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 Amendment
Claims 1-25 are currently pending in the present application. Claims 1-2, 20 and 25 are original; and claims 3-19 and 21-24 are currently amended. The amendment dated October 5, 2023 has been entered into the record.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 9 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 9 line 2, “0.39-39 mil” should be “0.39-39 millimeters” or “0.39-39 mm”.
In claim 16 lines 1-2, “the component had a volume fraction less than 0.64” should be “the component has a volume fraction less than 0.64”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 7, 9-13, 19-22 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hsu et al. (US 20190339522, hereinafter “Hsu”).
Regarding claim 1, Hsu discloses a film (110 in Figs. 1A-1D; Para. [0049]) comprising
a polymer matrix (Para. [0051] “The layer 116 of scattering nanoparticles 114 … the nanoparticle layer 116 includes a matrix (e.g., a polymer matrix)”, Para. [0088] “the nanoparticles can also be dissolved into a liquid polymer matrix … and allowed to dry”) with a first refractive index (Para. [0081] “particles … embedded in a transparent medium with a refractive index n=1.44”),
a component (nanoparticles 114; Para. [0051]) with a second refractive index (Para. [0055] “The nanoparticles 114 may include dielectric materials, including silica”; the refractive index of silica is about 1.46 for visible light) embedded in the polymer matrix in a disordered arrangement (Para. [0052] “114 in the nanoparticle layer 116 may be distributed in a … random fashion”), wherein the second refractive index is different from the first refractive index (Paras. [0055], [0081]),
wherein the film scatters 400 to 500 nm wavelengths of light and allows transmission of wavelengths of light from 600 to 800 nm (see Fig. 4A teaching the scattering between 400 and 500 nm wavelengths, and see Fig. 9A teaching the transmittance between 600 and 800 nm; Paras. [0083], [0100]).
Regarding claim 7, Hsu discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein the average haze above 500 nm is less than 80% (Fig. 4A).
Regarding claim 9, Hsu discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein the film has a thickness of 0.39-39 mil (Para. [0099] “0.46 mm thick”; see also Para. [0051]).
Regarding claim 10, Hsu discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein the polymer matrix is transparent to visible light (Para. [0081]).
Regarding claim 11, Hsu discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein the polymer matrix has a refractive index of 1.4-1.7 (Para. [0081] “a transparent medium with a refractive index n=1.44”).
Regarding claim 12, Hsu discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein the component has a shape selected from a group consisting of spherical, ellipsoidal, rod-like, tetrahedral, octahedral, or polyhedral (Para. [0054]).
Regarding claim 13, Hsu discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein the component has a diameter of 130-250 nm (Para. [0055] “Their outer diameters … 200 nm”).
Regarding claim 19, Hsu discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein the component is a particle (Para. [0051]).
Regarding claim 20, Hsu discloses the limitations of claim 19 above, and further discloses wherein the particle has a refractive index of 1.3-3.0 (see Para. [0055] teaching the nanoparticles made of, for example, silica, wherein the refractive index of silica is about 1.46 for visible light).
Regarding claim 21, Hsu discloses the limitations of claim 19 above, and further discloses wherein the particle is selected from a group consisting of anatase titania, rutile titania, zinc oxide, alumina, zirconia, silica, polymethylmethacrylate, polystyrene, polybutylmethacrylate, and combinations thereof (Para. [0055]).
Regarding claim 22, Hsu discloses the limitations of claim 19 above, and further discloses wherein the second refractive index is greater than the first refractive index (Paras. [0055], [0081]).
Regarding claim 24, Hsu discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and further discloses a second polymer layer disposed on one side of the polymer matrix (Para. [0050] “The substrates 112 a and 112 b may be formed of any suitable material, including … polymers”).
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.
Claims 2-6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu.
Regarding claim 2, Hsu discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Hsu does not explicitly disclose the reflectance from 400 to 500 nm is at least 50%.
However, Hsu teaches a transmittance from 400 to 500 nm is about from 20 to 60% (Fig. 9A).
Since the sum of the fractions of light that are reflected, transmitted, absorbed, and scattered is equal to one, i.e., R + T + A + S = 1, where Hsu further teaches a method of controlling the scattering and absorption (Paras. [0081]-[0083]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the film as disclosed by Hsu, wherein the reflectance from 400 to 500 nm is at least 50%, for the purpose of obtaining a substantially transparent screen or display at visible wavelengths by customizing color based on the nanoparticles' scattering wavelength(s) (Hsu: Paras. [0039]-[0040], [0046]).
Regarding claim 3, Hsu discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and further discloses
Hsu does not explicitly disclose the reflectance from 415 to 455 nm is at least 50%.
However, Hsu teaches a transmittance from 415 to 455 nm is about from 20 to 60% (Fig. 9A).
Since the sum of the fractions of light that are reflected, transmitted, absorbed, and scattered is equal to one, i.e., R + T + A + S = 1, where Hsu further teaches a method of controlling the scattering and absorption (Paras. [0081]-[0083]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the film as disclosed by Hsu, wherein the reflectance from 415 to 555 nm is at least 50%, for the purpose of obtaining a substantially transparent screen or display at visible wavelengths by customizing color based on the nanoparticles' scattering wavelength(s) (Hsu: Paras. [0039]-[0040], [0046]).
Regarding claim 4, Hsu discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and further discloses
Hsu does not explicitly disclose the average reflectance above 500 nm is less than 70%.
However, Hsu teaches the transmittance above 500 nm is about greater than 20% (Fig. 9A).
Since the sum of the fractions of light that are reflected, transmitted, absorbed, and scattered is equal to one, i.e., R + T + A + S = 1, where Hsu further teaches a method of controlling the scattering and absorption (Paras. [0081]-[0083]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the film as disclosed by Hsu, wherein the average reflectance above 500 nm is less than 70%, for the purpose of obtaining a substantially transparent screen or display at visible wavelengths by customizing color based on the nanoparticles' scattering wavelength(s) (Hsu: Paras. [0039]-[0040], [0046]).
Regarding claim 5, Hsu discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Hsu does not explicitly disclose the haze from 400 to 500 nm is at least 90%.
However, Hsu teaches the haze at around 450 nm is about 75% (Fig. 4A) (A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close [MPEP 2144.05]) (the examiner considers haze is the scattering of light and a scattering cross-section is a measure of the probability that a scattering event will occur).
Because Hsu teaches a method of further controlling the scattering (Paras. [0081]-[0083]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the film as disclosed by Hsu, wherein the haze from 400 to 500 nm is at least 90%, for the purpose of obtaining a substantially transparent screen or display at visible wavelengths by customizing color based on the nanoparticles' scattering wavelength(s) (Hsu: Paras. [0039]-[0040], [0046]).
Regarding claim 6, Hsu discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Hsu does not explicitly disclose the haze from 415-455 nm is at least 90%.
However, Hsu teaches the haze at around 450 nm is about 75% (Fig. 4A) (A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close [MPEP 2144.05]) (the examiner considers haze is the scattering of light and a scattering cross-section is a measure of the probability that a scattering event will occur).
Because Hsu teaches a method of further controlling the scattering (Paras. [0081]-[0083]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the film as disclosed by Hsu, wherein the haze from 400 to 500 nm is at least 90%, for the purpose of obtaining a substantially transparent screen or display at visible wavelengths by customizing color based on the nanoparticles' scattering wavelength(s) (Hsu: Paras. [0039]-[0040], [0046]).
Regarding claim 14, Hsu discloses the limitations of claim 1 above,
Hsu does not explicitly disclose the film has a first peak of the structure factor with a height between 1 and 10.
However, Hsu teaches the film has the scattering nanoparticles (114) distributed in a periodic, aperiodic, or random fashion when viewed along the optical axis, with different volumetric densities and more or less densely in certain areas (Para. [0052]) (the examiner considers a structure factor, (S(q)), describes the spatial arrangement and local order of particles in a system, characterizing the disorder in the system, while Hsu teaches the nanoparticles can be distributed periodically, aperiodically or randomly, and with different volumetric densities, and more or less densely in certain areas, characterizing any possible disorder in the system).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the film as disclosed by Hsu, wherein the film has a first peak of the structure factor with a height between 1 and 10, for the purpose of forming opaque or transparent areas as desired by using nanoparticles with a disordered arrangement (Hsu: Para. [0052]).
Claims 8, 18 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu in view of Veeraraghavan et al. (US 20200308364, hereinafter “Veeraraghavan”).
Regarding claim 8, Hsu discloses the limitations of claim 1 above,
Hsu does not explicitly disclose the polymer matrix is selected from a group consisting of polyethylene terephthalate, polypropylene, low density polyethylene, high density polyethylene, polycarbonate, polylactic acid, polycaprolactone, and combinations thereof.
