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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 22 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 2 recites “expanded poly (p-xylylene) (ePPX)”. Claim 22 recites “expanded polyparaxylylene (ePPX)”. These terms appear to be drawn to the same polymers. The terms should be the same for consistency.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Ln 1-5 of claim 2 recite the limitation “wherein the porous polymer membrane is expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE), expanded vinylidene fluoride (VDF) copolymer (eVDF), expanded poly (p-xylylene) (ePPX), expanded ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (eUHMWPE), expanded ethylene tetrafluoroethylene (eETFE), and expanded polylactic acid (ePLLA).”, which renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear whether all listed polymers are required or words are missing. The original disclosure suggests mixtures and copolymers of the aforementioned polymers in para [00026].
While not a suggestion of claim language in the interest of compact prosecution, this limitation will be treated as ‘wherein the porous polymer membrane is at least one of expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE), expanded vinylidene fluoride (VDF) copolymer (eVDF), expanded poly (p-xylylene) (ePPX), expanded ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (eUHMWPE), expanded ethylene tetrafluoroethylene (eETFE), expanded polylactic acid (ePLLA), and mixtures and copolymers thereof.’.
Appropriate correction is required.
Ln 2-6 of claim 22 recite the limitation “wherein the porous polymer membrane is expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE), expanded vinylidene fluoride (VDF) copolymer (eVDF), expanded polyparaxylylene (ePPX), expanded ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (eUHMWPE), expanded ethylene tetrafluoroethylene (eETFE), and expanded polylactic acid (ePLLA).”, which renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear whether all listed polymers are required or words are missing. The original disclosure suggests mixtures and copolymers of the aforementioned polymers in para [00026].
While not a suggestion of claim language in the interest of compact prosecution, this limitation will be treated as ‘wherein the porous polymer membrane is at least one of expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE), expanded vinylidene fluoride (VDF) copolymer (eVDF), expanded polyparaxylylene (ePPX), expanded ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (eUHMWPE), expanded ethylene tetrafluoroethylene (eETFE), expanded polylactic acid (ePLLA), and mixtures and copolymers thereof.’.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 instant claims contain the transitional phrase “comprising”. Per MPEP 2111.03 ‘The transitional term “comprising”, which is synonymous with “including,” “containing,” or “characterized by,” is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps'. This open-ended definition has been taken into consideration in the following rejections.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0202577 A1 to Freese et al. (hereinafter Freese).
Regarding claim 28, Freese discloses a method of making a dense composite film (Fig. 1) comprising photoluminescent particles, selected from a group that includes quantum dots, CdSe, and PbSe (para [0041]), the method comprising:
providing a porous polymer membrane (para [0018]) comprising a microporous matrix of nodes (intersection of fibrils) interconnected by fibrils and void space forming a plurality of pores characterized by an average pore size (Fig. 1 and para [0059]);
providing a plurality of photoluminescent particles (functionalized particulate additives, para [0019] selected from a group that includes quantum dots, CdSe, and PbSe para [0041]);
filling at least a portion of the pores of the porous polymer membrane with the
photoluminescent particles (para [0039] and Freese claim 11); and
densifying the porous polymer membrane (laminating, para [0055] and curing at high temperature, 190 C, para [0059]).
The reference discloses functionalized additives comprising a variety of particulate materials (para [0038]) including quantum dots, CdSe, and PbSe, as three options among a group of eighteen (para [0041]) selected to provide a particular function. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select quantum dots, CdSe, or PbSe to provide absorption of a particular range of light and therefore facilitate emission of a particular range of light for biomedical, antimicrobial or therapeutic applications (para [0040]).
Claims 1-5, 7-9, 12, 13, 19, 22, 25, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freese in view of WO2007/010712A1 to Yoshito et al. (hereinafter Yoshito), provided in the IDS filed 10/30/24, using a machine translation.
Regarding claim 1, Freese discloses a method of making a dense composite film (Fig. 1) comprising luminophores, selected from a group that includes quantum dots, CdSe, and PbSe (para [0041]) the method comprising:
providing a porous polymer membrane (para [0018]) comprising a microporous matrix of nodes (intersection of fibrils) interconnected by fibrils and void space forming a plurality of pores characterized by an average pore size (Fig. 1 and para [0059]);
providing a plurality of luminophores that are nano-sized (nanoparticles and quantum dots, para [0041]);
filling at least a portion of the pores of the porous polymer membrane with the
luminophores (para [0039] and Freese claim 11); and
densifying the porous polymer membrane (laminating, para [0055] and curing at high temperature, 190 C, para [0059]).
The reference discloses functionalized additives comprising a variety of particulate materials (para [0038]) including quantum dots, CdSe, and PbSe, as three options among a group of eighteen (para [0041]) selected to provide a particular function. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select quantum dots, CdSe, or PbSe to provide absorption of a particular range of light and therefore facilitate emission of a particular range of light for biomedical, antimicrobial or therapeutic applications (para [0040]).
Freese also discloses nano-sized luminophores, particularly nanoparticles and quantum dots (para [0041]) but is silent regarding luminophores having an average particle size of less than 100 nm.
However, Yoshito does teach a method of making a film comprising nanoscale luminophores (phosphors, para [0006]) dispersed in a polymer matrix (para [0009]) selected from a group that includes tetrafluoroethylene (para [0034]) wherein the nanoscale luminophores have a size of 1 to 100 nm (para [0017]), which overlaps the instantly claimed range of less than 100 nm. See MPEP 2144.05(I), which states that ‘In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists’. Yoshito further teaches that cured film is dense (hard, para [0128] and strong, para [0131]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the size of the luminophores to take advantage of quantum size effects (Yoshito, para [0006]) and ultimately optimize the optical properties of the luminophores, including but not limited to absorption and emission wavelengths (Yoshito, para [0497]-[0500]).
Regarding claim 2, Freese in view of Yoshito discloses method of claim 1. Freese further discloses wherein the porous polymer membrane is at least one of expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE) (para [0018]) and expanded vinylidene fluoride (VDF) copolymer (eVDF) (para [0023]).
This rejection is based on the interpretation set forth in para #3, above.
Regarding claim 3, Freese in view of Yoshito discloses method of claim 1. Freese further discloses wherein the filling step is conducted by imbibing the pores with a liquid dispersion medium comprising the photoluminescent nanoparticles (para [0019], where the particles are quantum dots, para [0041]).
Regarding claim 4, Freese in view of Yoshito discloses method of claim 1. Freese further discloses the method further comprising the step of drying the porous polymer membrane to remove the liquid dispersion medium before the densifying step (vaporizing solvent, para [0019]).
Regarding claim 5, Freese in view of Yoshito discloses method of claim 3. Freese further discloses wherein the liquid dispersion medium is at least one of aqueous (para [0022]) and organic (para [0019]), or wherein the liquid dispersion medium comprises at least one dispersant (wetting agent, para [0022]).
Regarding claim 7, Freese in view of Yoshito discloses method of claim 1. Freese further discloses wherein the porous polymer membrane is characterized by a length (x-axis), a width (y-axis), and a thickness (z-axis) (Fig. 1), wherein the thickness is 25.4 µm (0.001 inch, para [0059]), which falls within the instantly claimed range of from 0.1 µm to 250 µm.
Regarding claim 8, Freese in view of Yoshito discloses method of claim 7. Freese further discloses wherein the porous polymer membrane comprises an asymmetric pore size throughout a thickness of the porous polymer membrane (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 9, Freese in view of Yoshito discloses method of claim 7. Freese does not expressly disclose wherein the luminophores in the densified composite film are distributed evenly through the z-axis, or wherein the luminophores in the densified composite film are not distributed evenly through the Z- axis. However, the reference does teach that the particles are small enough to physically enter the pores of the polymer (para [0039]) and that the pores are at least partially filled (Freese, claim 11).
It would therefore, be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that when the pores are only partially filled that the luminophores are not distributed evenly throughout the Z-axis.
Alternatively, Yoshito does teach uniformly dispersing the luminophores to provide a film that is highly transparent (para [0940]).
It would then be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to uniformly disperse the luminophore to provide a highly transparent film for use in biomedical applications (Yoshito, para [0021] and Freese, para [0040]).
Regarding claim 12, Freese in view of Yoshito discloses method of claim 1. Freese further discloses wherein the luminophores comprise quantum dots (para [0041]).
Regarding claim 13, Freese in view of Yoshito discloses method of claim 12. Freese further discloses wherein the luminophores comprise at least one of
lead selenide and cadmium selenide.
Regarding claim 19, Freese discloses a photoluminescent dense film (laminated and cured, para [0055] and [0059]) comprising a plurality of photoluminescent particles (functional additives comprising particles selected from a group that includes quantum dots, PbSe, and CdSe, para [0041]) having an average particle size in the order of nanoscale (nanoparticles, and quantum dots, para [0041]), the photoluminescent particles being immobilized within a densified (cured, para [0059]) polymer membrane having a microstructure of nodes interconnected by fibrils (expanded PTFE, para [0018]). Freese discloses nano-sized luminophores, particularly nanoparticles and quantum dots (para [0041]) but is silent regarding luminophores having an average particle size of less than 100 nm.
However, Yoshito does teach a film comprising nanoscale luminophores (phosphors, para [0006]) dispersed in a polymer matrix (para [0009]) selected from a group that includes tetrafluoroethylene (para [0034]) wherein the nanoscale luminophores have a size of 1 to 100 nm (para [0017]), which overlaps the instantly claimed range of less than 100 nm. See MPEP 2144.05(I), cited above. Yoshito further teaches that cured film is dense (hard, para [0128] and strong, para [0131]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the size of the luminophores to take advantage of quantum size effects (Yoshito, para [0006]) and ultimately optimize the optical properties of the luminophores (Yoshito, para [0497]-[0500]).
Freese in view of Yoshito discloses the photoluminescent dense film as discussed above.
Freese further discloses the film comprising:
a) up to about 5 wt% luminophores (based on an appropriate amount to impart the desired functional effect, para [0038]), which falls within the instantly claimed range of up to 40% wt.% of the photoluminescent particles based on the total weight of the photoluminescent dense film.
Both Freese and Yoshito are silent regarding collimated transmittance and haze of the film particularly comprising:
b) an average collimated transmittance of at least about 25%; and
c) an average haze coefficient of less than about 10% from 380 nm to 780 nm.
However, as discussed above, the films overlap and contain overlapping luminophores in fluoropolymer matrices. See MPEP 2112.01(I), which states that ‘Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established…"When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not."…Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product’. The photoluminescent films overlap and contain overlapping luminophores of overlapping size in overlapping polymers. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the Freese/Yoshito film to have overlapping collimated transmittance and overlapping haze coefficients, absent evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claim 22, Freese in view of Yoshito discloses the photoluminescent dense film of claim 19. Freese further discloses wherein the porous polymer membrane is at least one of expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE) (para [0018]) and expanded vinylidene fluoride (VDF) copolymer (eVDF) (para [0023]).
This rejection is based on the interpretation set forth in para #3, above.
Regarding claim 25, Freese in view of Yoshito discloses the photoluminescent dense film of claim 19. Freese further discloses wherein the photoluminescent particles comprise quantum dots (para [0041]).
Regarding claim 26, Freese in view of Yoshito discloses the photoluminescent dense film of claim 19. Freese further discloses a laminate (para [0055]) or an article (fabric, para [0056]) comprising the photoluminescent dense film of claim 19.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-16, 18, and 21 are 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 closest prior art, Freese in view of Yoshito, recites a similar dense film but does not teach or suggest residual fibrils in the films or detectable endotherms associated with said fibrils. The references also recite a similar method of making a dense film but do not teach or suggest steps of stretching or sintering the densified composite.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LYNNE EDMONDSON whose telephone number is (571)272-2678. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6:30.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1177. 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.
/L.E./Examiner, Art Unit 1734
/Matthew E. Hoban/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights