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 filed 6/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 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
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.
Claims 1-2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Panova, O., et al., (2016). Orientation mapping of semicrystalline polymers using scanning electron nanobeam diffraction. Micron, 88, 30–36 [hereinafter Panova] in view of Miyata et al., Nanoscale Stress Distribution in Silica-Nanoparticle-Filled Rubber as Observed by Transmission Electron Microscopy: Implications for Tire Application. ACS Applied Nano Materials, 4(5), 4452–4461(2021) [hereinafter Miyata]
Regarding Claim 1:
Panova teaches a method of analyzing a crystal structure, a crystal morphology, or a crystal distribution of [a polymer blend] (Abstract: “We demonstrate a scanning electron nanobeam diffraction technique that can be used for mapping the size and distribution of nanoscale crystalline regions in a polymer blend. In addition, it can map the relative orientation of crystallites and the degree of crystallinity of the material”),
wherein the method uses a nanodiffraction imaging technique that analyzes an electron diffraction pattern (Abstract: “The technique uses a scanning electron beam,” e.g., a scanning electron nanobeam, “to raster across the sample and acquires a diffraction image at each probe position. Through image alignment and filtering, the diffraction image dataset enables mapping of the crystalline regions within the scanned area and construction of an orientation map”)
acquired by scanning electron beams converged to a diameter of 100 nm or less on a surface of the rubber material (Pages 2-3: Panova expressly teaches a converged electron beam having a 7 nm diameter, “The 4-dimensional scanning electron microscopy (4D-STEM)data was acquired using a FEI Titan TEM operating at 200 and 300 kV... which used a convergent beam with a convergence half-angle of 0.51 mrad... to raster over an m × n area and collect a stack of diffraction patterns” and “Measurement of the probe size was done by imaging the convergent beam at high magnification onto a charge-coupled device. A profile of the probe image at 200 kV shows a shape with a full-width half-maximum (FWHM) of 7 nm...The total beam current was measured at 5 pA, which corresponds to an average electron dose of 8000 e−/Å2over an area with a diameter defined by the FWHM of 7 nm”),
wherein the electron diffraction pattern being acquired for a portion of the [sample] corresponding to a local region in an observed image obtained by observing, using a transmission electron microscope (Pages 2-3 and Fig. 1 caption: “Convergent beam rasters the beam across the sample (i, j) and captures a full diffraction pattern … for each probe location” and “each pixel in real space (i, j) corresponds to a full diffraction pattern”; “Initial low-dose low-mag STEM images … enabled us to find the regions of interest”, “The stacks of DPs obtained during each scan were subsequently mined to reveal the distribution of the crystallites. Each DP in the set corresponds to a real space position (i, j) of the rastered beam”).
However, Panova does not specifically note their method was used to analyze crystal structure/morphology/distribution of a rubber material in stretching; the said technique scanning electron beams on a surface of the rubber material, and while a behavior of stretching deformation of the rubber material and/or a state of the rubber material in stretching are observed using a transmission electron microscope.
Miyata teaches:
analyze a rubber material in stretching (Abstract: “Nanoparticle-filled rubber under tensile deformation was observed in situ by transmission electron microscopy (TEM)”),
the said technique scanning electron beams on a surface of the rubber material (Page 3: ““Figure 1a−c shows the consecutive bright-field TEM (BF-TEM) images of the silica-nanoparticle-filled rubber under tensile deformation”), and
while a behavior of stretching deformation of the rubber material and/or a state of the rubber material in stretching are observed using a transmission electron microscope (Abstract and Figs. 1a-1c: “Nanoparticle-filled rubber under tensile deformation was observed in situ by transmission electron microscopy (TEM)”; “Figure 1a−c shows the consecutive bright-field TEM (BF-TEM) images of the silica-nanoparticle-filled rubber under tensile deformation”).
