DETAILED ACTION
The following Office action concerns Patent Application Number 18/483,862. Claims 1-58 are pending in the application.
Claims 2, 6, 9-15, 17-19, 24-26, 29-57 have been withdrawn from consideration as being drawn to non-elected inventions or species.
The applicant’s amendment filed April 9, 2026 has been entered.
The previous grounds of rejection are maintained in this action and discussed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §§ 102 and 103
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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 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, 8, 16, 20-23, 28, 58 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by OREN et al (US 2019/0231267).
OREN et al teaches a method of making a pattern on a substrate (p. 19, claim 1). The substrate has a pattern on the surface (p. 19, claim 1). The substrate pattern is a template stamp as that term is described in the specification. A dispersion of nanomaterials is drop-cast onto the substrate surface (par. 57; p. 19, claim 1). The dispersion is disposed on a surface (par. 57; p. 19, claim 1 (ii)). The solution includes water (aqueous solvent) (par. 86). The nanomaterial includes nanoparticles (par. 84). The dispersion solution fills the pattern (p. 19, claim 1). The solution is partially removed (p. 19, claim 1). The remaining nanomaterial forms a thin film structure which conforms to the pattern (p. 19, claim 1). The thin film structure is a metasurface as that term is described in the specification.
Regarding claims 3, 5, 7, 8, 16, 20-23, 28: The thin film structure contacts the surface (p. 19, claim 1). The dispersion solution fills (infiltrates) the pattern (p. 19, claim 1). The remaining thin film structure constitutes a residual film comprising nanoparticles within and beneath the structure. The film has a thickness of about 10 µm (par. 29). The nanomaterial includes metal oxide (par. 84). The substrate includes PDMS (par. 29). Solvent removal includes vacuum drying, which involves adjusted pressure (par. 84). In an examples, the amount of nanomaterial in the dispersion is 23 wt% (par. 114). The surface includes planar surface (Fig. 8B). The thin film structure having a thickness is necessarily three-dimensional.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over OREN et al (US 2019/0231267).
OREN et al teaches a method of making a pattern on a substrate as described above. OREN et al does not teach the temperature at which the process is performed. However, it would have been to a person of ordinary skill in the art to perform the process at room temperature, since a different temperature is not required (par. 84).
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Watkins et al (US 2020/0285145).
Watkins et al teaches a method of making a pattern on a substrate (abstract; par. 4). The substrate includes a template (par. 4). The substrate has a surface (par. 4-5). The pattern or texture on the substrate is a template stamp as that term is described in the specification. The substrate including the surface and the pattern is contacted with a nanoparticle ink (par. 4-5, 94). The method includes spin-coating the ink onto a surface (par. 94-95). The nanoparticle ink includes water (aqueous solvent) (par. 26). The substrate template has a pattern on the surface (par. 8). The ink dispersion fills the pattern (par. 36). The solvent is removed (par. 107). The remaining nanoparticles forms features (structures) conforming to the pattern (par. 6). The features have a characteristic dimension of 0.05 µm, which equates to 50 nm (par. 41). The structure is a metasurface as that term is described in the specification.
Response to Arguments
Regarding Oren et al, drop-casting a dispersion of nanomaterials onto a mold to fill a pattern satisfies the claim requirement for contacting the template stamp to a dispersion. The mold has a pattern region and so satisfies the requirement of a template stamp. The mold also includes non-patterned surfaces (p. 19, claim 1, (ii)). A dispersion coated on a surface satisfies the requirement of a dispersion disposed on a surface.
Regarding Watkins et al, a nanoparticle ink is coated onto a surface (par. 4-5, 94). A nanoparticle ink satisfies the requirement for a dispersion. Coating an ink onto a surface satisfies the claim requirement for a dispersion disposed on a surface. Filling the template pattern with the ink satisfies contacting the template stamp to the dispersion.
Conclusion
No new ground of rejection was 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 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’s Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to William Young whose telephone number is (571) 270-5078. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 8:30 AM to 5 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Angela Brown-Pettigrew, can be reached at 571-272-2817. 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./WILLIAM D YOUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761 April 29, 2026
Prosecution Insights