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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8-9, 11, 22, 28, 103-105 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 120(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lauren D. Zarzar et al (U. S. Patent Application: 2020/0056996, here after Zarzar).
Claim 1 is rejected. ZarZar teaches a method of producing a substrate that
exhibits an interference pattern upon reflection of incident electromagnetic
radiation(light) [title, 0003-0004], the method comprising providing an interface master
(varying size, of micron size monodisperse glass particles that partially embedded in polymer) having a geometrical form of a first plurality of total internal reflection (TIR) microstructure templates and a second plurality (varying for example 2 sizes) of TIR microstructure templates formed therein, wherein the first plurality of TIR microstructure templates have different dimensions thereof [0134];
generating an microreplicated surface on a first material (PDMS) having a first
refractive index from the interface master, wherein the microreplicated surface
corresponds to and is a negative of the master [0019]; and
disposing a second material having a second refractive index (benzyl benzoate)
on the microreplicated surface to produce the substrate that exhibits the interference
pattern upon incident electromagnetic radiation [0019, 0135];
wherein the substrate comprises a plurality of TIR microstructures, each of which
comprises the first material, the second material abutting the first material, and an
interface between the first material and the second material [fig. 9, fig. 10A-B], which in fact the first plurality of TIR microstructures and the second plurality of TIR microstructure have different dimensions; and
wherein the interface is configured such that at least a portion of electromagnetic
radiation (light) incident a surface of the substrate at least one illumination angle
undergoes multiple total internal reflections between the first material and the second
material [0024, 0022, 0135].
Claim 2 is rejected as Zarzar teaches the interface comprises an arcuate
interface [fig. 9A, fig. 10A].
Claim 3 is rejected. Zarzar teaches the arcuate interface is concave relative to
the incident electromagnetic radiation [fig. 9A, fig. 10A].
Claim 4 is rejected as Zarzar teaches the interface comprises a plurality of
sides [0041].
Claim 6 is rejected as Zarzar teaches electromagnetic radiation(light) reflected by
the plurality of TIR microstructures exhibits variable intensity based on the illumination
angle, variable intensity based on an angle of observation relative to the surface, or a
combination thereof [fig. 10, 0109, 0106 last 2 sentences].
Claim 8 is rejected as Zarzar teaches electromagnetic radiation reflected by the
plurality of TIR microstructures exhibits structural color [0019].
Claim 9 is rejected as Zarzar teaches the first material comprises a polymer
(PDMS) [0019, 0135].
Claim 11 is rejected as Zarzar teaches generating the microreplicated surface on
the first material comprises a cast and cure process, or embossing(stamping) [0019, 0091, 0135].
Claim 22 is rejected as Zarzar teaches the difference between the first refractive
index (PDMS: 1.43) and the second refractive index (oil benzyl benzoate: 1.57) is 0.14.
at least 0.01, such as from 0.05 to 1.5.
Claim 28 is rejected. Zarzar teaches the plurality of TIR microstructures are
disposed in a regular 2-dimensional array or 3-dimensional array [0056].
Claim 103 is rejected as Zarzar teaches (the first or the second) plurality of TIR microstructure templates comprise non-hemispherical geometries [0153, fig. 13].
Claim 104 is rejected as Zarzar teaches the (first or the second) plurality of TIR microstructure templates have a cross-sectional dimension parallel to a surface of the interface master of less than or equal to 25 microns [0072].
Claim 105 is rejected as Zarzar teaches the interface master is a hard interface master (varying size, of micron size monodisperse glass particles that partially embedded in polymer).
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.
Claims 14, 18, 21, 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
over Lauren D. Zarzar et al (U. S. Patent Application: 2020/0056996, here after Zarzar).
Claim 14 is rejected. Although in this specific embodiment Zarzar teaches replica
molding [0019], however Zarzar also teaches forming the article by stamping
(embossing of first material) as well as replica molding [0091], which in fact the
stamping (embossing) process in fact comprises plate-to- plate embossing (a plate
behind the polymer, PDMS) and a plate behind the stamp. Therefore, it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to
have a method of Zarzar where the well structure is made by stamping, because it is
suitable method for making structure in article.
Claim 18 is rejected, although in this embodiment the second material(component) is oil and not curable resin; however, Zarzar also teaches the second material is silicon that can be crosslinked (curable resin) [0089]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention
was made to have a method of Zarzar where the second material is curable resin (cross
linkable silicone), because it is suitable material as second component for making
interference pattern.
Claim 21 is rejected. Although in this embodiment the second
material(component) is oil and not oxides such as silicon dioxide or aluminum oxide,
however, Zarzar also teaches the second material is oxides or glass [0082]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention
was made to have a method of Zarzar where the second material is oxide or glass,
because it is suitable material as second component for making interference pattern.
Glass (soda lime) comprising silicon dioxide and aluminum oxide.
Claim 23 is rejected. Although in this embodiment the interface master having the
geometrical form a plurality of TIR microstructure templates (first and second) is not formed by photolithography, however Zarzar also teaches forming the interface master having the geometrical form a plurality of TIR microstructure templates by photolithography the as well as replica molding [0082]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have a method of Zarzar where the interface master having the geometrical form a plurality of TIR microstructure templates (first and second) forms by photolithography, because it is suitable method for making interface master.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Lauren D. Zarzar et al (U. S. Patent Application: 2020/0056996, here after Zarzar),
further in view of Craig Lin (U. S. Patent Application: 2016/0077375, here after Lin).
Claim 15 is rejected. Zarzar teaches disposing the second material comprising
metal [0082]. Zarzar does not teach disposing it by sputtering. Lin teaches a polymeric
substrate (200) having features [fig, 2a] with enhance luminance and teaches depositing
metal (707) in structure by sputtering, evaporating, or electroless plating (dipping or
immersion) [fig. 7b, 0064]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art at the time of the invention was made to have a method of Zarzar were
disposing the second material comprising metal is done by sputtering, because it is
suitable method for depositing metal in features(groove) of polymeric material.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lauren D.
Zarzar et al (U. S. Patent Application: 2020/0056996, here after Zarzar), further in view
of M. Gallberger et al (Chinese Patent: 1148862, here after Gallberger).
Claim 30 is rejected. Zarzar teaches using interference colorant in inks that
exhibit an interference pattern upon reflection of incident electromagnetic radiation
[0030], but does not clearly teach micronizing the substrate to form particulates.
Gallberger teaches making interference colorant and crushing to make pigments in
micron size [page 5 paragraph 1]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have a method of Zarzar
and crushing the film to particles to make pigments (for inks).
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Drew J. Buoni
(U. S. Patent Application: 2018/0188425, here after Buoni), further in view of Brian A.
Kinder et al (U. S. Patent Application: 2011/0032727, here after Kinder).
Claim 36 is rejected. Buoni teaches a method of producing a substrate that
exhibits an interference pattern (color change by upon reflection of incident electromagnetic radiation(light)), the method comprising;
forming a bilayer material comprises a first layer (12, transparent polymer resin)
formed from a first material having a first refractive index and a second layer (reflecting
coating 17, pure aluminum) [0074] abutting the first layer and formed from a second
material having a second refractive index;
wherein the substrate comprises a first and a second plurality of TIR
microstructures having different shapes(geometries) [fig. 1, fig. 3, 0031], each of which comprises the first material, the second material abutting the first material, and an
interface between the first material and the second material [fig. 1]; and wherein the interface is configured such that at least a portion of electromagnetic radiation(light) incident a surface of the substrate at least one illumination angle undergoes multiple total internal reflections between the first material and the second material (it happens in all saw teeth, or microprism areas) [fig. 1]. Buoni also teaches embossing a bilayer material using the interface master (embossing mold or template) to produce the substrate that exhibits an interference pattern upon reflection of incident electromagnetic radiation(light) [0054], however Buoni teaches embossing polymeric films together using a heated platen press to simultaneously mold the microprisms and laminate the thermoplastic polymeric films together [0054], and then coating aluminum(reflective)layer [0058] by providing an interface master having
geometrical form of a plurality of total internal reflection (TIR) microstructure templates (first and second which varying shape or geometries) formed therein (embossing tool) [0072, 0031] wherein the interface corresponds to and is a negative of the interface master (inherently would be negative of embossing tool). Buoni does not teach embossing polymer layer (prism layer) together with reflective layer. Kinder teaches forming prismatic structure by embossing reflective film and prism layer together [0033]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have a method of Bouni when reflective layer is deposited on polymer prism layer first and then emboss together because it is a suitable way for making prismatic structure.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 61 is allowed. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: claim is allowed for the same reason indicated in office action mailed on 07/24/25. Further search did not result in any other reference to cite.
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.”
. Buoni et al (U.S. 2018/0188425) teaches producing a substrate that exhibits an interference pattern upon reflection of incident electromagnetic radiation, by providing a multilayer material comprises a core layer (17) formed from a first material having a first refractive index, a top layer (12) abutting the core layer and formed from a second material having a second refractive index, and a bottom layer (21) abutting the
core layer and formed from a third material having a third refractive index; wherein the
substrate comprises a first array of TIR microstructures, each of which comprises the
first material, the second material abutting the first material, and a first interface
between the first material and the second material; and a second array of TIR
microstructures, each of which comprises the first material, the third material abutting
the first material, and a second interface between the first material and the third material
[fig. 1], but does not teach total internal reflection from both of the first and the second
interfaces.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 12/29/25, with respect to 35 U.S.C 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C 112(b) of claims 14, 22, 36, and 61 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/29/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues Zarzar does not teach the new limitation of claim 1. The examiner disagrees, Zarzar teaches using varying size of monodisperse microparticles for making TIR microstructure (see Zarar 0134). Same above respond is valid for applicant argument regarding claims 14, 15, and 30 since Zarzar teaches forming varying size (e.g. two size) of monodisperse glass microparticles, therefore substrate comprising at least two areas and microstructure with different size(diameter).
The applicant argument regarding claim 36 is not persuasive as Buoni teaches TIR microstructure template with areas with different shape or geometry (see 0031 and fig. 3).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TABASSOM TADAYYON ESLAMI whose telephone number is (571)270-1885. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 5712725166. 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.
/TABASSOM TADAYYON ESLAMI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718