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 .
Claims 1-14, filed 10/24/2023, are acknowledged. Claims 1-14 are pending and considered on the merits below.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 1-8 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Marques-Gonzalez et al. (RSC Adv.,2016,6, 55970).
Regarding claim 1, Marques-Gonzalez describes a light absorption material comprising: a compound represented by a formula (1) as a main component:
PNG
media_image1.png
454
610
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein R1 to R14 each independently include at least one atom selected from the group consisting of H, C, N, O, F, P, S, Cl, I, and Br, and n is an integer greater than or equal to 2 (figure 1
PNG
media_image2.png
188
114
media_image2.png
Greyscale
).
Regarding claim 2, Marques-Gonzalez describes The light absorption material according to claim 1, wherein R1 to R14 are each independently a hydrogen atom, a halogen atom, a saturated hydrocarbon group, a halogenated alkyl group, an unsaturated hydrocarbon group, a hydroxyl group, a carboxyl group, an alkoxycarbonyl group, an aldehyde group, an acyl group, an amide group, a nitrile group, an alkoxy group, an acyloxy group, a thiol group, an alkylthio group, a sulfonic acid group, an acylthio group, an alkylsulfonyl group, a sulfonamide group, a primary amino group, a secondary amino group, a tertiary amino group, or a nitro group (figure 1
PNG
media_image2.png
188
114
media_image2.png
Greyscale
).
Regarding claim 3, Marques-Gonzalez describes the light absorption material according to claim 1, wherein at least one selected from the group consisting of R2, R3, R7, R8, R12, and R13 is an electron-donating group (figure 1 OMe is an electron-donating group).
Regarding claim 4, Marques-Gonzalez describes the light absorption material according to claim 3, wherein the electron-donating group is an alkoxy group (figure 1
PNG
media_image2.png
188
114
media_image2.png
Greyscale
).
Regarding claim 5, Marques-Gonzalez describes The light absorption material according to claim 3, wherein the electron-donating group is -OCH3 (figure 1
PNG
media_image2.png
188
114
media_image2.png
Greyscale
).
Regarding claim 6, Marques-Gonzalez describes the light absorption material according to claim 1, wherein at least one selected from the group consisting of R5 and R10 is an electron-withdrawing group (figure 1 R is Br).
Regarding claim 7, Marques-Gonzalez describes the light absorption material according to claim 6, wherein the electron-withdrawing group is a halogen group (figure 1 R is Br).
Regarding claim 8, Marques-Gonzalez describes the light absorption material according to claim 1, wherein the compound has a helical structure (figure 1b and page 55971 “ perfectly and partially folded helical conformers”).
Regarding claim 11, Marques-Gonzalez describes a recording medium (abstract “scanning tunnelling microscopy (STM)”) comprising:
a recording layer comprising the light absorption material according to claim 1 (figure 2 “STM image… with a magnification (inset) of OP8Br on Au(111).”).
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ando et al. (J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2012, 134, 11084−11087).
Regarding claims 1-8, Ando describes a light absorption material comprising: a compound represented by a formula (1) as a main component:
PNG
media_image1.png
454
610
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein R1 to R14 each independently include at least one atom selected from the group consisting of H, C, N, O, F, P, S, Cl, I, and Br, and n is an integer greater than or equal to 2 (figure 1
PNG
media_image3.png
122
130
media_image3.png
Greyscale
).
Regarding claim 9, Ando describes the light absorption material according to claim 1, wherein the compound absorbs specific light (figure 5).
Regarding claim 10, Ando describes the light absorption material according to claim 1, wherein the light absorption material is used in a device utilizing light having a wavelength of greater than or equal to 390 nm and less than or equal to 420 nm (figure 5 spectra shows wavelengths of greater than or equal to 390 nm and less than or equal to 420 nm).
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.
The factual inquiries 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(s) 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marques-Gonzalez et al. (RSC Adv.,2016,6, 55970) in view of Ando et al. (J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2012, 134, 11084−11087).
Regarding claim 12, Marques-Gonzalez describes the recording layer in the recording medium according to claim 11 (figure 2 “STM image… with a magnification (inset) of OP8Br on Au(111).”).
However is silent to providing a light source that emits light having a wavelength of greater than or equal to 390 nm and less than or equal to 420 nm.
Ando describes an information recording method comprising: providing a light source that emits light having a wavelength of greater than or equal to 390 nm and less than or equal to 420 nm (figure 5 spectra shows wavelengths of greater than or equal to 390 nm and less than or equal to 420 nm). Furthermore, Ando suggests motivation to use the light properties of the compound represented by a formula (1) as they have unique optical resolution that has many potential applications (page 11087).
Therefore it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate a light source that emits light having a wavelength of greater than or equal to 390 nm and less than or equal to 420 nm as suggested by Ando into the system of Marques-Gonzalez as this would give the recording medium unique optical resolution.
Regarding claim 13, the combination described above describes an information reading method for reading information recorded by the information recording method according to claim 12, the information reading method comprising:
applying light to the recording layer to measure an optical characteristic of the recording layer; and reading the information from the recording layer (Ando: abstract “We evaluated their helical inversion kinetics via optical resolution of long-chain oligomers (e.g. 16- and 24-mers) by chiral HPLC”).
Regarding claim 14, the combination described above describes the information reading method according to claim 13, wherein the optical characteristic is intensity of light reflected at the recording layer (Ando: page 11086 “The fractions corresponding to these two peaks displayed mirror-image CD spectra with intensity maxima at 265, 290, and 320 nm (Figure 4e).”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMILY R BERKELEY whose telephone number is (571)272-9831. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-6.
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, Lyle Alexander can be reached at (571) 272-1254. 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.
/LYLE ALEXANDER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1797
/EMILY R. BERKELEY/
Examiner
Art Unit 1796
Prosecution Insights