DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on April 14, 2026 has been entered.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 15-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on June 23, 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is confusing because it is self-contradictory. In the process step i) the composite material is described as comprising one light absorbing (“LA”) agent dispersed in a matrix in a monomeric form LAM; however, a few lines below the it is described that the LA agent is being dispersed in the matrix in both a monomeric form LAM and an aggregated form LAA. This definition appears to contradict the process step i) rendering the claim confusing and thus indefinite.
Other claims are deemed indefinite in view of their dependence on claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that Fromentin fails to teach an annealing step chosen to obtain a preselected hue for the nanoparticles, but rather Fromentin teaches a “color intensity effect”, represented by C* value, and not a “hue effect” which is represented by h*. This is not persuasive because Fromentin does teach an annealing step comprising annealing the nanoparticles at 80oC for 3 hours (para. 0131) or 180oC for 2 hours (para. 0145), and Applicant admits that such annealing step inherently results in specific hue (h*). See Figure 3 in the instant specification showing annealing at 80oC resulting in h* value of about 235 and at 180oC results in h* value of about 272-275. Thus, although the word “hue” is not specifically spelled out, the annealing step of Fromentin has the same effect equivalent to choosing a “preselected hue”.
However, the rejection is hereby withdrawn because Fromentin fails to teach the dispersing step in which the LA agent is dispersed in both a monomeric form and an aggregated form with an absorbance ratio AA/AM ranging from 1.25 to 10. The ratio is taught to be varied in order to adjust the hue of the nanoparticles. Thus the step for adjusting the absorbance ratio AA/AM within the claimed range is deemed a positive limitation for choosing a preselected hue, which is not taught in the process of Fromentin..
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOA (Holly) LE whose telephone number is (571)272-1511. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 10:00 am to 7:00 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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at 571-272-1490. 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.
HOA (Holly) LE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1788
/HOA (Holly) LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788
Prosecution Insights