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 with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 1, 3, 5-7, 9, 10, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harnett (US Publication Number 2007/0080062 A1) in view of Brassard (US Patent Publication Number 2017/0371151 A1) and in further view of Akashi (US Patent Publication Number 2011/0279885 A1)
Harnett, teaches as in claim 1, an optical device (Fig. 9, ¶0005 “micro-electro-mechanical systems (MEMS)”), comprising a substrate (Fig. 9 “Substrate”), a plurality of particles1 (Fig. 9 “Particles”) disposed in a layer (Fig. 9 “Microchannel”) on the substrate (Fig. 9 “Substrate”), (Fig. 9 “Particles”) a cover (Fig. 9 “Lid”) disposed over the plurality of particles and an electromagnetically actuated field in proximity to the layer of the plurality of particles (¶0012 “the metal structure provides a magnetic field or an electroosmotic field under an applied electrical current”), Harrnett fails to teach wherein each of the plurality of particles comprises at least two surface characteristics, wherein the at least two surface characteristics each have distinct physical properties from one another. In a related art, Brassard teaches an optical device wherein each of the plurality of particles comprises at least two surface characteristics (¶0019 “distinct colours”) wherein the at least two surface characteristics each have distinct physical properties from one another (¶0015 “Janus microparticle may comprise at least two portions, each having distinct physical and/or chemical characteristics” and ¶0021 “Janus microparticle may comprise a material with a non-uniform porosity. Or, the Janus microparticle may comprise at least two materials, each material having a different density”).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the optical device, as taught by Harnett, with the particles comprises at least two surface characteristics, as taught by Brassard, for the purpose of providing macroscopic detectable effect during rotation (¶0015).
Harneet and Brassard fail to teach a concentration of the plurality of particles in the fluid is a volume fraction from about 0.002 to about 1.0. In a related art, Akashi teaches an optical device wherein a concentration of the plurality of particles in the fluid is a volume fraction from about 0.002 to about 1.02 (¶0205 “in a concentration of 20% by weight in ethanol as the dispersion medium”).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the optical device, as taught by Harnett and Brassard, with the concentration of the particles, as taught by Akashi, for the purpose of providing a way to cause change of the structural color of the porous structure (the periodic structure) to be black, blue, green, and red successively with the lapse of time, however it does not become white (¶0194).
Harnett, teaches as in claim 3, wherein the substrate comprises a transparent material (¶0047 “substrates such as glass may be used”).
Harnett, teaches as in claim 5, wherein the plurality of particles is suspended in a transparent fluid (¶ 0033 “water”).
Harnett, teaches as in claim 6, wherein the fluid comprises carbon tetrachloride, chloroform, water, isopropyl alcohol, or a combination thereof (¶0033 “water”).
Harnett, teaches as in claim 7, wherein the plurality of particles further comprise silica (¶0060 “silica particles”).
Harnett, teaches as in claim 9, wherein the diameter of the plurality of particles is from about 100 nm to about 50 microns (¶0067 “diameters of about 1 µm to about 10 µm”).
Harnett fails to teaches as in claim 10, wherein the plurality of particles further comprises a ferromagnetic coating on a portion of the surface of each of the plurality of particles. In a related art, Brassard teaches wherein the plurality of particles further comprises a ferromagnetic coating (¶0024 “nickel”) on a portion of the surface of each of the plurality of particles.
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the optical device, as taught by Harnett, Brassard and Akashi, with the coating on the particles, as taught by Brassard, for the purpose of providing macroscopic detectable effect during rotation (¶0015).
Harnett, teaches as in claim 13, wherein the cover further comprises an infrared transparent material (¶0069 “silicon”).
Harnett, teaches as in claim 14, wherein the electromagnetically actuated field is generated by a magnet (¶0079 “the external magnetic field is created by an electromagnet, or a small permanent magnet”).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harnett (US Publication Number 2007/0080062 A1) in view of Brassard (US Patent Publication Number 2017/0371151 A1) and in further view of Akashi (US Patent Publication Number 2011/0279885 A1) and in even further view of Huff (US Patent Publication Number 2018/0095067 A1).
Harnett, Brassard and Akashi fail to teach, as in claim 4, wherein the substrate further comprises a reservoir. In a related art, Huff teaches an optical device wherein the substrate further comprises a reservoir (¶0697 “a glass substrate with patterned transfer microchannels and reservoirs”).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the optical device, as taught by Harnett and Brassard, with the substrate with a reservoir, as taught by Huff, for the purpose of providing a way of enhancing the microchannel fill rates (¶0711).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harnett (US Publication Number 2007/0080062 A1) in view of Brassard (US Patent Publication Number 2017/0371151 A1) and in further view of Akashi (US Patent Publication Number 2011/0279885 A1) and in even further view of Filas (US Patent Number 6,741,019 B1).
Harnett, Brassard and Akashi fail to explicitly teach, as in claim 11, wherein the ferromagnetic coating has a thickness of from about 25 nm to about 150 nm. However, Brassard teaches the ferromagnetic coating has a thickness of from about 10 nm to 500 nm which includes the claimed range 25 nm to 150 nm. In a related art, Filas teaches wherein the ferromagnetic coating has a thickness of 30 nm (Col. 9, line 67).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the optical device, as taught by Harnett, Brassard and Akashi, with the thickness of the ferromagnetic coating as taught by Filas, for the purpose of providing a coating that exhibits strong magnetization and aligns its length to the direction of the applied field (Col. 9, lines 12-13).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 8 and 12 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:
The prior art fails to simultaneously teach all the limitations of claim 2 which includes wherein the substrate reflects in an infrared range.
The prior art fails to simultaneously teach all the limitations of claim 8 which includes wherein a concentration of the plurality of particles in the transparent fluid is a volume fraction from about 0.1 to about 1.5.
The prior art fails to simultaneously teach all the limitations of claim 12, which includes further comprising a detector configured to measure radiation emitted through the cover, wherein the detector comprises a charge-coupled device (CCD) camera detector, a photospectrometer, a pryoelectric detector, or a combination thereof.
Claims 15-20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art fails to simultaneously teach all the limitations of claim 15 which includes a detector in proximity to the cover to measure emissivity.
Regarding claim 16 depends from independent claim 15.
The prior art fails to simultaneously teach all the limitations of claim 17 which includes measuring emissivity reflected by the device with a pyroelectric detector.
Regarding claims 18-20 depends from independent claim 15.
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 JOURNEY F SUMLAR whose telephone number is (571)270-0656. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4pm.
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, Ricky Mack can be reached at 571-272-2333. 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.
JOURNEY F. SUMLAR
Examiner
Art Unit 2872
26 May 2026
/SHARRIEF I BROOME/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
1 ¶0101 teaches new particles are added to the cluster in an asymmetric fashion rather than in a uniform coating, since asymmetric particles such as "Janus" spheres.
2 20% would be a volume fraction of .2.
Prosecution Insights