Application No.: 11/793,762
`Reply to Office Action of February 4, 2011
`
`Docket No.: 1600-0182PUS1
`
`REMARKS
`
`I. Status of Claims
`
`Claims 1, 3, 6 and 8-45 are pending. Claims 2, 4, 5 and 7 have been canceled without
`
`prejudice.
`
`Claim 1 has been amended to recite the subject matter of claim 2. Claim 6 has been
`
`amended to be in independent form. The dependency of claims 3, 8, 9 and 10-13 has been
`
`amended.
`
`Newclaims 14-45 have been added. Support for new claims 14 and 35 can be found in
`paragraph [0091] of WO2006/068200A1. Support for new claim 15 can be found in paragraph
`[0100] of WO2006/068200A1. Support for new claim 16 can be found in paragraph [0101] of
`W02006/068200A1. Support for new claims 17, 25 and 36 can be found in paragraph [0104] of
`W02006/068200A1. Support for new claims 18, 26 and 37 can be found in paragraphs [0106]
`and [0123] of WO2006/068200A1. Support for new claims 19, 27 and 38 can be found in claim
`7. Support
`for new claims 20, 28 and 39 can be found in paragraph [0105] of
`W02006/068200A1. Support for new claims 21-22 can be foundin claims 4 and5, respectively.
`Support for new claim 23 can be found in paragraph [0091] of WO2006/068200A1. Support for
`new claim 24 can be found in paragraph [0110] of WO2006/068200A1. Support for new claims
`29-34 can be found in claims 8-13, respectively. Support for new claims 40-45 can be found in
`
`claims 8-13, respectively.
`
`No new matter has been added by way of the above-amendment.
`
`Il. Double patenting
`On pages 3-4 of the Office Action, claim 1 is rejected as constituting obviousness-type
`double patenting over claim 1 of US 7,285,323 B2 (“Sone”).
`In response, Applicants have
`amended claim | to recite the subject matter of claim 2, a claim not currently under rejection.
`
`Based on the foregoing, the obviousness-type double patenting rejection is rendered
`
`moot.
`
`13
`
`GMD/bsh
`
`

`

`Application No.: 11/793,762
`Reply to Office Action of February 4, 2011
`
`Docket No.: 1600-0182PUS1
`
`III. Issues Under 35 USC 112, 2" Paragraph
`
`On page 5 of the Office Action, claim 1 is rejected under 35 USC 112, 2™ paragraph as
`failing to define the invention properly, due to its recitation of “another intervening layer.”
`
`Applicants respectfully traverse the rejection.
`
`In response, Applicants have amended claim 1 by replacing “another intervening layer”
`
`with "one or more interveninglayers."
`
`Applicants respectfully submit that the claims particularly point out and distinctly claim
`
`the subject matter which Applicants regard as the invention. As such, reconsideration and
`
`withdrawalof the rejection are respectfully requested.
`
`IV. Prior art based rejections
`
`The following rejections are pending:
`
`(A)
`
`(B)
`
`(C)
`
`Claims 1-6 and 8-10 are rejected as being unpatentable over Mizuno in view
`of Yamaki! and Oka. Office Action, pages 6-11.
`Claim 7 is rejected as being unpatentable over Mizuno in view of Yamaki,
`
`Oka, Ikeyama, and Yokogawa. Office Action, pages 11-12.
`
`Claims 11-13 are rejected as being unpatentable over Mizuno in view of
`
`Yamaki, Oka, and Toyoshima. Office Action, pages 12-13.
`
`Applicants respectfully traverse the rejections.
`
`" The Examiner relies upon WO 03/035780 Al, which was published on May 1, 2003 — rather than on US
`2005/0109238 Al, which was published on May 26, 2005 — because US ‘238 could be antedated by Applicants’
`Japanese priority application filed December 24, 2004. However, US ‘238 is being used as an English-language
`counterpart of WO ‘780.
`
`14
`
`GMD/bsh
`
`

`

`Application No.: 11/793,762
`Reply to Office Action of February 4, 2011
`
`IV —A. Mizuno (JP2004-272197)
`
`Docket No.: 1600-0182PUS1
`
`Mizuno describes a low refractive index layer having nanopores formed by coating a
`composition comprising (A) a monomerhaving 3 or more functional groups which can be cured
`with ionizing radiation in one molecule, (B) a silicate compound represented by general formula
`(1) or (2) and fine particles having an average particle diameter of S5nm-300nm.
`
`In the invention of Mizuno, the monomer having 3 or more functional groups, in one
`molecule, which can be cured with ionizing radiation, is a main componentfor forming a matrix
`of the low refractive index layer.
`
`For example, the low refractive index layer in Example 1 is composed of 0.77 parts by
`mass of (B) y -methacryloxy-propyl-trimethoxysilane, 1.43 parts by mass of (A) pentaerythritol
`triacrylate polymer, 2.57 parts by mass of (C) poroussilica particles and 0.4 parts by mass of
`fluorinated compound F3035 which is added as an additional component. Pleaserefer to [0129].
`
`The low refractive index layer in Example 2 is composed of 0.8 parts by mass of (B)
`silicate oligomer having acryloyl groups, 1.43 parts by mass of (A) pentaerythritol triacrylate
`polymer, 2.57 parts by mass of (C) poroussilica particles and 0.4 parts by mass of fluorinated
`
`compound F3035. Please refer to [0134].
`
`The low refractive index layer in Example 3 is composed of 1.43 parts by mass of (A)
`pentaerythritol
`triacrylate polymer, 0.77 parts by mass of (B) y -methacryloxy-propyl-
`trimethoxysilane, 2.57 parts by mass of (C) agglomeratedsilica particles and 0.4 parts by mass of
`fluorinated compound F3035. Please refer to [0138]-[0139].
`
`In these embodiments, the main component of matrixes for forming each low refractive
`index layer is clearly (A) pentaerythritol triacrylate polymer, that is, a polymer of a monomer
`having 3 or more functional groups, in one molecule, which can be cured with ionizing radiation.
`
`Thus, Mizuno neither describe nor suggest a low refractive index layer having a matrix
`
`composed ofa silicate compound without a polymer of monomer having 3 or more functional
`
`groups, in one molecule, which can be cured byionizing radiation.
`
`15
`
`GMD/bsh
`
`

`

`Application No.: 11/793,762
`Reply to Office Action of February 4, 2011
`
`Docket No.: 1600-0182PUS1
`
`In addition, Mizuno is silent on the hydrolyzable organosilane (C) has at least three
`
`silicon atoms bonded with an alkoxy group or alkoxy groupsin its straight-chain structure as
`
`specified new claim 21.
`
`IV _-B. Yamaki (WO 03035780 A = US 2005/0109238 Al)
`
`Yamaki describes a coating material composition comprising at
`
`least fine hollow
`
`particles and a matrix-forming material, wherein when the coating material composition is
`
`applied and dried to form a coating film, the matrix-forming material forms a porous matrix, and
`
`wherein the matrix-forming material comprises a partially hydrolyzed compound and/or a
`
`completely hydrolyzed compound having a weight average molecular weight of 2000 or more,
`
`the partially hydrolyzed compound and/or the completely hydrolyzed compound being obtained
`
`by hydrolyzing a tetraalkoxysilane represented by SiX, (X=OR, R is a monovalent hydrocarbon
`
`group) in the presence of water of which amount is such that a molar ratio of [H20] /[OR] is in
`
`the range between 1.0 and 5. 0, and in the presence ofan acid catalyst. (see claim 1).
`
`However, Yamaki does not describe any of a copolymerization-hydrolysis product (B), a
`
`hydrolyzable organosilane (C) and a dimethyl-type silicone diol (D) as a component of matrix-
`
`forming material. Further, Yamaki does not describe a coating material composition comprising
`
`(i) a re-hydrolyzed product obtained by subjecting a mixture comprising fine hollow particles
`
`having a shell comprised of a metal oxide, and a hydrolysis product (A) obtained by hydrolysis
`
`of a hydrolyzable organosilane represented by the following general formula (1):
`
`SiX,
`
`where each X individually represents a hydrolyzable group, to a hydrolysis treatment
`
`whereby the hydrolysis product (A) is re-hydrolyzed; and (ii) a copolymerization-hydrolysis
`
`product
`
`(B) obtained by hydrolysis and copolymerization of a hydrolyzable organosilane
`
`represented by the formula (1) with a hydrolyzable organosilane having a fluorine-substituted
`
`alkyl group or groups.
`
`16
`
`GMD/bsh
`
`

`

`Application No.: 11/793,762
`Reply to Office Action of February 4, 2011
`
`IV —C. Oka (US 5,747,152)
`
`Docket No.: 1600-0182PUS1
`
`Oka does not describe any low refractive index layer with a matrix formed by using a
`hydrolyzable organosilane.
`
`IV —D. Combination of Mizuno, Yamaki and Oka
`
`IV—D-—-i. Claims 1-6 and 8-10
`
`The Examinerstates that claims 1-6 and 8-10 are rejected as being unpatentable under 35
`U.S.C. 103(a) over the combination of Mizuno, Yamaki, and Oka. Applicants respectfully
`submit that this combination does not render the present claims primafacie obvious.
`
`Mizuno discloses only a composition comprising, as an essential component, (A) a
`monomer having 3 or more functional groups, in one molecule, which can be cured by ionizing
`radiation. In addition, Mizunois silent on a matrix formed without using the monomer(A).
`
`Asstated above, Yamaki fails to describe a copolymerization-hydrolysis product (B) and
`a hydrolyzable organosilane (C) as specified in claim 1, as presently amended. Also, Yamaki
`fails to describe a dimethyl-type silicone diol (D) as specified in claim 21, and a coating material
`composition as specified in claim 6.
`
`Thus, both Mizuno and Yamaki don't describe a coating material composition containing
`a matrix-forming material consisting essentially of organosilicates specified in claims 1, 6 and
`
`21.
`
`Therefore, the present invention is not obvious over Mizuno in view of Yamaki.
`
`Furthermore, Oka fails to cure the deficiencies of Mizuno and Yamaki. Oka does not
`
`disclose said matrix-forming material. As such, the present invention is not obvious over Mizuno
`
`in view of Yamaki, further in view of Oka.
`
`17
`
`GMD/bsh
`
`

`

`Application No.: 11/793,762
`Reply to Office Action of February 4, 2011
`
`WV—D-ii. Claim 3
`
`Docket No.: 1600-0182PUS1
`
`Applicants respectfully submit that claim 3 is further distinguished from the cited
`
`references. The Examinerstates that water-repellent groups of the hydrolyzable organosilane are
`described in Mizuno. However, there is neither disclosure nor suggestion on a matrix formed
`
`without said specified polymer.
`
`Accordingly, claim 3 is not obvious over Mizuno in view of Yamaki.
`
`WV—D-iii. Claim 6
`
`Applicants respectfully submit
`
`that claim 6 is further distinguished from the cited
`
`references. The Examinerstates that although Mizuno in view of Yamaki does not disclose the
`
`process of re-hydrolyzation using the word "re-hydrolyzation", it is noted that even though
`product by process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of
`
`patentability is based on the productitself.
`
`As mentioned above, however, Yamaki does not describe a copolymerization-hydrolysis
`product (B).
`
`Therefore, claim 6 is not obvious over Mizuno in view of Yamaki (and Oka).
`
`IV —D—iv. Claim 10
`
`As pointed out by the Examiner, Yamaki discloses low refractive index layers having a
`reflectivity of 0.6% or less at 550nm in Table 2. However, Yamaki is silent onareflectivity of
`not larger than 1.5% at a wavelength in the range of 430 nm to 700 nm. Mizuno and Okaare also
`
`silent on the reflectivity.
`
`Therefore, claim 10 is not obvious over Mizuno in view of Yamaki (and Oka).
`
`18
`
`GMD/bsh
`
`

`

`Application No.: 11/793,762
`Reply to Office Action of February 4, 2011
`
`Docket No.: 1600-0182PUS1
`
`IV-D -—yv. Ikeyama , Yokogawa and Toyoshima
`
`As noted above, significant patentable distinctions exist between inventive claims 1, 6
`and 21 and the teachings of Mizuno, Yamaki and Oka. In view ofthe fact that none of Ikeyama,
`Yokogawa and Toyoshimacure the deficiencies of Mizuno, Yamaki and Oka, a primafacie case
`of obviousness cannotbesaid to exist. As such, reconsideration and withdrawal ofthe rejections
`are respectfully requested.
`
`Conclusion
`
`Entry of the above amendments is earnestly solicited. An early and favorablefirst action
`on the merits is earnestly solicited.
`
`Should there be any outstanding matters that need to be resolved in the present
`application, the Examineris respectfully requested to contact Garth M. Dahlen, Ph.D., Esq. (Reg.
`No. 43,575) at the telephone number of the undersigned below, to conduct an interview in an
`effort to expedite prosecution in connection with the present application.
`
`If necessary, the Commissioneris hereby authorized in this, concurrent, and future replies
`to charge paymentorcredit any overpayment to Deposit Account No. 02-2448 for any additional
`fees required under 37.C.F.R. §§1.16 or 1.14; particularly, extension oftime fees.
`Dated: MAY 03 201
`Respectfully submitted,
` CIHOEN
`
`
`
`Garth M. Dahlen
`Registration No.: 43,575
`BIRCH, STEWART, KOLASCH & BIRCH, LLP
`8110 Gatehouse Road, Suite 100 East
`P.O. Box 747
`Falls Church, Virginia 22040-0747
`(703) 205-8000
`Attorney for Applicant
`
`19
`
`GMD/bsh
`
`