However, Veeraraghavan teaches a polymer matrix may comprise polyethylene terephthalate (Para. [0042]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the polymer matrix as disclosed by Hsu with the teachings of Veeraraghavan, to have the polymer matrix be made of polyethylene terephthalate, where Hsu is silent regarding the specific material, Veeraraghavan teaches an appropriate and suitable material for a polymer matrix, where "the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination" (MPEP 2144.07) for the purpose of using a known polymeric network material (Veeraraghavan: Para. [0042]).
Regarding claim 18, Hsu discloses the limitations of claim 1 above,
Hsu does not explicitly disclose the component is a void.
However, Veeraraghavan teaches a polymer matrix may include a void (Para. [0046]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the polymer matrix as disclosed by Hsu with the teachings of Veeraraghavan, wherein the component be void, the purpose of obtaining a continuous network structure (Veeraraghavan: Para. [0046]).
Regarding claim 23, Hsu discloses the limitations of claim 19 above.
Hsu does not disclose the second refractive index is less than the first refractive index.
However, Veeraraghavan teaches a polymer matrix may comprise polyethylene terephthalate (Para. [0042]; the index of polyethylene terephthalate is about 1.57 at 600 nm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the film as disclosed by Hsu with the teachings of Veeraraghavan, wherein the second refractive index is less than the first refractive index, for the purpose of using a known polymeric network material (Veeraraghavan: Para. [0042]) while Hsu further teaches controlling the wavelength of the scattering using various materials (see at least Paras. [0081]-[0085]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu in view of Chi et al. (US 20140336295, hereinafter “Chi”).
Regarding claim 15, Hsu discloses the limitations of claim 1 above,
Hsu does not explicitly disclose the component has a polydispersity less than 20%.
However, Chi teaches a silica nanoparticle having a polydispersity of 11% (see Para. [0084] teaching colloidal silica (CS) having a polydispersity of 0.11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the component as disclosed by Hsu with the teachings of Chi, wherein the component has a polydispersity less than 20%, for the purpose of using a known colloidal silica (Chi: Para. [0084]) where Hsu suggests using silica for the nanoparticles (Hsu: Para. [0055]).
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu in view of Uhlmann et al. (US 20120301533, hereinafter “Uhlmann”).
Regarding claim 16, Hsu discloses the limitations of claim 1 above,
Hsu does not explicitly disclose the component had a volume fraction less than 0.64.
However, Uhlmann teaches a component has a volume fraction of 0.61 (Para. [0119]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the component as disclosed by Hsu with the teachings of Uhlmann, wherein the component had a volume fraction less than 0.64, for the purpose of using silver nanoparticles for light scattering (Uhlmann: Para. [0199]) where Hus suggests using silver for the nanoparticles (Hsu: Para. [0055]).
Regarding claim 17, Hsu discloses the limitations of claim 1 above,
Hsu does not explicitly disclose the component has a volume fraction greater than 0.50.
However, Uhlmann teaches a component has a volume fraction of 0.61 (Para. [0119]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the component as disclosed by Hsu with the teachings of Uhlmann, wherein the component had a volume fraction greater than 0.50, for the purpose of using silver nanoparticles for light scattering (Uhlmann: Para. [0199]) where Hus suggests using silver for the nanoparticles (Hsu: Para. [0055]).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu in view of Numata et al. (US 20230116255, hereinafter “Numata”).
Regarding claim 25, Hsu discloses the limitations of claim 24 above.
Hsu does not disclose the second polymer layer is selected from a group consisting of polyethylene terephthalate, polypropylene, low density polyethylene, high density polyethylene, polycarbonate, polylactic acid, polycaprolactone, and combinations thereof.
However, Numata teaches a substrate may be formed of, for example, PET (polyethyleneterephthalate) (Para. [0162]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the polymer matrix as disclosed by Hsu with the teachings of Numata, to have the second polymer layer be made of polyethylene terephthalate, where Hsu is silent regarding the specific material, Numata teaches an appropriate and suitable material for a substrate, where "the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination" (MPEP 2144.07) for the purpose of using a known substrate material for an optical filter (Numata: Para. [0162]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN Y JUNG whose telephone number is (469)295-9076. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 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, Michael H Caley can be reached on (571)272-2286. 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.
/JONATHAN Y JUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871