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 information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/22/2024 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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) 21, 22, 24, 25, 29-33, 35, and 38-45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ballif et al (US 2017/0033250 A1).
In regard to claim 21, Ballif et al discloses a method of forming an article that exhibits structural color (page 5, section [0104] – page 6, section [0116], Figures 1 & 2), the method comprising: forming on or within the article a curved, microscale interface (Figure 2, “221”) between a first component (Figure 2, “231”) and a second component adjacent to the first component (Figure 2, “220”), wherein the interface is configured such that at least a portion of electromagnetic radiation incident to a surface of the interface undergoes total internal reflection between the first component and the second component (Figure 2, re: total internal reflection in “231” through the dome at the interface “221” between “231” and “220”); wherein the first component has a first refractive index greater than a second refractive index of the second component (page 6, section [0113], re: high index layer “231” surrounded by low index media “232” and “220”); and wherein the electromagnetic radiation undergoes a change in amplitude during the total internal reflection (page 6, section [0113], re: portion “261” will be trapped by total internal reflection inside the high index medium “231” and its ‘absorption…’ Absorption indicates that the radiation “261” undergoes a change (i.e. reduction) in amplitude).
Regarding claim 22, Ballif et al discloses wherein the curved, microscale interface is formed by a process that includes lithography, stamping, imprinting, indentation, replica molding, polymerization of fluids, assembly of solid particles, or any combination thereof (page 6, section [0107]).
Regarding claim 24, Ballif et al discloses wherein the curved, microscale interface is formed by a process that comprises fabricating a template for the interface, applying a curable polymer to the template; curing the polymer; and removing the cured polymer from the template (page 6, section [0107]).
Regarding claim 25, Ballif et al discloses wherein the curved, microscale interface is concave relative to the incident electromagnetic radiation (Figure 2, “261, 221”).
Regarding claim 29, Ballif et al discloses wherein the curved, microscale interface exhibits a largest cross-sectional dimension of from 1 micron to 200 microns (page 5, section [0105]).
Regarding claim 30, Ballif et al discloses wherein the article exhibits iridescence due to the total internal reflection (page 7, section [0115]).
Regarding claim 31, Ballif et al discloses wherein the article exhibits optical interference due to the total internal reflection (page 7, section [0115]).
In regard to claim 32, Ballif et al discloses a method of forming an article that exhibits structural color (page 5, section [0104] – page 6, section [0116], Figures 1 & 2), the method comprising: forming on or within the article plurality of domed structures (Figure 2, “221”) on a substrate, wherein the substrate comprises a first material (Figure 2, “231”); and positioning a second component adjacent the plurality of domed structures, wherein the second component comprises a second material (Figure 2, “220”); wherein the first material has a refractive index greater than a refractive index of the second material (page 6, section [0113], re: “231” is high-index layer & “220” is low-index layer), such that incident electromagnetic radiation (Figure 2, “261”) undergoes total internal reflection at a curved surface of each domed structure at a microscale interface between the first material and the second material (pages 5-6, section [0106], re: surface nanofeatures “221,” Figure 2, re: total internal reflection in “231” through the dome at the interface “221” between “231” and “220”).
Regarding claim 33, Ballif et al discloses wherein the plurality of domed structures is formed by a process that includes lithography, stamping, imprinting, indentation, replica molding, polymerization of fluids, assembly of solid particles, or any combination thereof (page 6, section [0107]).
Regarding claim 35, Ballif et al discloses wherein the plurality of domed structures is formed by a process that comprises fabricating a template for the plurality of domed structures, applying a curable polymer to the template; curing the polymer; and removing the cured polymer from the template (page 6, section [0107]).
Regarding claim 38, Ballif et al discloses wherein the plurality of domed structures are disposed in a regular two-dimensional array on the substrate (Figure 2, “221”).
Regarding claim 39, Ballif et al discloses wherein the microscale interface comprises a polygonal interface (page 6, section [0107], re: pyramidal).
Regarding claim 40, Ballif et al discloses wherein the microscale interface comprises an irregular interface (Figure 2, “221”).
Regarding claim 41, Ballif et al discloses wherein the plurality of domed structures each exhibit a largest cross-sectional dimension of from 1 micron to 200 microns (page 5, section [0105]).
Regarding claim 42, Ballif et al discloses wherein the electromagnetic radiation undergoes a change in amplitude during total internal reflection (page 6, section [0113], re: portion “261” will be trapped by total internal reflection inside the high index medium “231” and its ‘absorption…’ Absorption indicates that the radiation “261” undergoes a change (i.e. reduction) in amplitude).
Regarding claim 43, Ballif et al discloses wherein the article exhibits structural coloration due to the total internal reflection (page 6, section [0113] - page 7, section [0115]).
Regarding claim 44, Ballif et al discloses wherein the article exhibits iridescence due to the total internal reflection (page 7, section [0115]).
Regarding claim 45, Ballif et al discloses wherein the article exhibits optical interference due to the total internal reflection (page 7, section [0115]).
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.
Claim(s) 36 and 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ballif et al.
Regarding claims 36 and 37, Ballif et al discloses as set forth above, but does not specifically disclose wherein the domed structures comprise hemicylindrical or hemispherical structures.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice for the domed structures of Ballif et al to comprise hemicylindrical or hemispherical structures, since applicant has not disclosed that said structures solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with polygonal or irregular structures as disclosed in claims 39 and 40.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21 and 32 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over respective combination of claims (1 & 11) and (15 & 19) of U.S. Patent No. 11,953,439. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of the indicated claims of the current application are disclosed in the respective combination of claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,953,439 and are therefore anticipated by said claims.
US Patent 11,953,439
Current Application
1. An article, comprising:
11. The article of claim 1, wherein the article exhibits structural coloration due to the total internal reflection
1 (continued). a first component and a second component adjacent the first component; and a curved microscale interface between the first component and the second component, the interface configured such that at least a portion of electromagnetic radiation incident to a surface of the interface undergoes total internal reflection between the first component and the second component, wherein the first component has a first refractive index greater than a second refractive index of the second component; and wherein the electromagnetic radiation undergoes a change in amplitude during total internal reflection.
21. (New) A method of forming
an article that exhibits structural color, the method comprising:
forming on or within the article a curved, microscale interface between a first component and a second component adjacent to the first component, wherein the interface is configured such that at least a portion of electromagnetic radiation incident to a surface of the interface undergoes total internal reflection between the first component and the second component; wherein the first component has a first refractive index greater than a second refractive index of the second component; and wherein the electromagnetic radiation undergoes a change in amplitude during the total internal reflection.
15. An article, comprising:
19. The method of claim 15, wherein the article exhibits structural coloration due to the total internal reflection
15 (continued). a plurality of domed structures formed on a substrate, the substrate comprising a first material;
a second component adjacent the plurality of domed structures and comprising a second material;
wherein the first material has a refractive index greater than a refractive index of the second material, such that incident electromagnetic radiation undergoes total internal reflection at a curved surface of each domed structure at a microscale interface between the first material and the second material.
32. (New) A method of forming
an article that exhibits structural color,
the method comprising: forming on or within the article plurality of domed structures on a substrate, wherein the substrate comprises a first material;
and positioning a second component adjacent the plurality of domed structures, wherein the second component comprises a second material;
wherein the first material has a refractive index greater than a refractive index of the second material, such that incident electromagnetic radiation undergoes total internal reflection at a curved surface of each domed structure at a microscale interface between the first material and the second material.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 23, 26-28, and 34 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 prior art fails to teach a combination of all the claimed features as presented in claim 23: a method as claimed, specifically wherein the lithography comprises photolithography, laser lithography, stereolithography, soft lithography, or any combination thereof.
The prior art fails to teach a combination of all the claimed features as presented in claim 26: a method as claimed, specifically wherein the first component or the second component comprises a fluid.
The prior art fails to teach a combination of all the claimed features as presented in claims 27 and 28: a method as claimed, specifically wherein the first component comprises a polymer.
The prior art fails to teach a combination of all the claimed features as presented in claim 34: a method as claimed, specifically wherein the lithography comprises photolithography, laser lithography, stereolithography, soft lithography, or any combination thereof.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM C CHOI whose telephone number is (571)272-2324. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday- Friday, 9:00 am - 6:00 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, Pinping Sun can be reached on (571) 270-1284. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WILLIAM CHOI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 November 15, 2025