haze of 1.0%. Yokozuka et al. expressly demonstrates that a surface having the roughness characteristics relied upon in the rejection of claim 1 is capable of transmitting light.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the instant effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the rough nanostructure of the combined prior art with the light-transmissive characteristics taught by Yokozuka et al. because Yokozuka et al. demonstrates that controlled surface roughness characterized by Sa and Sq can be provided while maintaining high light transmissivity. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the desirability of maintaining light transmission when the roughened structure is employed in applications in which visibility or transparency through the structure is desired, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 8, Tanno et al. disclose a method of manufacturing a structure comprising forming a rough, uneven surface through wet blasting. Tanno et al. teach subjecting a surface to wet-blast treatment using abrasive particles and further teach that the resulting surface characteristics may be controlled by selection of wet-blasting conditions (See paragraph 0007 and claim 6).
With respect to the recited “nanostructure,” the term is interpreted under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the instant specification. The instant specification describes the nanostructure as a structure having a microstructure or uneven structure provided on its surface and identifies the hard coat layer having the rough, uneven surface as an example of the nanostructure. The instant specification therefore does not require that the overall dimensions of the article itself be on the nanometer scale. The wet-blasted structure of Tanno et al., which comprises a deliberately formed fine uneven surface having controlled surface characteristics, corresponds to or at least suggests the recited nanostructure under the broadest reasonable interpretation of that term.
Tanno et al. further discloses surfaces produced using wet blasting having arithmetic mean heights (Sa) within the presently claimed range. For example, comparative Examples 5 and 6 employ wet blasting and provide surfaces having Sa values of 0.33 µm and 0.46 µm, respectively, each of which falls within the presently claimed range of 0.09 µm to 1.21 µm.
Tanno et al. do not expressly characterize the resulting uneven surface as being random.
Strube et al. further teaches surface roughening by media blasting or wet blasting and expressly teaches that when a media or wet-blasting process is employed to roughen a surface, such processes typically form a plurality of randomly arranged pits in the surface, with discrete randomly arranged raised surface-texture elements formed there between (See methods of making the nonwoven material, paragraphs 10 and 11). Thus, Strube et al. establishes that a random arrangement of surface depressions and elevation is a known surface morphology produced by wet blasting.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ the wet-blasting process of Tanno et al. so as to provide the randomly arranged surface irregularities taught by Strube et al. because the latter expressly teaches that randomly arranged pits and raised elements are a typical result of surface roughening by wet blasting. Such a surface would therefore provide the claimed random uneven surface using the same type of known surface-roughening process, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Tanno et al. and Strube et al. do not expressly disclose wherein the random uneven surface has a ratio (Sq/Sa) between the root mean square height (Sq) and arithmetic mean height (Sa) of 1.22 or greater and 2.36 or less.
Yokozuka et al. further teaches characterizing and controlling uneven surfaces using the three-dimensional surface-roughness parameters Sa and Sq. In particular, Example 1discloses a surface having an Sa of 0.111 µm and an Sq of 0.211 µm, corresponding to an Sq/Sa ratio of approximately 1.90, which falls within the presently claimed range of 1.22 to 2.36.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art prior to the instant effective filing date of the claimed invention to control the wet-blasting process of the combined prior art to obtain the known three-dimensional surface characteristics taught by Yokozuka et al. Tanno et al. establish that wet blasting may be used to form surfaces having Sa values within the presently claimed range; Strube et al. establishes that wet blasting typically produces randomly arranged surface irregularities; and Yokozuka et al. establishes Sa and Sq as known quantitative parameters for characterizing uneven surfaces and demonstrates a surface having an Sq/Sa ratio within the presently claimed range.
One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the instant effective filing date would have been motivated to select and adjust conventional wet-blasting conditions to obtain a desired random surface topography and to evaluate the resulting surface using the known Sa and Sq parameters. Selection of wet-blasting conditions producing an Sa of 0.09 µm to 1.21 µm and an Sq/Sa ratio of 1.22 to 2.36 would have amounted to optimization of known surface-roughness characteristics using a known wet-blasting surface-treatment process, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Therefore, the combined teachings render obvious the method of manufacturing a nanostructure comprising forming through wet blasting a random uneven surface having the presently claimed Sa and Sq/Sa characteristics.
Regarding claim 9, Yokozuka et al. discloses a stretched resin sheet having a surface whose three-dimensional surface topography is characterized using an arithmetic mean height (Sa) and root mean square height (Sq) in accordance with ISO 25178 (See Description paragraph 53).
In particular, Example 1 of Yokozuka et al. discloses a stretched resin sheet having a surface with an Sa of 0.111 µm and an Sq of 0.211 µm. The disclosed Sa of 0.111 µm falls within the presently claimed range of 0.09 µm to 1.21 µm. further, the ratio of Sq/Sa is approximately 1.90 (0.211/0.111), which falls within the presently claimed range of 1.22 to 2.36. Thus, Yokozuka et al. expressly demonstrates, in the same specimen, a surface having both the presently claimed Sa and Sq/Sa characteristics.
With respect to the recited “nanostructure,” the term is interpreted under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the instant specification. The instant specification describes the nanostructure as a structure having a microstructure or uneven structure provided on its surface and identifies a layer having the rough, uneven surface as an example of the nanostructure. The instant specification therefore does not require that the overall dimensions of the structure itself be on the nanometer scale. The surface structure of Yokozuka et al., which comprises a deliberately controlled uneven surface characterized by three-dimensional surface height parameters, corresponds to or at least suggests the recited nanostructure under the broadest reasonable interpretation of that term.
To the extent Yokozuka et al. does not expressly characterize its surface-containing portion as a separate layer including the nanostructure, Takashi et al. further disclose a resin-molded article comprising a hard-coat film/layer having fine irregularities formed on its surface. Takashi et al. characterize the fine uneven surface using the three-dimensional surface parameters Sa and Sq according to ISO 25178 and teach controlling such surface irregularities to obtain desired surface properties.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the instant effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the film or sheet structure of Yokozuka et al. with the surface-containing layer taught by Takashi et al. because Takashi et al. establish that a hard coat layer having controlled fine surface irregularities may be provided on a resin article to impart desired surface characteristics. Such a modification would have constituted the use of a known surface layer having controlled roughness on a known resin film or sheet for its known surface-modifying function, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 10, Yokozuka et al. discloses a resin sheet or film structure having a surface whose three-dimensional surface topography is characterized using an arithmetic mean height (Sa) and root mean square height (Sq) in accordance with ISO 25178.
In particular, Example 1 of Yokozuka et al. discloses a surface having an Sa of 0.111 µm and an Sq of 0.211 µm. The disclosed Sa of 0.111 µm falls within the presently claimed range of 0.09 µm to 1.21 µm. Further, the ratio Sq/Sa is approximately 1.90 (0.211/0.111), which falls within the presently claimed range of 1.22 to 2.36. Thus, Yokozuka et al. expressly demonstrates, in the same specimen, a rough surface having both numerical surface characteristics required by claim 10.
With respect to the recited “nanostructure,” the term is interpreted under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the instant specification. The instant specification describes the nanostructure as a structure having a microstructure or uneven structure provided on its surface and identifies a layer having the rough, uneven surface as an example of the nanostructure. The instant specification therefore does not require that the overall dimensions of the structure itself be on the nanometer scale. The controlled uneven surface structure of Yokozuka et al. corresponds to or at least suggests the recited nanostructure under the broadest reasonable interpretation of that term.
To the extent that Yokozuka et al. does not expressly disclose the claimed arrangement of a base and a film including a layer including the nanostructure, Takashi et al. further disclose a film structure comprising a substrate serving as a base and a hard-coat film/layer disposed thereon, wherein the hard-coat layer has fine surface irregularities. Takashi et al. further characterize the fine uneven surface using the three-dimensional surface parameters Sa and Sq according to ISO 25178.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the film having the controlled rough surface of Yokozuka on a base or substrate in accordance with the layered hard-coat structure taught by Takashi et al. because providing a surface-functional film or hard-coat layer on a supporting base was a known means of imparting the desired surface properties to an underlying structure.
One of ordinary skill in the art would therefore have had reason to provide the known roughened film/layer on a base in order to obtain a supported structure possessing the desired surface characteristics, with a reasonable expectation of success. Such a modification represents the predictable use of a known surface-functional film or layer on a known supporting base for its established surface-modifying function.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kimberly Barber whose telephone number is (703) 756-5302. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 6:30 AM to 3:30 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert A. Wax, can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-0623. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form. 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.
/KIMBERLY BARBER/Examiner, Art Unit 1615
/Robert A Wax/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1615
Prosecution Insights