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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
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." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
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, 2, 7-9, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Paulsen et al. “Geometry-driven folding of a floating annular sheet”. Physical review letters 118.4 (2017): 048004.
Regarding claims 1 and 2: Paulsen et al. teaches a film/sheet comprising a axisymmetric shell (fig. 1(a)) formed from the polymer polystyrene (pg. 048004-1, second column). Paulsen et al. teaches the film modifies the surface energy of the exposed liquid interfaces (pg. 048004-3, first column), which is at least one property of a surface of a liquid.
Regarding claims 7 and 14: Paulsen et al. teaches a pressure difference/different tensions across the shell (abstract).
Regarding claims 8 and 9: Paulsen et al. teaches a system comprising a film/sheet comprising a axisymmetric shell (fig. 1(a)) formed from the polymer polystyrene (pg. 048004-1, second column) on the surface of a liquid (abstract). Paulsen et al. teaches the film modifies the surface energy of the exposed liquid interfaces (pg. 048004-3, first column), which is at least one property of a surface of a liquid.
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.
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 3-6, and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paulsen et al. “Geometry-driven folding of a floating annular sheet”. Physical review letters 118.4 (2017): 048004 as applied to claims 1 and 8 set forth above.
Regarding claims 3 and 10: Paulsen et al. teaches a Young’s modulus E of 3.4 GPa, which overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have an overlapping Young’s modulus and would have been motivated to do so since Paulsen et al. teaches this is an acceptable value to achieve the disclosed invention.
Regarding claims 4 and 11: Paulsen et al. teaches a thickness of about 20-500 nm (fig. 3 (b)), which overlaps the claimed range. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the overlapping thickness and would have been motivated to do so since Paulsen et al. teaches it is an acceptable thickness to achieve the disclosed invention.
Regarding claims 5 and 12: Paulsen et al. teaches a radius of curvature/Rout of 6.5-10.5 mm (pg. 048004-1, second column), which overlaps the claimed range. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the overlapping radius of curvature and would have been motivated to do so since Paulsen et al. teaches it is an acceptable curvature to achieve the disclosed invention.
Regarding claims 6 and 13: Paulsen et al. teaches a boundary radius/Rin of 1.2-5.7 mm (pg. 048004-1, second column), which overlaps the claimed range. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the overlapping boundary radius and would have been motivated to do so since Paulsen et al. teaches it is an acceptable radius to achieve the disclosed invention.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paulsen et al. “Geometry-driven folding of a floating annular sheet”. Physical review letters 118.4 (2017): 048004 as applied to claim 8 set forth above and in view of Kumar, Deepak, et al. "Wrapping with a splash: High-speed encapsulation with ultrathin sheets." Science 359.6377 (2018): 775-778.
Regarding claim 15: Paulsen et al. teaches the basic claimed system as set forth above. Not disclosed is the oil on the shell. However, Kumar et al. teaches oil dropped on the film (abstract). Paulsen et al. and Kumar et al. are analogous art since they are both concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely thin films on liquid interfaces. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to put the oil on the film of Paulsen et al. as in Kumar et al. and would have been motivated to do so in order to enclose the oil in the film.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Megan McCulley whose telephone number is (571)270-3292. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5:30.
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, Mark Eashoo can be reached at 571-272-1197. 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.
/MEGAN MCCULLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767
Prosecution Insights