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 .
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hattori et al (5385116) in view of Wang et al (Chemical Science)
The Hattori et al reference teaches a method of forming a layer of a non-volatile medium material over a surface (claims 7, 8). Then forming a layer of a molecular feedstock over a surface of the non-volatile medium material, the molecular feedstock comprising an organic solid crystal precursor claims 1. Further forming crystal nuclei from the organic solid crystal precursor; and growing the crystal nuclei to form an organic solid crystal thin film (col 3, lines 59-65). The non-volatile medium material comprises a liquid selected from the group consisting of silicone oil, paraffin oil, a fluorinated polymer, a polyolefin and polyethylene glycol (claim 10). The organic solid crystal precursor comprises a crystallizable organic molecule. The layer of molecular feedstock comprises injecting the molecular feedstock into the mold (example 6}, wherein the crystal nuclei are formed within a nucleation region of the layer of the molecular feedstock (column 3, lines 59-66). The sole difference between the instant claim and the prior art is the organic having chiral molecule. However, the Wang et al reference teaches that organics with chiral molecules to be crystallized into a single crystal. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant claim to modify the Hattori et al process by the teachings of the Wang et al reference to use a chiral molecule in the organic material in order to grow a crystal organic with specific properties.
With regards to claim 2, the Hattori et al reference teaches using crystallizable organics, note reference.
With regards to claim 3, the Wang et al reference teaches using a carbon chiral center, note fig 1.
With regards to claim 8, the Hattori et al reference teaches heating the organic material to less than the melt temperature, note, example 4.
With regards to claim 9, the Hattori et al reference teaches use of silicone oil paraffin oil, a fluorinated polymer, a polyolefin and polyethylene glycol (claim 10).
With respect to claim 13, the Wang et al reference teaches the organic material to be a single crystal, note page 1.
With respect to claim 14, the Hattori et al reference teaches the organic crystal material can be polycrystalline, note examples.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hattori et al (5385116) in view of Wang et al (Chemical Science)
The Hattori et al and Wang et al references are relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differs from the instant claim in the specific chiral molecule. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention, to determine through routine experimentation the optimum, operable chiral molecule, enantiomer in the combined references in order to have an increase flexible film.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hattori et al (5385116) in view of Wang et al (Chemical Science)
The Hattori et al and Wang et al references are relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differs from the instant claim in the use of a seed. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention, to determine through routine experimentation the optimum, operable use of a seed under the organic in the combined references in order to control the orientation of the film by the seed.
Claim(s) 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hattori et al (5385116) in view of Wang et al (Chemical Science)
The Hattori et al and Wang et al references are relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differs from the instant claim in a cover layer and angle. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention, to determine through routine experimentation the optimum, operable cover layer at an angle with respect to the substrate in the combined references in order to prevent impurities and lose of volatile materials.
Claims 5 to 7 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 prior art does not teach the melting of the organic prior to crystallization and the specific materials used in the film.
Claims 15 to 20 stand allowable over the art of record, as the prior art does not teach nor render obvious the instantly claimed invention, of the method of changing the properties of the grown layers.
Examiner’ remarks
The remaining references are merely cited of interest as showing the state of the art in organic film crystallization.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT M KUNEMUND whose telephone number is (571)272-1464. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am to 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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at 571-272-1344. 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.
RMK
/ROBERT M KUNEMUND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights