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 .
Examiner Comments
The Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers, paragraphs, or figures in the reference(s) as applied to the claims for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the Applicant, in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3-8 and 12-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Psaltis et al. (US 2005/0017079 A1) in view of Henshaw et al. (US 5,191,574).
With regard to independent claim 1, Psaltis et al. (US 2005/0017079 A1) discloses a data storage medium for storing digital data (DVD disk with quantum dots (QDs) deposited within the pits of the disk in para [0040]-[0043], Figure 10) comprising: a mixture of different nano-sized materials (nanoparticles QDs, pack 50 spectral bands in para [0042]), each of the nano-sized materials having a respective optical transition profile characterizing an optical transition of the nano-sized material and covering a respective wavelength range (fluorescence of 6 different QDs excited with the same ultra-violet source in para [0032], Figure 5), wherein a combined optical transition profile of the mixture covers an extended wavelength range as compared to the respective wavelength ranges of the respective optical transition profiles of the different nano-sized materials (pack 50 spectral bands between 450nm and 1500nm in para [0042]), and wherein one or more of the different nanosized materials is photo-reactive to selectively vary a respective absorption/emission band upon irradiation (the QDs are excited by a large range of wavelengths shorter than the emission peak in para [0032]) to encode digital data in the combined optical transition profile of the mixture (QDs are used to encode unique information in para [0043]).
As per claim 4, Psaltis et al. (US 2005/0017079 A1) discloses that linewidth of each QD species is 20nm at FWHM (para [0042]).
As per claim 7, Psaltis et al. (US 2005/0017079 A1) discloses that that the QDs are distributed in a 2D configuration (para [0030], [0042], Figure 4, 10).
As per claims 12 and 13, Psaltis et al. (US 2005/0017079 A1) discloses wherein the data storage medium is operable to store and read digital data at substantially non-cryogenic and substantially room temperatures (see ODs for CDs and DVDs in para [0040]), in which Psaltis et al. (US 2005/0017079 A1) implicitly discloses that the data storage medium is operable to store and read at room (non-cryogenic temperature)).
As per claim 14, Psaltis et al. (US 2005/0017079 A1) discloses such a method for storing digital data, for the similar reasons stated, supra, for claim 1.
As per claim 15, Psaltis et al. (US 2005/0017079 A1) discloses such a method for reading stored digital data, for the similar reasons stated, supra, for claim 1. See also para [0014], "the spectral signature of the nano-tag dispensed on the surface of the information carrying medium is detected by a compact read-out head with a grating spectrometer."
As per claim 16, Psaltis et al. (US 2005/0017079 A1) discloses wherein determining whether the respective absorption/emission band has been selectively varied comprises measuring a reflection profile from the data storage medium, for the similar reasons stated, supra, for claim 1. See also para [0014].
As per claim 17, Psaltis et al. (US 2005/0017079 A1) discloses wherein determining whether the respective absorption/emission band has been selectively varied comprises measuring an absorption profile of the data storage medium, for the similar reasons stated, supra, for claim 1. See also para [0014].
As per claim 18, Psaltis et al. (US 2005/0017079 A1) discloses, wherein determining whether the respective absorption/emission band has been selectively varied comprises measuring an emission profile of the data storage medium, for the similar reasons stated, supra, for claim 1. See also para [0013].
As per amended claim 1, Psaltis et al. (US 2005/0017079 A1) remains silent regarding wherein the respective absorption/emission band is frequency selectively bleached to form a spectral hole in the combined optical transition profile to encode digital data.
Such frequency selective bleaching in optical recording media, however, is known in the art.
As just one example, Henshaw et al. (US 5,191,574) discloses an analogous optical data storage medium, in the same field of endeavor as Psaltis et al. (US 2005/0017079 A1), wherein as per claim 1, the respective absorption/emission band of data encoding regions, is frequency selectively bleached to form a spectral hole in the combined optical transition profile to encode digital data. See, inter alia, abstract; col. 3, ll. 26-36.
Additionally, as per claim 3, Henshaw et al. (US 5,191,574) further discloses wherein the spectral hole in the combined optical transition profile is configured to have a predetermined depth level, the predetermined depth level selected from a plurality of depth levels to encode digital data in the spectral hole of the combined optical transition profile.
As per claim 5, Henshaw et al. (US 5,191,574) discloses wherein respective peak wavelengths of the respective optical transition profiles of the different materials comprising the recording medium are substantially equally spaced with respect to each other. See Fig. 3; col. 9, ll. 40-62.
Moreover, as per claim 6, Henshaw et al. (US 5,191,574) discloses wherein the combined optical transition profile comprises a substantially flat portion over the extended wavelength range. See middle portion of bell-shaped curve of Fig. 3.
As per claim 8, Henshaw et al. (US 5,191,574) discloses wherein the mixture is distributed in a substantially three-dimensional (3D) configuration – volume with the holographic storage medium – see col. 1, ll. 25-36, 57-66.
Given the express teachings and motivations, as espoused by Henshaw et al. (US 5,191,574), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the features of claims 1, 3, 5, 6, and 8 as taught by Henshaw et al. (US 5,191,574), to the analogous optical storage medium of Psaltis et al. (US 2005/0017079 A1), in order to advantageously provide “improved high capacity optical data storage methods and systems” (col. 3, ll. 2-3) and “large data capacity (col. 7, ll. 38-39) of Henshaw et al. (US 5,191,574).
In an obviousness analysis, it is not necessary to find precise disclosure directed to the specific subject matter claimed because inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ can be taken into account. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). In this regard, "[a] person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." Id. at 421.
As the U.S. Supreme Court has stated, obviousness requires an "expansive and flexible" approach that asks whether the claimed improvement is more than a "predictable variation" of "prior art elements according to their established functions." KSR, 550 U.S. at 415, 417.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Psaltis et al. (US 2005/0017079 A1) in view of Henshaw et al. (US 5,191,574) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of “Highly efficient valance state switching of samarium in BaFCl;Sm nanocrystals in deep UV for multilevel optical data storage,” Riesen et al., Vo. 6, No. 10, Optical Materials Express, pp. 3097-3108, published October 1, 2016, hereinafter “Riesen”.
See the description of Psaltis et al. (US 2005/0017079 A1) in view of Henshaw et al. (US 5,191,574), supra.
As per claim 9, Psaltis et al. (US 2005/0017079 A1) in view of Henshaw et al. (US 5,191,574) remain silent with regard to wherein the different nano-sized materials comprise different BaxSryCazFClrBrslt: Sm2+ nanocrystal materials where the values of x, y, z, r, s and t are selected from 0 to 1 and subject to the constraints that x + y + z = 1 and r+s+t=1.
As per claim 10, Psaltis et al. (US 2005/0017079 A1) in view of Henshaw et al. (US 5,191,574) remain silent with regard to wherein the different nano-sized materials comprise different BaixSrxFCl: Sm2+ nanocrystal materials where x is selected from 0 to 1.
As per claim 11, Psaltis et al. (US 2005/0017079 A1) in view of Henshaw et al. (US 5,191,574) remain silent with regard to wherein the data storage medium is operable to store and read digital data at cryogenic temperatures.
Riesen discloses an analogous optical recording medium, in the same field of endeavor as Psaltis et al. (US 2005/0017079 A1) and Henshaw et al. (US 5,191,574), wherein, as per claim 9, Riesen discloses nanocrystalline BaFCl: Sm3+ for rewritable ultra-high density multi-level optical data storage in abstract, page 3100; luminescence spectra before and after UV light and X-irradiation (Figure 5, 6), and multilevel encoding with a BaFCl:Sm3+film (page 3107, Figure 9).
Riesen teaches that BaFCl:Sm3+ exhibits the rare feature of room temperature spectral hole-burning (page 3099, photobleaching). Riesen further discloses, as per claim 10, that the selection of Ba1-xSrxFCl:Sm2+ nanocrystal materials is mere design choice to the person skilled in the art, and simply modifying the amount of each element with the nano-crystal composition would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (at the time of the effective filing date of the instant invention), to arrive at a desired efficient switching state using a composition (variable) of BaFCl;Sm
Additionally, as per claim 11, Riesen further discloses the mere capability of the optical storage medium operating at cryogenic temperatures (page 3100, section 2).
Given the express teachings and motivations, as espoused by Riesen, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the features of claims 9-11 as taught by Riesen, to the analogous optical storage medium of Psaltis et al. (US 2005/0017079 A1)/ Henshaw et al. (US 5,191,574), in order to advantageously provide a highly efficient valance state switching of samarium in BaFCl:Sm nanocrystals for deep UV multilevel optical data storage (as taught and suggested by Riesen).
In an obviousness analysis, it is not necessary to find precise disclosure directed to the specific subject matter claimed because inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ can be taken into account. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). In this regard, "[a] person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." Id. at 421.
As the U.S. Supreme Court has stated, obviousness requires an "expansive and flexible" approach that asks whether the claimed improvement is more than a "predictable variation" of "prior art elements according to their established functions." KSR, 550 U.S. at 415, 417.
Response to Arguments
After an updated search, Applicant’s arguments/comments with respect to the rejected claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection includes the application of a new reference (i.e., Henshaw et al. (US 5,191,574)), which has been applied in the rejection, as articulated in detail, supra, meeting the amended claim limitations with a supporting rationale, which has been combined with the previously applied art of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to William J Klimowicz whose telephone number is (571)272-7577. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8:00AM-6PM, ET.
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, Steven Lim can be reached at (571)270-1210. 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.
/WILLIAM J KLIMOWICZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2688
Prosecution Insights