DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
The restriction between groups I and II has been withdrawn since the method claims 1-10 have been cancelled. If new method claims are introduced again a new restriction may be made again.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 11-30 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-55 of U.S. Patent No. 11133118. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because current claims 11-30 would anticipate claims 1-55 of US Patent 11133118.
Claims 11-30 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-30 of U.S. Patent No. 11328833. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because current claims 11-30 would anticipate claims 1-30 of US Patent 11328833.
Claims 11-30 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 of U.S. Patent No. 11587696. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because current claims 11-30 would anticipate claims 1-9 of US Patent 11587696.
Claims 11-30 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-26 of U.S. Patent No. 12355055. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because current claims 11-30 would anticipate claims 1-26 of US Patent 12355055.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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 –
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claims 11-, are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102b as being anticipated by David et al (US Publication 20100165276).
As to claims 11-15, 18, 21-25 and 29, David et al disclose nanostructured articles that are useful as antireflective articles (1). The nanostructured article can be a glass substrate, window, an OLED or a photovoltaic device (paragraph 46). The coating of the nanostructured layer can be 1-4 microns; therefore, the feature of the pattern layer is less than 5 microns. The patterned layer is formed form a plurality of nanoparticles having a size of less than 100 nanometers preferable 5nm, with a binder. The nanostructured article can further have additional layers such as thin film layers (paragraph 99) (thin film layers will read on applicant’s atomic layer deposition). This deposited thin film layers can reduce the porosity of the patterned layer. The surface of the binder can be treated by a plasma treatment processes which can change the crystallinity. The particles can be treated with a surface treatment that can change the crystallinity of the particle.
As to claims 16 and 26, the nanoparticles can be titanium dioxide or zirconium dioxide which are both metal oxide particles.
As to claim 17, David discloses that the binder can contain a colloidal solution of material to from a metal oxide phase.
As to claims 20 and 30, it should be noted that the claims are directed to a final product and therefore the optical device would not have a solvent present. Therefore claim 20 is met if claim 11 is met and claim 30 is met if claim 29 is met.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19, 27 and 28 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER M POLLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5734. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8am till 4:30 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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached on 5712721291. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER M POLLEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights