DETAILED ACTION
In Reply filed on 12/17/2025, claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 6, 13, 17-18, and 20 are currently amended. No claim is canceled, and no claim is newly added. Claims 1-20 are considered in this Office 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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Instant Specification (as filed on 12/17/2025) was amended to replace “a pattern platform 72” with “a/the patterned template platform 72” for several instances in [0046, 0048], as filed. The originally filed instant specification does not support that the pattern platform 72 is “patterned.” The template 76 is the only structure of a patterned template. The platform 72 should not be expressed as being patterned (see figs. 3A-3C). It is suggested to correct “a/the patterned template platform 72” as “a/the platform 72” without the term of pattern or patterned.
Appropriate correction is required.
Oath/Declaration
The declaration under 37 CFR 1.130(a) filed on 12/17/2025 is sufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 1-20 based on 35 U.S.C. 102/103 in view of Vargo (Vargo et al. “Orbital Angular Momentum from Self-Assembled Concentric Nanoparticle Rings”, Adv. Mater. 2021, 33, 2103563, pp. 1-9. published on 08/21/2021). The cited reference is withdrawn as a reference since the 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1) exception applies due to the Applicant’s declaration.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, 5, and 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu (US 20120309904 A1) in view of Kim (US 20110059299 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Xu teaches a method comprising:
(a) [preparing a patterned template of one or more mesas and trenches];
(b) providing a solution of a solvent, a block copolymer, small molecules, and nanoparticles ([0074]: solution 115 comprising a solvent, a block copolymer (BCP) 108, a bifunctional linking compound 110, and nanoparticles 120; fig. 1); and
(c) depositing the solution on the [patterned] template forming a supramolecular nanocomposite with the nanoparticles by directed self-assembly ([0075]: the bifunctional linking compound 110 having favorable interactions with but not bounding covalently to BPC 108 and passivating ligands of nanoparticles 120, and the solution 115 is spin cast in step 122, followed by annealing in step 126 to produce the thin-film nanocomposite 102; [0050]: by directed self-assembly), wherein [the supramolecular nanocomposite exhibits higher order parameter and lower defect density in the trenches than on the mesas].
Xu does not specifically teach the bracketed limitation(s) as presented above, but Kim teaches the limitation(s) as follows:
Kim teaches a method of forming a block copolymer pattern comprises providing a substrate comprising a topographic pre-pattern comprising a ridge surface and a trench surface (abstract, figs. 1-3). The method includes preparing a patterned template of one or more mesas and trenches ([0023]; figs. 1-3), depositing a solution of BCP on the patterned template forming microdomains of self-assembled BCP ([0004, 0060]).
In the same field of endeavor as forming patterns into well-defined arrays of nanostructures or in sub-optical lithographic dimension using directed self-assembly of BCP (Xu: abstract, [0005]; Kim: [0001-0004]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing invention to modify the substrate of Xu, wherein the prepared solution is spin cast, with another known patterned substrate having trenches and ridges as taught by Kim in order to obtain known results or a reasonable expectation of successful results of forming a pattern directed by self-assembly of BCP in sub-optical lithographic dimension with control over the lateral placement of the BCP (Kim: derived from [0001-0004]).
Upon the modification, modified Xu is still silent that “the supramolecular nanocomposite exhibits higher order parameter and lower defect density in the trenches than on the mesas.” In this case, modified Xu’s supramolecular nanocomposite is produced by the identical method as recited in claim 1. Furthermore, modified Xu’s solution comprises the same components as disclosed in Instant Specification (Xu: claim 7: polystyrene-block poly-4-vinylpyridine (PS-b-P4VP); claim 10: the bifunctional linking compound is selected from the group consisting of 3-n-pentadecylphenol (PDP); claim 3: the nanoparticles are selected from the group consisting of CdS, CdSe, PbS, Au, and CoFe2O4; [0078]: chloroform as solvent; [0091]: NP’s native alky ligands; c.f., Instant Specification: claims 1, 13, 16, as published), modified Xu’s patterned template has comparable dimensions of trenches and mesas to the ones of Instant Application (Kim: [0023], figs. 1-3; c.f., Instant Specification: [0064], figs. 2, 7-9, as published), and the cast nanocomposite of modified Xu undergoes annealing process with a chloroform vapor the same as disclosed in Instant Application (Xu: [0075, 0080]: step 126; Kim: [0027]; c.f., Instant Specification: [0043, 0056], as published). Therefore, a prima facie case of anticipation is established to the claimed property (i.e., “the supramolecular nanocomposite exhibits higher order parameter and lower defect density in the trenches than on the mesas”) by modified Xu. See MPEP 2112.01 (Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
Regarding claim 2, modified Xu teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: solvent vapor annealing the formed supramolecular nanocomposite (Xu: [0075, 0080]: annealed with chloroform vapor in step 126; fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, modified Xu teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the patterned template is created using electron beam lithography (Kim: [0068]).
Regarding claim 9, modified Xu teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the solution is deposited on the patterned template by spin-coating (Xu: [0075, 0080]: spin coating; Kim: [0062]) to a thickness of between 50 nanometers and 70 nanometers (Kim: [0068-0069]: about 60 nm thickness films; fig. 1). Here, the disclosed range anticipates the recited range of thickness.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing invention to modify the thickness of spin coated solution on the patterned template of modified Xu to have an appropriate range (i.e., at least 1.5* L0) as taught by Xu in order to obtain known results or a reasonable expectation of successful results of forming a patterned of forming a pattern directed by self-assembly of BCP into periodic microdomains with control over the lateral placement of the BCP (Kim: derived from Kim: derived from [0002, 0007, 0030, 0068-0069]).
Regarding claim 10, modified Xu teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the solvent comprises chloroform (Xu: [0078]).
Regarding claim 11, modified Xu teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the block copolymer is selected from the group of copolymers consisting of polystyrene-b-poly(4-vinylpyridine) (PS-b-P4VP), PS(19 kDa)-b-P4VP(5.2 kDa) and PS(50 kDa)-b-P4VP(17 kDa) (Xu: claim 7, [0007]).
Regarding claims 12 and 13, modified Xu teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the small molecules comprise organic small molecules, and the organic small molecules comprise 3-pentadecylphenol (PDP) (Xu: claim 10).
Regarding claim 14, modified Xu teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the nanoparticles are alkyl-passivated (Xu: [0091]: NP’s native alky ligands).
Regarding claims 15 and 16, modified Xu teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the nanoparticles are inorganic nanoparticles, or the nanoparticles comprise gold nanoparticles (Xu: claims 2, 3).
Regarding claim 17, Modified Xu teaches the method of claim 1, wherein said nanoparticles have a diameter of between about 2.5 nanometers and 9.5 nanometers (Xu: [0077, 0079]: e.g., 4 nm in diameter of Au or CdSe nanoparticles or 5.4 nm in diameter of PbS nanoparticles).
Regarding claim 18, modified Xu, the same as applied to claim 1, teaches method comprising:
(a) providing a solution of at least one type of solvent, block copolymer, small molecules, and nanoparticles, wherein the small molecules are configured to hydrogen bond to the block copolymer to form supramolecules (Xu: [0074]: solution 115 comprising a solvent, a block copolymer (BCP) 108, a bifunctional linking compound 110, and nanoparticles 120; claim 7: polystyrene-block poly-4-vinylpyridine (PS-b-P4VP); claim 10: the bifunctional linking compound is selected from the group consisting of 3-n-pentadecylphenol (PDP); fig. 1);
(b) providing a patterned template, the template defined by mesas and trenches having a depth from a surface of the template of about 50 nanometers and 75 nanometers (Kim: [0023]; figs. 1-3; [0007, 0018, 0030] and claim 10: h is at least L0/2, wherein L0 refers to the natural periodicity of the block copolymer or the length of the repeating structural unit of the self-assembled block copolymer; [0068-0069]: e.g., when L0 is 40 nm; here, the depth h would be at least 20 nm; although the disclosed range does not anticipates the recited range, the disclosed range overlaps with the recited range between 50 nm and 75 nm; In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (MPEP 2144.05 I));
(c) depositing the solution on the template, forming a supramolecular nanocomposite with the nanoparticles forming in the trenches by directed self-assembly (Xu: [0075]: the bifunctional linking compound 110 having favorable interactions with but not bounding covalently to BPC 108 and passivating ligands of nanoparticles 120, and the solution 115 is spin cast in step 122, followed by annealing in step 126 to produce the thin-film nanocomposite 102; [0050]: by directed self-assembly; Kim: [0004, 0060]), wherein [the supramolecular nanocomposite exhibits higher order parameter and lower defect density in the trenches than on the mesas]; and
(d) annealing the formed supramolecular nanocomposite (Xu: [0075, 0080]: annealed with chloroform vapor in step 126; fig. 1).
Thus, modified Xu teaches all the claimed limitations except the bracketed one as presented above, and the motivation to combine as applied to claim 1 equally applies (see above, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 1). Moreover, although modified Xu is silent about the bracketed limitation, a prima facie case of anticipation is established to the claimed property (i.e., “the supramolecular nanocomposite exhibits higher order parameter and lower defect density in the trenches than on the mesas”) by modified Xu (id.).
Regarding claim 19, modified Xu teaches the method of claim 18, wherein the block copolymer is selected from the group of copolymers consisting of polystyrene-b-poly(4-vinylpyridine) (PS-b-P4VP), PS(19 kDa)-b-P4VP(5.2 kDa) and PS(50 kDa)-b-P4VP(17 kDa) (Xu: claim 7, [0007]).
Regarding claim 20, modified Xu the method of claim 18, wherein said nanoparticles have a diameter of between about 2.5 nanometers and 9.5 nanometers (Xu: [0077, 0079]: e.g., 4 nm in diameter of Au or CdSe nanoparticles or 5.4 nm in diameter of PbS nanoparticles).
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu (US 20120309904 A1) in view of Kim (US 20110059299 A1) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Jung (KR 20190042905 A).
Regarding claims 3-4, modified Xu teaches the method of claim 1, but does not specifically teach the method further comprising: removing the supramolecular nanocomposite from the template (claim 3), and the supramolecular nanocomposite is removed from the template by exfoliation (claim 4).
Jung teaches a method for manufacturing a large-area quantum nanoparticle array by using a block copolymer having a resolution of 20 nm or less as a template to impart a spatial confinement effect to quantum nanoparticles (abstract). The method comprises removing the supramolecular nanocomposite from the template, and the supramolecular nanocomposite is removed from the template by exfoliation (figs. 1, 6 and claims 1 and 10: coating a polymer thin film on the quantum nanoparticle array fabricated on the template; separating the quantum nanoparticle array and the template by peeling off the polymer thin film with an adhesive film; [0035-0036]).
In the same field of endeavor as forming a variety of surface patterns with nanoparticles, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of modified Xu to further comprise removing the surface pattern to be removed from a template by exfoliation as taught by Jung in order to obtain known results or a reasonable expectation of successful results of utilizing the surface patterns formed with nanoparticles in various applications by transferring into variety of substrates (Jung: derived from [0005]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu (US 20120309904 A1) in view of Kim (US 20110059299 A1) as applied to claim 1, and further in view Russell (US 20100075116 A1).
Regarding claim 6, modified Xu teaches method of claim 1, but does not specifically teach that an upper surface of the patterned template comprises a polymer layer.
Russell teaches a method of forming a nanopatterned surface (abstract, claim 1). Russell teaches that an upper surface of patterned template comprises a polymer layer (fig. 5, claims 1 and 6: the method comprising forming a polymeric replica of a topographically patterned crystalline surface; wherein the polymeric replica comprises a topographically patterned surface opposing the topographically patterned crystalline surface; forming a block copolymer film on the topographically patterned surface of the polymeric replica; and annealing the block copolymer film to form an annealed block copolymer film comprising a nanopatterned surface).
In the same field of endeavor as forming a nanopatterned surface, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing invention to modify the patterned template of modified Xu to be a polymeric replica of a topographically patterned crystalline surface as taught by Russell in order to obtain known results or a reasonable expectation of successful results of forming a nanopatterned surface with processing advantage by having a flexible and even elastomeric polymeric replica so as to permit the use of roll-to-roll processing methods for the formation of high-density arrays and also permit the fabrication of curved (non-planar) high-density arrays (Russell: derived from [0019]).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu (US 20120309904 A1) in view of Kim (US 20110059299 A1) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Zhang (US 20230046945 A1).
Regarding claims 7-8, modified Xu teaches method of claim 1, but does not specifically teach that the patterned template has a pattern selected from the group consisting of a single circular shape, a pair of concentric circles and three concentric circles (claim 7), or the patterned template has an outer ring shape with a radius of between 150 nanometers and 1150 nanometers (claim 8).
Zhang teaches a Fresnel lens mold (abstract). The mold comprises a pattern selected from the group consisting of a single circular shape, a pair of concentric circles and three concentric circles, and the patterned template has an outer ring shape [with a radius of between 150 nanometers and 1150 nanometers] (figs. 1, 4, 9 and [0096]: Fresnel lens molds of any size can be fabricated by controlling the number of stacked bendable strips). Here, although Zang is silent about what the number of stacked bendable strips is, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing invention to choose any number of stacked bendable strips that would fit to a Fresnel lens mold in a desired size, for example, from 1-3 (Zhang: derived from [0096]).
In the same field of endeavor as forming a patterned article in use of a patterned mold, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing invention to modify the patterned templated of modified Xu to have a circular shape as taught by Zhang in order to obtain known results or a reasonable expectation of successful results of making a Fresnel lens having a nanocomposite thereon for various applications of the Fresnel lens (Zhang: derived from Abstract).
Upon the modification, modified Xu still does not explicitly disclose the bracketed limitation(s) as presented above, i.e., an outer ring shape has a radius of between 150 nanometers and 1150 nanometers. In this case, a recitation of the relative dimensions of the patterned template as the outer ring shape, which are variable depending on the application of the patterned article, and the limitations would not make the claim to be patentably distinct from the prior art (see MPEP 2144.04 IV. A; In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.). Thus, claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 12/17/2025 with respect to claims 1 and 18 (which have been newly amended by the applicants) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection have been made due to the newly added features from the applicant’s latest amendment filed on 12/17/2025 and the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lee (US 20110147337 A1) teaches methods for preparing one or more conductive nanostructures using a composite of nanoparticles and block copolymer (abstract, fig. 2, [0022]).
Chen (US 20160140994 A1) teaches the directed self-assembly of nanoparticles grafted to polymeric and/or oligomeric ligands, which may be especially useful for magnetic recording media applications (abstract, [0001], figs. 1-4).
Ogawa (US 20170095947 A1) teaches a method of manufacturing a mold and a biocompatible pattern sheet by using the mold (abstract, figs. 1-3).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to INJA SONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1605. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fri. 8 AM - 5 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, Xiao (Sam) Zhao can be reached at (571)270-5343. 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.
/INJA SONG/Examiner, Art Unit 1744