DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 7, 9, 13, 17-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Simultaneous transfer of noble metals and three-dimensional micro- and nanopatterns onto zein for fabrication of nanophotonic platforms” published by Gezer et al. in view of U.S. PGPub 2011/0123754 A1 by Shirai et al.
Regarding claims 1-3, 9, Gezer teaches nanophotonic platforms comprising a plurality of substantially uniform zein particles (Zein film with a plurality of nanostructures including positive and inverted pyramids, nanopillars, and nanopores thereon, see Introduction).
Gezer does not specify the process of zein particles obtaining a structural color. Shirai teaches that particles of an arranged structure, e.g., Figs. 2-4, can display a structural color via a reflection color of selected light generated by a periodic structure body and the like, wherein the light of the wavelength determined by the observing angle is selectively reflected to result in exhibiting a structural color based on Bragg's Law and Snell's Law, and a volume fraction of the structural color particles 12 is a result effective variable that affects the peak wavelength of the structural color. (See at least [0080]-[0087]) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to perform routine experimentations on the volume fraction of the zein particles to exhibit desired structural colors, especially since the claimed range of 0.04-0.95 encompasses virtually the entirety of 0-1, e.g., spheres has packing factor of ~0.74.
Regarding claim 4, Gezer further teaches the zein film is with a metal (gold) coating (Fig. 4).
Regarding claims 6, 7, Gezer further teaches that the pillar structures are 150 nm in diameter (see “Materials and Methods”).
Regarding claim 13, Gezer further teaches zein film with a successful transfer of silver can impart a blue color (see color photograph of Fig. 1b, in which blue and green colors are imparted on the right side of the zein film).
Regarding claims 17-21 and with respect the limitations of what the zein composition is employed to do, a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)
Regarding claim 22, Gezer further teaches assembling a plurality of substantially uniform zein particles into one or more ordered and periodic structures that generate structural color, thereby fabricating the photonic crystal (the area in a dotted square (5 mm × 5 mm) in Fig. 1 is where the pyramid patterns are and the reason for the color difference is the reflection of light at different wavelengths in the visible spectrum between 500 and 700 nm due to these patterns, see “Results and discussion”), wherein the process includes a) providing a mixture comprising a plurality of substantially uniform zein particles in a liquid (preparing a zein solution by dissolving zein powder in 75% ethanol, i.e., 25% water, solution; b) applying the mixture to a surface (pouring solution over a polymer mold); and c) evaporating the liquid (drying in a vacuum desiccator), thereby assembling the plurality of substantially uniform zein particles into one or more ordered and periodic structures that generate structural color, thereby fabricating a photonic crystal (see Fig. 1 and “Fabrication of protein films with nanophotonic structures” for schematic diagram and description of the procedure).
Regarding claim 24, Gezer further teaches coating a surface, or a portion thereof (of a “parent substrate”), with the zein solution.
Regarding claim 25, Gezer further teaches a method comprising: a) providing a mixture comprising an array of a plurality of substantially uniform zein particles in a liquid (preparing a zein solution by dissolving zein powder in ethanol in a three-dimensional pattern); b) applying the mixture to a surface (pouring solution over a polymer mold); and c) evaporating the liquid (drying in a vacuum desiccator), thereby assembling the plurality of substantially uniform zein particles into one or more ordered and periodic structures that generate structural color, thereby fabricating a photonic crystal (see Fig. 1 and “Fabrication of protein films with nanophotonic structures” for schematic diagram and description of the procedure). Gezer does not specify the process of zein particles obtaining a structural color. Shirai teaches that particles of an arranged structure, e.g., Figs. 2-4, can display a structural color via a reflection color of selected light generated by a periodic structure body and the like, wherein the light of the wavelength determined by the observing angle is selectively reflected to result in exhibiting a structural color based on Bragg's Law and Snell's Law. (See at least [0080]-[0087]) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to perform routine experimentations on the variables, e.g., a refractive index of the structural color particle layer, a layer interval between the structural color particle layers, a viewing angle, since structural color produces a high chroma with a high reflectivity and having a high color fading resistance without relying on absorption of light by a dye.
Claim(s) 1, 9, 14, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. PGPub 2018/0228736 by Weissmueller et al. in view of U.S. PGPub 2011/0123754 A1 by Shirai et al.