Panova teaches applying a position-resolved nanobeam diffraction technique to a polymer blend and expressly states that the technique is generally applicable to semicrystalline polymer samples. Miyata teaches that a polymeric rubber specimen can be stretched and observed in situ by TEM, and that its local deformation behavior depends on local structures and their spatial arrangements. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the time of effective filing, to apply Panova’s polymer-compatible nanobeam diffraction technique to local regions of Miyata’s rubber during in-situ TEM stretching to determine whether variations in local crystal distribution or orientation account for the heterogeneous deformation observed in the rubber, thereby providing a more complete understanding of the relationship between the rubber’s local structure and mechanical behavior.
Regarding Claim 2:
Panova in view of Miyata teaches the method of claim 1. Panova further teaches wherein the nanodiffraction imaging technique is performed under measurement conditions described below:
(measurement conditions)
probe size: ϕ1 to ϕ150 nm (Page 3: “A profile of the probe image at 200 kV shows a shape with a full-width half-maximum (FWHM) of 7 nm”).
total dose: 1.0×10−6 to 1.0×103 e−/Å2 (Page 3: “the electron dose rate is high at ∼8000 e⁻/Ų s. The short exposure time of 70 ms reduces the dose to ∼600 e⁻/Ų”).
Since the specification defines “total dose” generally as dose rate × dwell time in units of e⁻/Ų (Spec. para. [0022]) without restricting the area normalization to only probe area or only scan-step area, and Panova performs that same calculation—8000 e⁻/Ųs × 0.07 s ≈ 560 e⁻/Ų, reported as approximately 600 e⁻/Ų—which is within the claimed range, the does value taught by Panova is within the claimed range.
Regarding Claim 4:
Panova in view of Miyata teaches the method of claim 1. Miyata further teaches wherein a local strain in an observation visual field of a transmission electron microscopic image is 1 to 40 (Abstract, Page 5/10: Miyata teaches observe silica-filled rubber under tensile deformation in situ by TEM, and “… the spatial distributions of the local maximum and minimum principal strains (εmax and εmin) under tensile deformation were determined experimentally for the first time.” “Matrix regions with few silica aggregates exhibit a relatively uniform εmax of around 1. This uniform strain is due to the small compositional fluctuations inside the regions”; Fig. 3 also shows a scale bar with εmax = 2.0).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Panova in view of Miyata, further in view of Gallagher-Jones, M., et al., (2020). Atomic structures determined from digitally defined nanocrystalline regions. IUCrJ, 7(3), 490–499 [hereinafter Gallagher].
Regarding Claim 3:
Panova in view of Miyata teaches the method of claim 1. However, the combined references do not specifically note that wherein when a diffraction pattern obtained by performing a further electron diffraction is analyzed, an integrated region of the diffraction pattern is a region of 1×1 to 1000×1000 nm2.
Gallagher teaches wherein when a diffraction pattern obtained by performing a further electron diffraction is analyzed, an integrated region of the diffraction pattern is a region of 1×1 to 1000×1000 nm2 (Sections 3 and 4: “The diffraction patterns from a single scan at a single crystal orientation were then computationally combined to produce a single diffraction pattern that represented the sum of all electron counts across a defined region of the scan... we digitally selected diffraction from a specified region of a crystal or field of view within a scan.” “We demonstrated the capture of meaningful diffraction from regions of a peptide crystal as small as 40 nm”).
Panova teaches applying a position-resolved nanobeam diffraction technique to a polymer blend and expressly states that the technique is generally applicable to semicrystalline polymer samples. Gallagher teaches digitally selecting diffraction from a specified region of the specimen and combining diffraction data from regions as small as approximately 40 nm. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the time of effective filing, to apply Gallagher’s digital integration technique to Panova’s position-resolved nanobeam diffraction data in order to combine diffraction patterns from a selected local region and thereby obtain a representative diffraction pattern with increased meaningful diffraction signal for analysis of that region.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JING WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-2504. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-17:00.
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, Robert Kim can be reached at 571-272-2293. 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.
/JING WANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/MICHAEL J LOGIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights