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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments/remarks filed on 07/10/2026 have been fully considered.
With respect to the claim objection(s), Applicant’s amendment(s) to the claim(s) has/have overcome the objection(s).
With respect to the claim rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. § 102, Applicant’s arguments are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Note
Examiner wishes to point out to applicant that claim(s) 1-9 and 12-13 is/are directed towards an apparatus and as such will be examined under the following conditions. The process/manner of using the apparatus and/or the material worked upon by the apparatus is/are viewed as recitation(s) of intended use and is/are given patentable weight only to the extent that structure is added to the claimed apparatus (See MPEP 2114 II and 2115 for further details).
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 and 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Walker (US 20130236697).
Regarding claim 1, Walker discloses a structural template (microstructured tool surface) for producing a stamping tool (microstructured tool) for stamping a thin-film element (the taught tool surface is inherently capable of producing a stamping tool for stamping any film including a thin film: P0008, 0031, 0066; See MPEP §§ 2112.01 I, 2114 I-II, and 2115), the structural template comprising:
a substrate (1010: Fig. 6) with a surface (outer surface of 1010: Fig. 6), wherein at least a partial area of the surface has a microscopic structure that comprises a plurality of microscopic structural elements (microstructures: P0053-0066, 0068, 0099, Fig. 9), and
wherein the plurality of microscopic structural elements are arranged on the surface of the substrate with a specified degree of disorder, wherein the specified degree of disorder defines a pseudo-random displacement of the microscopic structural elements relative to a predefined lattice (P0040, 0060, 0068),
wherein the structural elements of the plurality of microscopic structural elements each have a nanoscopic structure (nanostructures: P0053-0066, 0031, 0068, 0099),
wherein all structural elements of the plurality of structural elements have a nanoscopic structure (P0031, 0068, 0099), and
wherein all structural elements of the plurality of structural elements have an identical nanoscopic structure (P0041, 0062), or wherein the nanoscopic structure of at least two structural elements of the plurality of structural elements differs (P0041, 0062). Thus, Walker discloses the structural template substantially as claimed by applicant.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, and 6-7 is/are under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Senn (EP 2360115 A1 – of record) in view of Walker (US 20130236697).
Regarding claims 1, 3-4, and 6-7, Senn discloses a structural template (stamp 11: Figs. 11-12) for producing a stamping tool for stamping a thin-film element (P0060; furthermore, the taught stamp 11 is expected to be capable of embossing/stamping any film including a thin-film element: See MPEP §§ 2112.01 I, 2114 I-II, and 2115), the structural template comprising:
a substrate (polymer substrate) with a surface (upper surface of 11),
wherein at least a partial area of the surface has a microscopic structure that comprises a plurality of microscopic structural elements (microstructures 5 and 6: P0061, Figs. 11-12),
wherein the plurality of microscopic structural elements each have a nanoscopic structure (5 and 6 each have nano-structured surfaces 15 and 16: P0061, Figs. 11-12), and
wherein the plurality of microscopic structural elements are arranged on the surface of the substrate with a specified degree of disorder (microstructures 5 and 6 are arranged in different/misaligned directions and/or have different geometries/sizes and/or different pitch yielding a specified degree of disorder: P0033-0034, Figs. 11-12);
wherein all structural elements of the plurality of structural elements have a nanoscopic structure (P0061, Fig. 12),
wherein the nanoscopic structure of at least two structural elements of the plurality of structural elements differs (nano-structured surfaces 15 and 16 of 5 and 6 are different: P0061, Figs. 11-12);
wherein an apex of a structural element of the plurality of structural elements is flattened (Figs. 11-12);
wherein the plurality of structural elements each have a height of 1 to 50 micrometers and/or an aspect ratio of 0.3 to 3 (P0034).
PNG
media_image1.png
281
522
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Senn fails to disclose wherein the specified degree of disorder defines a pseudo-random displacement of the microscopic structural elements relative to a predefined lattice.
In the same field of endeavor, structural templates, Walker discloses the technique of arranging a plurality of microscopic structural elements (microstructures) on a surface of a substrate (1010) with a specified degree of disorder (P0053-0066, 0068, 0099), wherein the specified degree of disorder defines a pseudo-random displacement of the microscopic structural elements relative to a predefined lattice (P0040, 0060, 0068) for the benefit(s) of improving/facilitating replication of the tool surface (P0099).
Since Senn is concerned with the replication accuracy (P0065), it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the structural template of Senn in view of Walker by defining the specified degree of disorder with a pseudo-random displacement of the microscopic structural elements relative to a predefined lattice for the benefit(s) of improving/facilitating replication of the structural template as suggested by Walker.
Claim(s) 2, 5, 8-9, and 12-13 is/are under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Senn (EP 2360115 A1 – of record) in view of Walker (US 20130236697) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Xi (Biomimic Superhydrophobic Surface with High Adhesive Forces, 2008 – of record).
Regarding claims 2, 5, 8-9, and 12-13, the combination, as applied to claim 1 above, fails to disclose the subject matter of these claims.
In the same field of endeavor, structural templates, Xi discloses a structural template (rose petal template) for producing a stamping tool (negative/positive template) for stamping a thin-film element (for embossing/stamping a 3mm PDMS film: pp. 6354-635, Fig. 1), the structural template comprising:
a substrate with a surface (rose petal functioning as a substrate with an upper surface),
wherein at least a partial area of the surface has a microscopic structure (rose petal upper surface has microstructure) that comprises a plurality of microscopic structural elements (cone-shaped microstructures: all pages, Figs. 1-2),
wherein the plurality of microscopic structural elements each have a nanoscopic structure (nanorumples also called nano-structures: pg. 6355, annotated Fig. 2; expected feature of a rose petal surface structure in view of [0120] of Applicant’s published application), and
wherein the plurality of microscopic structural elements are arranged on the surface of the substrate with a specified degree of disorder (the cone-shaped microstructures arranged differently/disorderly in terms of spatial location, geometry, and/or height/size yielding a specified degree of disorder: Fig. 2; expected feature of a rose petal surface structure in view of at least [0120] of Applicant’s published application);
wherein the plurality of microscopic structural elements comprises a plurality of microscopic cones (cone-shaped microstructures: all pages, Figs. 1-2; expected feature of a rose petal surface structure and hierarchical surface structure: [0120] of Applicant’s published application);
wherein all structural elements of the plurality of structural elements have a nanoscopic structure (the cone-shaped microstructures each have nanorumples: pg. 6355, and annotated Fig. 2; expected feature of a rose petal surface structure in view of [0120] of Applicant’s published application),
wherein the nanoscopic structure of a structural element of the plurality of structural elements is formed in a lateral surface of the structural element (annotated Fig. 2; expected feature of a rose petal surface structure: [0120] of Applicant’s published application),
wherein the nanoscopic structure of at least two structural elements of the plurality of structural elements differs (nanorumples of at least two micro-cones are different as the size/geometry of the micro-cones is different: annotated Fig. 2; expected feature of a rose petal surface structure: [0120] of Applicant’s published application);
wherein the nanoscopic structure (nanorumples) comprises elevations and/or depressions that extend in paths between an apex (cone tip) and a base of a structural element (cone) of the plurality of structural elements along a surface line of the structural element, wherein the nanoscopic structure comprises folds (nanorumples are nanofols) that extend between the apex (cone tip) and the base of the structural element of the plurality of structural elements along the surface line of the structural element (pg. 6355, and annotated Fig. 2; expected feature of a rose petal surface structure in view of [0120] of Applicant’s published application);
wherein an apex (cone tip) of a structural element of the plurality of structural elements is rounded (Figs. 1-2),
wherein the plurality of structural elements comprises straight cones and/or oblique cones and/or truncated cones (Figs. 1-2; expected feature of a rose petal surface structure in view of [0120] of Applicant’s published application),
wherein at least a subset of the plurality of structural elements on the surface of the substrate is randomly distributed or arranged according to a random distribution (Fig. 2 shows a random spatial distribution of the cone-shaped microstructures), and/or wherein the specified degree of disorder comprises that at least a subset of the plurality of structural elements on the surface of the substrate be displaced or offset by a randomly distributed amount in a randomly distributed direction relative to a predetermined two-dimensional lattice arrangement of the plurality of structural elements, wherein the lattice arrangement is hexagonal (See annotated Fig. 2 with the randomly spatially displaced hexagonal arrangement of cone-shaped microstructures);
wherein the plurality of structural elements is arranged such that adjacent structural elements of the plurality of structural elements adjoin one another (Figs. 1-2), and/or wherein the microscopic structure does not have planar surfaces between the structural elements of the plurality of structural elements (Figs. 1-1), and/or wherein the at least one partial area of the surface of the substrate, which has the microscopic structure, is completely covered with the microscopic structural elements of the plurality of microscopic structural elements (Figs. 1-2), and
wherein adjacent structural elements intersect at lateral surfaces thereof (Figs. 1-2) for the benefit(s) of producing superhydrophobic surfaces (pg. 6354).
PNG
media_image2.png
691
509
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
474
545
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Since Senn is concerned with providing hydrophobic properties to the structural template (P0032, 0046) while Walker teaches that the shape and dimensions of the microscopic structure and the nanoscopic structure of the structural template is adjustable (P0036, 0055, 0060), it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the structural template of Senn in view of Xi by selecting/using microscopic straight/oblique cones as the plurality of microscopic structural elements arranged/distributed in a distribution such that adjacent structural elements of the plurality of structural elements adjoin one another intersect at lateral surfaces thereof and by selecting/using elevations and/or depressions that extend in paths between an apex and a base of a structural element of the plurality of structure that extend in paths between an apex and a base of a structural element of the plurality of structural elements along a generating or surface line of the structural element as the nanoscopic structure, wherein the nanoscopic structure comprises folds that extend between the apex and the base of the structural element of the plurality of structural elements along the generating or surface line of the structural element to arrive at the claimed invention for yielding the predictable benefit(s) of producing superhydrophobic surfaces in the structural template as suggested by Xi.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Additional prior art made of record and not relied upon that is considered to be pertinent to
Applicant’s disclosure:
Taniguchi (US 20210397097 – of record) discloses a relevant template structure (100: Fig. 2F, Fig. 9 and corresponding description).
Varanasi (US 20120051489 – of record) discloses a relevant template structure (abstract, Figs. 2B-C, and accompanying text).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERZI H MORENO HERNANDEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-0625. The examiner can normally be reached 1:00-10:00 PM PT.
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, Galen Hauth can be reached at 571-270-5516. 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.
JERZI H. MORENO HERNANDEZ
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1743
/JERZI H MORENO HERNANDEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights