DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed on 02/25/2026.
3. Claims 1-34 are pending. Claims 1-15, 34 are under examination on the merits. Claims 1,4 are amended. Claim 34 is newly added. Claims 16-33 are withdrawn to a non-elected invention from further consideration.
4. The objections and rejections not addressed below are deemed withdrawn.
5. Applicant's arguments filed 02/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, thus claims 1-15 stand rejected as set forth in Office action dated 11/26/2025 and further discussed in the Response to Arguments below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-15, 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maritza Mujica et al. (Programming Semiconductor Nanowire Composition with Sub-100 nm Resolution via the Geode Process, Nano Letters 2022 22 (2), 554-560, hereinafter “Mujica”) in view of Greenwood et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0071010 A1, hereinafter, “Greenwood).
Regarding claims 1-2,4: Mujica teaches an optically responsive material, comprising: a plurality of colloidal nanowire geodes comprising a nanowire, wherein each of the plurality of colloidal nanowire geodes further comprises: a hollow colloidal microsphere, and a nanowire coupled to an inner surface of the hollow colloidal microsphere (Page 554, Abstract, lines 1-2; Page 556, Fig.3), since semiconductor nanowires are promising building blocks for future electronic, photonic, energy, and biological applications (Page 554, left Col., Introduction, lines 1-5). Mujica does not expressly teach a plurality of colloidal nanowire geodes within the composite matrix, and wherein the optically responsive material has an optical resonance in at least one spectral region, the optical resonance being attributable to resonance peaks in scattering and/or absorption of the nanowire.
PNG
media_image1.png
146
364
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Greenwood teaches a coating composition, in particular a cool roof or solar reflective coating composition, which comprises an organosilane-functionalized colloidal silica and hollow microspheres (Page 1, [0002]). Greenwood teaches the solar reflective coating composition comprises polymeric microspheres (Page 4, [0074]) in organic binder (Page 6, [0096]), and wherein the optically responsive material has an optical resonance in at least one spectral region (Page 4, [0075]) with benefit of providing the hollow microspheres and optionally an organosilane-functionalized colloidal silica can be used in a solar reflective coating composition or a cool roof coating composition, for improving the coating lifetime and ageing characteristics (Page 1, [0014]).
In an analogous art of the optically responsive material, and in the light of such benefit before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to apply the plurality of colloidal nanowire geodes by Mujica, so as to include a plurality of colloidal nanowire geodes within the composite matrix, and wherein the optically responsive material has an optical resonance in at least one spectral region as taught by Greenwood, and would have been motivated to do so with reasonable expectation that this would result in providing a solar reflective coating composition or a cool roof coating composition, for improving the coating lifetime and ageing characteristics as suggested by Greenwood (Page 1, [0014]).
Pertaining specifically to claim 1, since the combination Mujica in view of Greenwood
discloses the identical or substantially identical an optically responsive material as the recited claimed, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was made, that the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e., the optical resonance would be the same as claimed (i.e. the optical resonance being attributable to resonance peaks in scattering and/or absorption of the nanowire). If there is any difference between the product of Mujica in view of Greenwood and the product of the instant claims the difference would have been minor and obvious. “Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. See MPEP 2112.01(I).
"Where ... the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical ... the PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his claimed product." In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 (CCPA 1977) (citations and footnote omitted). The mere recitation of a property or characteristic not disclosed by the prior art does not necessarily confer patentability to a composition or a method of using that composition. See In re Skoner, 51 7 F .2d 94 7, 950 ( CCP A 1975).
It is submitted that the term "attributable" means capable of being attributed.
Regarding claim 5: The disclosure of Mujica in view of Greenwood is adequately set forth in paragraph above and is incorporated herein by reference. Greenwood teaches an optically responsive material, wherein the plurality of microsphere is present in an amount from about 0.5 % to about 30 % based on a total weight of the optically responsive material (Page 6, [0094]).
Regarding claim 6: Mujica teaches the optically responsive material, wherein the hollow colloidal microsphere comprises silicon dioxide (Page 556, Fig. 2; Page 556, Fig. 3).
PNG
media_image2.png
446
380
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
500
398
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8: Mujica teaches the optically responsive material, wherein the nanowire comprises a semiconductor material such as VLS growth of three types of
semiconductor nanowires inside hollow microcapsules: nominally intrinsic Si (i-Si), phosphorus-modulated Si (i-Si/n-Si), and heterostructured SiGe alloy (SixGe1−x/SiyGe1−y) nanowires (Page 555, left Col. 2nd para, lines 1-5).
Regarding claim 9: Mujica teaches the optically responsive material, wherein the nanowire comprises silicon, germanium, or a combination thereof (Page 556, Fig. 3).
PNG
media_image4.png
260
366
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10: Mujica teaches the optically responsive material, wherein the nanowire is doped with one or more impurities to modify a dielectric property of the colloidal nanowire geodes such as phosphorus-modulated Si (i-Si/n-Si) (i.e., n-doped silicon) (Page 555, left Col. 2nd para, lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 11: Mujica teaches the optically responsive material, wherein the nanowire is selectively etched to scatter light in one or more spectral regions (Page 555, Right Col., 3rd para, lines 1-17 to Page 556, left Col., 1st para, lines 1-12, Fig. 3).
PNG
media_image5.png
284
376
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 12-14: Mujica teaches the optically responsive material, wherein each of the plurality of colloidal nanowire geodes has an optical resonance in the ultraviolet spectral region, in the infrared spectral region, and in the visible spectral region (Page S10, Fig. S5).
PNG
media_image6.png
114
680
media_image6.png
Greyscale
"Where ... the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical ... the PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his claimed product." In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 (CCPA 1977) (citations and footnote omitted). The mere recitation of a property or characteristic not disclosed by the prior art does not necessarily confer patentability to a composition or a method of using that composition. See In re Skoner, 51 7 F .2d 94 7, 950 ( CCP A 197 5).
Regarding claim 15: The disclosure of Mujica in view of Greenwood is adequately set forth in paragraph above and is incorporated herein by reference. Greenwoood teaches the optically responsive material, wherein the optically responsive material has an optical resonance in the ultraviolet spectral region, the infrared spectral region, the visible spectral region, or a combination thereof (Page 4, [0075]).
Regarding claim 34: The disclosure of Mujica in view of Greenwood is adequately set forth in paragraph above and is incorporated herein by reference. Mujica teaches the optically responsive material, wherein the plurality of colloidal nanowire geodes comprising a plurality of nanowires (Page 555, Right Col., 3rd para, lines 1-17 to Page 556, left Col., 1st para, lines 1-12, Fig. 3; Page 557, Fig. 4(a)).
8. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maritza Mujica et al. (Programming Semiconductor Nanowire Composition with Sub-100 nm Resolution via the Geode Process, Nano Letters 2022 22 (2), 554-560, hereinafter “Mujica”) in view of Greenwood et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0071010 A1, hereinafter, “Greenwood) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (Innovative permeation and antifouling properties of PVDF ultrafiltration membrane with stepped hollow SiO2 microspheres in membrane matrix, Materials Letters, 182, 2016, 376-379, hereinafter “Wang”).
Regarding claim 3: The disclosure of Mujica in view of Greenwood is adequately set forth in paragraph 7 above and is incorporated herein by reference. Mujica in view of Greenwood does not expressly teach the polymer is polyvinylidene fluoride.
However, Wang teaches hybrid polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) ultrafiltration membranes are prepared using hollow silica microspheres(HSiO2) as an extraordinary additive. The results show that HSiO2 microspheres had inner cavity structure, mesoporous wall, good dispersion and excellent hydrophilicity, and can be used to construct stepped permeable channels for decreasing the mass transfer resistance of water molecules in the porous support layer of PVDF membrane. The improved hydrophilicity and constructed channels of PVDF matrix by added HSiO2 improved the separation and antifouling performance of hybrid PVDF membrane, which are conducive to increase the separation efficiency and prolong the service life of membrane module (Page 377, Abstract, lines 1-8).
PNG
media_image7.png
318
874
media_image7.png
Greyscale
In an analogous art of the optically responsive material, and in the light of such benefit before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to apply the plurality of colloidal nanowire geodes by Mujica, so as to include polyvinylidene fluoride as a composite matrix as taught Wang, and would have been motivated to do so with reasonable expectation that this would result in providing to prepare hybrid polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) ultrafiltration membranes using hollow silica microspheres(HSiO2) as an extraordinary additive. The results show that HSiO2 microspheres had inner cavity structure, mesoporous wall, good dispersion and excellent hydrophilicity, and can be used to construct stepped permeable channels for decreasing the mass transfer resistance of water molecules in the porous support layer of PVDF membrane. The improved hydrophilicity and constructed channels of PVDF matrix by added HSiO2 improved the separation and antifouling performance of hybrid PVDF membrane, which are conducive to increase the separation efficiency and prolong the service life of membrane module as suggested by Wang (Page 377, Abstract, lines 1-8).
9. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maritza Mujica et al. (Programming Semiconductor Nanowire Composition with Sub-100 nm Resolution via the Geode Process, Nano Letters 2022 22 (2), 554-560, hereinafter “Mujica”) in view of Greenwood et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0071010 A1, hereinafter, “Greenwood) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zho et al. (Preparation and Performance of Si3N4 Hollow Microspheres by the Template Method and Carbothermal Reduction Nitridation, ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 2019, 11 (42), 39054-39061, hereinafter “Zhao”).
Regarding claim 7: The disclosure of Mujica in view of Greenwood is adequately set forth in paragraph 7 above and is incorporated herein by reference. Mujica in view of Greenwood does not expressly teach the hollow colloidal microsphere comprises silicon nitride.
However, Zhao teaches silicon nitride (Si3N4) hollow microspheres with smaller particle size and narrower distribution can be used to prepare closed-cell ceramics as the pore-forming agent to improve heat insulation performance and wave-transparent performance of porous Si3N4 (Page 39054, Abstract, lines 1-5), which it can be used as the pore-forming agent or matrix for preparing lightweight, heat-insulating, wave-transparent, and high-strength porous Si3N4 ceramics (Page 39054, Abstract, lines 16-17).
PNG
media_image8.png
258
468
media_image8.png
Greyscale
In an analogous art of the optically responsive material, and in the light of such benefit before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the hollow colloidal microsphere by Mujica, so as to include
the hollow colloidal microsphere comprises silicon nitride as taught by Zhao, and would have been motivated to do so with reasonable expectation that this would result in providing silicon nitride (Si3N4) hollow microspheres with smaller particle size and narrower distribution can be used to prepare closed-cell ceramics as the pore-forming agent to improve heat insulation performance and wave-transparent performance of porous Si3N4 (Page 39054, Abstract, lines 1-5), which it can be used as the pore-forming agent or matrix for preparing lightweight, heat-insulating, wave-transparent, and high-strength porous Si3N4 ceramics as suggested by Zhao
(Page 39054, Abstract, lines 16-17).
Response to Arguments
10. Applicant's arguments filed 02/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive,
In response to the Applicant’s argument that Greenwood's optical behavior is microsphere-driven broadband reflectance, not nanowire-attributable resonance peaks
The examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Furthermore, the reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant, In re Linter, 458 F.2d 1013, 173 USPQ 560 (CCPA 1972); In re Dillon, 91 9 F.2d 688,16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990) cert. denied, 500 U.S. 904 (1991). Also, while there must be motivation to make the claimed invention, there is no requirement that the prior art provide the same reason as the applicant to make the claimed invention, Ex parte Levengood, 28 USPQ2d 1300,1302 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993).
In this case, since the combination Mujica in view of Greenwood discloses the identical or substantially identical an optically responsive material as the recited claimed, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was made, that the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e., the optical resonance would be the same as claimed (i.e. the optical resonance being attributable to resonance peaks in scattering and/or absorption of the nanowire). If there is any difference between the product of Mujica in view of Greenwood and the product of the instant claims the difference would have been minor and obvious. “Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. See MPEP 2112.01(I).
"Where ... the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical ... the PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his claimed product." In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 (CCPA 1977) (citations and footnote omitted). The mere recitation of a property or characteristic not disclosed by the prior art does not necessarily confer patentability to a composition or a method of using that composition. See In re Skoner, 51 7 F .2d 94 7, 950 ( CCP A 1975). It is submitted that the term "attributable" means capable of being attributed.
The applicant is invited to submit any declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 to overcome the rejection based upon reference applied under 35 U.S.C. 103 (a) as set forth in this Office action to compare their invention product (i.e., an optically responsive material) and show the product is actually different from and unexpectedly better than the teachings of the references. It is noted that the burden is on the applicant to establish that the results are in fact unexpected, unobvious, and of statistical and practical significance. See MPEP 716.02(b). See also Ex parte Gelles, 22 USPQ2d 1318 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992), and such a showing also must be commensurate with the scope of the claimed invention, i.e., must bear a reasonable correlation to the scope of the claimed invention.
11. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Examiner Information
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bijan Ahvazi, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571) 270-3449. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9.00 A.M. -7 P.M..
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joseph Del Sole can be reached on 571-272-1130. 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.
/Bijan Ahvazi/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763
03/16/2026
bijan.ahvazi@uspto.gov