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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of claims 1-15 and 22 in the reply filed on 05/19/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim(s) Status
Claims 1-25 remain pending.
Claims 16-21 and 23-25 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05/19/2026.
Priority
This application is the 35 U.S.C. § 371 National Stage entry of PCT/US2022/072992, filed 06/16/2022 and published as WO 2022/266657 A1 on 12/22/2022. The report on patentability of the IPEA or ISA in this National Stage application has been considered by the Primary Examiner. MPEP § 1893.03(e).
This application also claims benefit of U.S. provisional application 63/211,164, filed 06/16/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Primary Examiner has considered the two IDSs filed 02/12/2024.
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." To the extent that the references at [0056] – [0112] of the instant specification are not listed in the above-mentioned IDSs, they have not been considered unless they have been cited by the Primary Examiner on form PTO-892.1
Drawings
The drawings filed 12/14/2023 are acceptable. See MPEP § 608.02(b)(I).
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: At [0152] “(e.g. Au)” should read - - (e.g., Au) - -.
Appropriate correction is required.
The following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout for the specification of a utility application. These guidelines are suggested for the applicant’s use.
Arrangement of the Specification
As provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), the specification of a utility application should include the following sections in order. Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as a section heading. If no text follows the section heading, the phrase “Not Applicable” should follow the section heading:
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT.
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM.
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION.
(1) Field of the Invention.
(2) Description of Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98.
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S).
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS (commencing on a separate sheet).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE (commencing on a separate sheet).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING. (See MPEP § 2422.03 and 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825). A “Sequence Listing” is required on paper if the application discloses a nucleotide or amino acid sequence as defined in 37 CFR 1.821(a) and if the required “Sequence Listing” is not submitted as an electronic document either on read-only optical disc or as a text file via the patent electronic system.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because: (i) it lacks process steps; and (ii) it recites the purported merits of the invention. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 2 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, at line 9, “and” should be deleted.
In claim 1, at line 10, “template optionally” should read - - template layers optionally - -.
In claim 1, at line 12, “100 um” should read - - 100 µm - -.
In claim 2, at line 10, “and” should be deleted.
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 1-15 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.
Claim 1
At line 17 of claim 1, the term “stabilize” is indefinite because the nature and extent of the stabilization is unclear. Does stabilizing the positions of the particles mean the particles are kept in position, moved into position, other particles are moved out of the way, or some or all of the foregoing? Consequently, the metes and bounds of “stabilize” are impossible the determine.
Claims 3-15 and 22 are similarly rejected because they incorporate this indefinite subject matter by virtue of their dependency.
Claim 2
At line 15 of claim 2, the term “stabilize” is indefinite because the nature and extent of the stabilization is unclear. Does stabilizing the positions of the particles mean the particles are kept in position, moved into position, other particles are moved out of the way, or some or all of the foregoing? Consequently, the metes and bounds of “stabilize” are impossible the determine.
Claim 15
Claim 15 recites “removing the carrier fluid.” Claim 15 depends from claim 1 which already recites “effecting evaporation” of the carrier fluid. The specification does not define or give an example of what removal that is not evaporation might look like. As such, the metes and bounds of “removing the carrier fluid” are impossible to determine.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1 and 2 recite the phrases “substantially free of particles positioned outside of the periodic arrangement” and “substantially free of channeling cracks of width greater than two particle diameters.” The term “substantially” is a broad term, though not necessarily indefinite. In re Nehrenberg, 280 F.2d 161, 126 USPQ 383 (CCPA 1960). It is the Primary Examiner’s position that here, the term “substantially” is used as a modifier to imply “approximate” rather than “perfect;” it does not function as a relative term (i.e., a term of degree) because it does not involve comparison to a baseline. See Anchor Wall Systems, Inc. v. Rockwood Retaining Walls, Inc., 340 F.3d 1298, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Consequently, it is the Primary Examiner’s position that the phrase “substantially free” in claims 1 and 2 is definite.
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, 3, 8, and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hart et al. (WO 2019/148213 A12; “Hart”).
Claim 1
Hart teaches a method comprising:
effecting evaporation of a carrier fluid from a colloid that comprises the carrier fluid and a population of particles, the colloid contacting a substrate (dispensing a colloidal solution (colloid), which includes a liquid (carrier fluid) with suspended particles (population of particles), a colloidal solid forms on the substrate as the liquid from the colloidal solution is removed by evaporation) [0066];
the evaporation of the carrier fluid giving rise to assembly of at least some of the population of particles into a plurality of template layers defined by a periodic arrangement of at least some of the population of particles (direct-write methods that are capable of ordering (periodic arrangement) colloidal particles (population of particles) into a colloidal crystal by manipulation and coordination, a 3D colloidal structure can be built layer-by-layer by a plurality of 2D layers (template layers)) [0032], [0077];
each of the plurality of template layers being substantially free of particles positioned outside of the periodic arrangement (direct-write methods that are capable of ordering colloidal particles into a colloidal crystal by manipulation of one or more of dispense rate, evaporative flux, and/or stage motion and a free-form means to control the electrical, optical, and/or mechanical properties of colloidal crystals via particle ordering and/or fabricated crystal shape, the heating element can be controlled during the evaporation process (evaporation leaving periodic arrangement only in template layer location), and the pump 109 can precisely control the rate of colloidal solution dispensed from the dispensing needle 110 (dispensed precisely in template layers)) [0032], [0065], and [0067]; and
the plurality of template layers optionally being substantially free of channeling cracks of width greater than two particle diameters, the spacing of adjacent channeling cracks being greater than 100 µm (the colloidal crystal is crack free and thus has an infinite spacing (> 100 µm)) abstract and [0037].
Hart does not expressly teach:
the evaporation optionally being performed in the presence of a filler fluid, the filler fluid having a vapor pressure lower than the carrier fluid, and the filler fluid entering vacancies between particles resulting from the evaporation of the carrier fluid so as to stabilize the positions of the particles during the evaporation of the carrier fluid,
but the presence of a filler fluid with these characteristics is optional.
Claim 3
Hart further teaches joining neighboring particles with the plurality of template layers to one another with a resin (post-processing of colloidal solids includes fusing or co-assembling particles together, the solids can be co-assembled with one or more materials such as photopolymers (resin), a 3D colloidal structure can be built layer-by-layer by a plurality of 2D layers) [0041], [0077].
Claim 8
Hart further teaches exemplary particles sizes, including up to about 1 µm for polystyrene and 400 nm for silica [0085].
Claim 13
Hart does not require stopping and restarting the deposition process — or otherwise interrupting it. The Primary Examiner interprets this as a fair teaching that the process is a continuous one.
Claim 14
Hart teaches an exemplary colloidal crystal structure (i.e., a plurality of template layers) having a thickness > 20 µm [Fig. 3].
Claim 15
Insofar as the carrier fluid is evaporated, as explained above, and the finished colloidal crystal structure is dry [0086], it is the Primary Examiner’s position that Hart teaches removing the carrier fluid.
Claim(s) 1, 5-9, 12-13, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Harreld et al. (US 2012/0067728 A1; “Harreld”).
Claim 1
Harreld teaches a process for forming crack-free [0034, 0036, 0047, 0048] colloidal sphere templates and sphere-templated porous materials [abstract]. The process comprises contacting a substrate with a solution of colloidal polystyrene (PS) spheres (population of particles) [0033] in a carrier fluid, followed by evaporation of the carrier fluid [0038]. See Fig. 1A. The colloidal particles are thus assembled into a film layer having a plurality of template layers defined by a periodic arrangement of at least some of the population of particles. See round spheres in Fig. 1B.
Harreld is either silent or does not require the presence of PS particles outside of the film and thus reads on the claimed “each of the plurality of template layers being substantially free of particles positioned outside of the periodic arrangement.”
Since Harreld teaches the film is crack-free as explained above, this reads on the claimed “the plurality of template layers optionally being substantially free of channeling cracks of width greater than two particle diameters” and “the spacing of adjacent channeling cracks being greater than 100 µm.
Harreld further teaches that the carrier fluid is a combination of alcohol and water [0038]. Here, the water reads on the claimed carrier fluid and the alcohol reads on the claimed filler fluid, satisfying the claimed “the evaporation optionally being performed in the presence of a filler fluid” and “the filler fluid having a vapor pressure lower than the vapor pressure of the carrier fluid.” Harreld acknowledges the slower evaporation rate of water compared to alcohol [0044].
Harreld does not expressly acknowledge that the alcohol enters the vacancies between the particles and stabilizes the positions of the particles during evaporation of the water. Nevertheless, the alcohol is present, with the water, between the particles [Fig. 1B]. Because Harrel teaches the claimed carrier fluid/filler fluid combination claimed, in the same detail as claimed, the water/alcohol combination must inherently function to stabilize, absent evidence to the contrary or an element not recited in the claim. See MPEP § 2112.01.
Claim 5
Harreld teaches further depositing a metal alloy onto the plurality of template layers [0040].
Claim 6
Harreld further teaches that the metal is deposited throughout the thickness of the template, “preferably . . . stopped before the thickness of the metal film reaches the top of the . . . template” to prevent formation of non-porous bulk metal [0040].
Claim 7
Harreld further teaches dissolving (i.e., selectively removing) the template by dissolving, leaving behind a porous metal film [0040].
Claim 8
Harreld teaches sphere sizes broadly within the range of about 10-1000 nm [0038], and specifically about 60-260 nm [0034].
Claim 9
Harreld teaches that the filler fluid is an alcohol, as noted above.
Claim 12
Harreld teaches that the colloidal particles can be positively charged [0044]. The Primary Examiner notes that Harreld appears to teach away from the use of alcohol in conjunction with positively charged particles [0044]. Nevertheless, the presence of a filler fluid in claim 1, from which claim 12 depends, is optional. Consequently, a purely aqueous carrier fluid still anticipates.
Claim 13
Harreld does not require stopping and restarting the deposition process — or otherwise interrupting it. The Primary Examiner interprets this as a fair teaching that the process is a continuous one.
Claim 15
Insofar as the carrier fluid is evaporated, as explained above, and the finished colloidal crystal structure is dry [0086], it is the Primary Examiner’s position that Hart teaches removing the carrier fluid.
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hart in view of Staley et al. (US 5,503,771 A; “Staley”).
Claim 2
Hart teaches a method comprising:
effecting evaporation of a carrier fluid from a colloid that comprises the carrier fluid and a population of particles, the colloid contacting a substrate (dispensing a colloidal solution (colloid), which includes a liquid (carrier fluid) with suspended particles (population of particles), a colloidal solid forms on the substrate as the liquid from the colloidal solution is removed by evaporation) [0066];
the evaporation of the carrier fluid giving rise to assembly of at least some of the population of particles into a plurality of template layers defined by a periodic arrangement of at least some of the population of particles (direct-write methods that are capable of ordering (periodic arrangement) colloidal particles (population of particles) into a colloidal crystal by manipulation and coordination, a 3D colloidal structure can be built layer-by-layer by a plurality of 2D layers (template layers)) [0032], [0077];
each of the plurality of template layers being substantially free of particles positioned outside of the periodic arrangement (direct-write methods that are capable of ordering colloidal particles into a colloidal crystal by manipulation of one or more of dispense rate, evaporative flux, and/or stage motion and a free-form means to control the electrical, optical, and/or mechanical properties of colloidal crystals via particle ordering and/or fabricated crystal shape, the heating element can be controlled during the evaporation process (evaporation leaving periodic arrangement only in template layer location), and the pump 109 can precisely control the rate of colloidal solution dispensed from the dispensing needle 110 (dispensed precisely in template layers)) [0032], [0065], and [0067].
Hart does not expressly teach:
the evaporation optionally being performed in the presence of a filler fluid, the filler fluid having a vapor pressure lower than the carrier fluid, and the filler fluid entering vacancies between particles resulting from the evaporation of the carrier fluid so as to stabilize the positions of the particles during the evaporation of the carrier fluid,
but the presence of a filler fluid with these characteristics is optional.
Hart does not expressly teach that the population of particles is at least about 10 vol-% of the colloid.
Staley teaches the population of particles being at least about 10 vol-% of the colloid (a method for producing a highly loaded, aqueous suspension having a pourable viscosity and containing from 20-50 vol-% colloidal ceramic particles (> 10 vol-%)) abstract, 4:20-40.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the carrier fluid of Hart to include at least 10 vol-% of the colloid, as taught by Staley, in order to add as much of the colloid as possible to the substrate for crystal growth, while minimizing the time needed to evaporate the carrier fluid.
Applicant is also reminded that, generally, differences in concentration will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration is critical. MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A).
Claim(s) 2 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harreld.
Claim 2
Harreld teaches all of the limitations of this claim above, except that the particles form at least about 10 vol-% of the colloid.
Nevertheless, differences in concentration will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration is critical. MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A).
Claim 11
Harreld teaches all of the limitations of claim 9 above, except that the filler fluid is present in the colloid at from about 0.1 vol-% to about 40 vol-%.
Nevertheless, differences in concentration will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration is critical. MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A).
Moreover, it is the Primary Examiner’s position that, in the process of Harreld, the concentration of alcohol (filler fluid) is a result-effective variable. Harreld teaches that the presence of alcohol can be disadvantageous when using positively-charged colloidal particles and that using less alcohol necessitates higher deposition temperatures [0044]. Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the amount of alcohol in the carrier fluid/filler fluid combination by routine experimentation in order to achieve effective deposition of the desired type of particle and/or overall drying time/temperature. See MPEP § 2144.05(II). Moreover, there is no evidence of record that this “optimization . . . was anything other than the exercise of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Applied Materials, 692 F.3d 1289, 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 22 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 is of record. Harreld specifically teaches methanol and ethanol as the alcohol (filler fluid) [0043], but nothing in the prior art teaches or suggests specifically substituting with glycerol or polyethylene glycol (claim 10). Moreover, while both Hart and Harreld teach post-processing by sintering [Hart, 0042; Harreld, 0039], and sintering to remove a polymeric template lattice after deposition of a material over the lattice is known3, nothing in the prior art teaches or suggests sintering a polymer deposited in a direction from the substrate through a thickness of the plurality of template layers, thereby converting the polymer to a carbonaceous material (claim 6).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chiu et al., Drying of Granular Ceramic Films: I, Effect of Processing Variables on Cracking Behavior, J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 76 [9] 1157-64 (1993): This reference discusses the factors causing cracking of granular ceramic films produced from aqueous dispersions.
Smith et al., Effects of Substrate Constraint on Crack Pattern Formation in Thin Films of Colloidal Polystyrene Particles, Langmuir 2011, 27, 8009-8017: This reference teaches that crack spacing is proportional to film thickness, with spacing in excess of 100 µm observed in films greater than about 70 µm in thickness.
Schaffner et al., Combining Bottom-Up Self-Assembly with Top-Down Microfabrication to Create Hierarchical Inverse Opals with High Structural Order, Small 2015, 11, No. 34, 4334-4340: This reference teaches a crack free film formed by co-assembly of PS colloids with TEOS. After complete solvent evaporation, a single-domain opal film with silicon dioxide filling the interstitials was formed. Calcination resulted in an inverse opal film.
Jiang et al., Thick Free-Standing Metallic Inverse Opals Enabled by New Insights into the Fracture of Drying Particle Films, Langmuir 2020, 36, 7315-7324: This reference teaches the formation of an inverse opal having crystalline domains separated by channeling cracks (C-cracks) as large as 1.35 mm2, with one domain between cracks being 0.88 mm [Fig. 6B].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM P FLETCHER III whose telephone number is (571)272-1419. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 AM - 5 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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at (571) 272-1234. 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 PHILLIP FLETCHER III
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1759
/WILLIAM P FLETCHER III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
9 June 2026
1 The Primary Examiner has NOT cross-checked to determine whether all of the references listed at [0056] – [0112] of the instant spec. have been cited by Applicant in the IDSs filed 02/12/2024.
2 US 2019/0232557 A1 is the equivalent U.S. document.
3 See, e.g., Hatton et al., Assembly of large-area, highly-ordered, crack-free inverse opal films, PNAS, vol. 107, no. 23, 10354-10359,
Prosecution Insights