Regarding claims 1, 9, Weissmueller teaches a composition of comprising a plurality of substantially uniform zein particles (see Fig. 3(d) indicating a substantially regular zein size distribution). Weissmueller does not specify the process of zein particles obtaining a structural color. Shirai teaches that particles of an arranged structure, e.g., Figs. 2-4, can display a structural color via a reflection color of selected light generated by a periodic structure body and the like, wherein the light of the wavelength determined by the observing angle is selectively reflected to result in exhibiting a structural color based on Bragg's Law and Snell's Law, and a volume fraction of the structural color particles 12 is a result effective variable that affects the peak wavelength of the structural color. (See at least [0080]-[0087]) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to perform routine experimentations on the volume fraction of the zein particles to exhibit desired structural colors, especially since the claimed range of 0.04-0.95 encompasses virtually the entirety of 0-1, e.g., spheres has packing factor of ~0.74.
Regarding claims 14, 16, Weissmueller further teaches dye encapsulation in zein ( ¶[0065]).
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.
Claim(s) 5, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gezer et al. and Shirai et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. PGPub 2013/0116261 A1 by Agüeros Bazo et al. Gezer teaches the zein nanoparticle photonic platform but not its polydispersity index of about 0.2 or less, or a mean zeta potential of about 20 – 60 mV. Agüeros Bazo teaches a zein nanoparticles compound having a similar size (e.g., approximately 150nm in Table 4) and its PDI, Zeta potential in the claimed ranges. Since both inventions disclose a process of making by dissolving zein in ethanol, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to perform routine experimentation and determine the optimal or workable ranges of PDI and Zeta potential, respectively, as guided by Agüeros Bazo’s invention, with a reasonable expectation of the outcome that provides a suitable stability during the compound’s storage and after the compound’s administration as stated.
Claim(s) 11, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gezer et al. and Shirai as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. PGPub 2019/0353975 A1 by Didomenico. Gezer teaches the zein nanoparticle photonic platform but not a volume fraction of the nanoparticle within a photonic crystal. Didomenico’s invention is drawn to a nanoparticle composition that forms a photonic crystal (¶[0611], [0783], [0798]) with dynamically controlled refractive index distribution by controlling particle distribution in a colloid, wherein changing the local volume fraction of nanoparticles within the colloid the point-to-point effective refractive index may be changed dynamically in time. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to perform routine experimentations on the volume fraction or packing density (packing density is interpreted herein as a volumetric percentage of the zein nanoparticles within the photonic crystal and therefore is considered a same quantity as volume fraction) of the nanoparticles, e.g., examining the effect on refractive indices by packing density ranging from 10%-90% by 20% steps as illustrated in Fig. 21 in Didomenico, in order to change and control the refractive index for the photonic platforms in Gezer’s invention.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weissmueller et al. and Shirai et al. as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of JP 2000264827 A patent publication. Weissmueller teaches a zine nanoparticle composition including an additive encapsulated by a shell comprising zein, wherein the additive may be a cosmetic composition (see claims 1-7 and ¶[0039] of Weissmueller). Weissmueller does not specify the type of additive to be a xanthommatin pigment. The ‘827 publication discloses using xanthommatin pigments in a cosmetic application for its advantages: decreasing drabness, and increasing transparent feeling and is capable of exerting effect of the sunburn skin which looks healthy and is desirable from an overall point of view. It thus would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to select xanthommatin pigment as the cosmetic composition of choice in Weissmueller’s invention, as suggested in the ‘827 publication, for the same advantages.
Claim(s) 27, 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gezer et al. and Shirai et al. as applied to claim 25 above, and further in view of “Functionalizing zein through antisolvent precipitation from ethanol or aetic acid” by Mattice et al. Gezer and Shirai suggest the method of imparting color through zein particles but does not specify using antisolvent precipitation to remove the ethanol from the mixture with the zein particles. Mattice teaches a method of preparing zein networks through antisolvent precipitation, involving dissolution in ethanol followed by precipitation by addition of excess water, and precipitation from ethanol resulted in a network with a highly organized, porous structure of increased ductility. It thus would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Gezer’s invention, by using antisolvent precipitation method to remove the ethanol in the manner suggested by Mattice, for the same stated advantage.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US2007008439 discloses structural color for nanoparticles.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLIE PENG whose telephone number is (571)272-2177. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM - 6PM.
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, Thomas Hollweg can be reached at (571)270-1739. 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.
/CHARLIE Y PENG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights