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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/25/2025 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejections have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3 and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The claim 3 recitation “wherein the at least one nano-node of the plurality of nano-nodes is configured to turn to the reflective side as the sunscreen wears off” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear where the reflective side turns to and in relation to what. Furthermore, the disclosure does not describe how the nano-nodes turn. The mechanism that physically turns the nano-node to the reflective side is not known or understood.
Claim 19 recites, “wherein the plurality of nano-nodes are configured to provide a coverage mapping on skin of a user.” The disclosure describes this as:
[0236] In some embodiments, the nano-nodes are able to provide a coverage mapping to let a user know they missed a spot. For example, the nano-nodes send location information/distance information from each other, and based on the information, the nano-micro interface is able to generate a mapping of the nano-nodes which is displayed to the user, and/or an alert is provided to the user to apply to the missed area (e.g., back). Furthering the example, the nano-nodes determine a distance to the nearest nano-node in each cardinal direction (or other directions, or approximate directions), and if a nano-node is farther than a threshold, then it is determined that coverage is lacking in that area. In another example, the nano-nodes send location information and distance information from neighboring nano-nodes (e.g., Nano-node A is 2 cm north from Nano-node B, and 0.01 cm west from Nano-node C, and so on) to the nano-micro interface, and based on the information, the physical area network is able to generate a coverage map.
There are various types of nano-nodes, and the claim does not recite the element(s) and/or structure of the nano-node needed to carry out the function of providing coverage mapping on skin of a user. For example, which elements enable nano-nodes to send location and distance information to and from each other.
Claim 20 is rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 19.
Claim 21 recites, “wherein at least one nano-node of the plurality of nano-nodes is configured such that a reflective side of the at least one nano-node turns to face a light source.” The disclosure does not describe how the nano-nodes turn. The mechanism that physically turns the nano-node to the reflective side is not known or understood.
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.
Claims 1, 6, 15-18, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Loy et al. (US 2018/0333347 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Loy et al. disclose a composition comprising: a plurality of nano-nodes; and a sunscreen solution (paragraph 0002).
With respect to claim 6, Loy et al. disclose wherein at least one nano-node of the plurality of nano-nodes is absorbent of light (paragraphs 0020).
With respect to claim 15, Loy et al. disclose wherein the sunscreen solution comprises at least one of: oxybenzone, avobenzone, octisalate, octocrylene, homosalate, octinoxate, zinc oxide, titanium oxide, water, coconut oil, glycerin, extracts, lecithin, shea butter, alcohol, xanthan gum, or aloe (paragraph 0035).
With respect to claim 16, Loy et al. disclose wherein the sunscreen solution comprises organic ingredients (paragraph 0028).
With respect to claim 17, Loy et al. disclose wherein the composition is configured to be sprayed on (paragraph 0025).
With respect to claim 18, Loy et al. disclose wherein the composition is configured to be rubbed on (paragraph 0025).
With respect to claim 22, Loy et al. disclose wherein at least one nano-node of the plurality of nano-nodes comprises more than two sides (inherent).
Claims 1-6, 15-18, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Soroudi (US 2017/0304193 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Soroudi discloses a composition comprising: a plurality of nano-nodes; and a sunscreen solution (paragraphs 0052-0058).
With respect to claim 2, Soroudi discloses wherein at least one nano-node of the plurality of nano-nodes includes a reflective side and an absorbent side (paragraphs 0052+).
With respect to claim 3, Soroudi discloses wherein the at least one nano-node of the plurality of nano-nodes is configured to turn to the reflective side as the sunscreen wears off (paragraphs 0052+). This rejection is made to the extent the claim is understood.
It is noted that while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function alone. See MPEP 2114. In this case, it should be recognized that the wherein clause is functional in nature and does not distinguish structurally the instant claim over the prior art. See MPEP 2114 and 2111.04.
With respect to claim 4, Soroudi discloses wherein the at least one nano-node of the plurality of nano-nodes comprises a light sensitive material (paragraphs 0052+).
With respect to claim 5, Soroudi discloses wherein at least one nano-node of the plurality of nano-nodes is reflective of light (paragraphs 0052+).
With respect to claim 6, Soroudi discloses wherein at least one nano-node of the plurality of nano-nodes is absorbent of light (paragraphs 0052+).
With respect to claim 15, Soroudi discloses wherein the sunscreen solution comprises at least one of: oxybenzone, avobenzone, octisalate, octocrylene, homosalate, octinoxate, zinc oxide, titanium oxide, water, coconut oil, glycerin, extracts, lecithin, shea butter, alcohol, xanthan gum, or aloe (paragraphs 0069-0070).
With respect to claim 16, Soroudi discloses wherein the sunscreen solution comprises organic ingredients (paragraphs 0059 & 0070).
With respect to claim 17, Soroudi discloses wherein the composition is configured to be sprayed on (paragraph 0056).
With respect to claim 18, Soroudi discloses wherein the composition is configured to be rubbed on (paragraph 0056).
With respect to claim 21, Soroudi discloses wherein at least one nano-node of the plurality of nano-nodes is configured such that a reflective side of the at least one nano-node turns to face a light source (paragraphs 0052+). This rejection is made to the extent the claim is understood.
It is noted that while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function alone. See MPEP 2114. In this case, it should be recognized that the wherein clause is functional in nature and does not distinguish structurally the instant claim over the prior art. See MPEP 2114 and 2111.04.
With respect to claim 22, Soroudi discloses wherein at least one nano-node of the plurality of nano-nodes comprises more than two sides (inherent).
With respect to claim 23, Soroudi discloses wherein at least one of the sides is reflective, and at least one of the sides is absorbent (paragraphs 0052+).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-14 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Prior art discloses a composition comprising a plurality of nano-nodes and a sunscreen solution, but fails to disclose wherein at least one nano-node of the plurality of nano-nodes comprises a nano-crystal solar cell for providing power to the at least one nano-node, as claimed in claim 10. Prior art discloses a composition comprising a plurality of nano-nodes and a sunscreen solution, but fails to disclose wherein at least one nano-node of the plurality of nano-nodes comprises a power storage configured to be charged and for providing power to the at least one nano-node, as claimed in claim 11. Prior art discloses a composition comprising a plurality of nano-nodes and a sunscreen solution, but fails to disclose wherein at least one nano-node of the plurality of nano-nodes is configured to communicate information to a smart device using the sunscreen solution as a conductor, as claimed in claim 12. Claims 13-14 are allowed by virtue of their dependency on claim 12.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JURIE YUN whose telephone number is (571)272-2497. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30 am - 7:30 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, David J Makiya can be reached at 571 272-2273. 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.
/JURIE YUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
January 7, 2026