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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election without traverse of Group 1 and Species IA, claims 1-2 and 4-17 in the reply filed on 03/10/2026 is acknowledged. Accordingly, claims 3 and 18-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Claims 1-2 and 4-17 are currently under examination on the merits.
Claim Objections
Claims 9 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities: “the anisotropic organic material” should read “the anisotropic organic molecule”, in order to be consistent with their base claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10, “the anisotropic organic molecule is crystalline” is suggested to be changed to “the anisotropic organic molecule forms crystalline”.
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 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, 4-6, 8, 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Parkerson et al (US 3,352,906, ‘906 hereafter).
Regarding claims 1, 4-6, 8, 14 and 16, ‘906 discloses a thin single crystal plate (Fig. 2, C2/L20- C2/L39) reading upon a thin film comprising a tri-glycine sulfate single crystal being a solid organic phase, which has three amino acid scaffolds, satisfying the limitations of present claims 1, 4-6, 8, 14 and 16; and a dye which is an anisotropic organic molecule (C3/L50-C3/L60, Buffalo Black NBR, Trypan Red and Congo Red are azo-based dyes with rod-like molecule, which may be included into the crystal).
Claims 1, 4-6, 8, 10, 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jarvis et al (US 2012/0021362, ‘362 hereafter).
Regarding claims 1, 4-6, 8, 10, 14 and 16, ‘362 discloses an image coating layer ([0004], [0080]) reading upon a thin film comprising a co-crystal of two oxalamide of glycine being amino acid scaffold, satisfying the limitations of present claims 1, 4-6, 8 and 16; with one Docosadiyndioic acid being an anisotropic organic molecule (Example J, [0139], Docosadiyndioic acid is part of co-crystal which satisfies present claim 10).
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jarvis et al (US 2012/0021362, ‘362 hereafter).
Regarding claim 13, ‘362 teaches all the limitations of claim 1, ‘362 also discloses that the coating layer can be used in an electronic display ([0066]), which is one of essential components in an artificial reality headset; therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have used the coating layer of ‘362 in the electronic display of an artificial reality headset.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 7, 9, 11-12, 15 and 17 would be allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The reason for the allowance is that the prior art of record fails to disclose or fairly suggests a thin film comprising an amino acid scaffold being an enantiomer having an chiral center (Glycine is an achiral molecule which lacks of a chiral center). The prior art also fails to disclose or fairly suggest that the anisotropic organic molecule is chemically bonded to the amino acid scaffold as recited in the present claims 9 and 11, and the thin film has refractive indices satisfying present claims 12 and 14.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUIYUN ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7934. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00-5:00 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, Arron Austin can be reached on 571-272-8935. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RUIYUN ZHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights