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(s) filed on 2/20/2025 has been acknowledged and considered by the examiner. Initialed copies of supplied IDS(s) forms are included in this correspondence.
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.
Claim 32 is 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 32 recites the limitation "the liquid" in the second line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This rejection could be overcome if “the liquid” is amended to say “a liquid”.
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, 6, 12, 16, 20, 24-25, 30, 32, 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cardillo, Dean, et al. “Attenuation of UV absorption by poly(lactic acid)-iron oxide nanocomposite particles and their potential application in sunscreens.” Chemical Engineering Journal, vol. 405, 2 Sept. 2020 (hereinafter “Cardillo”).
Regarding claim 1, Cardillo teaches a photonic material for reducing transmission of ultraviolet light (Cardillo fig. 7b), comprising:
spherical scatterers (Cardillo abstract – Fe2O3 particles, see also , see also page 2, col. 2, para. 4) in a matrix material (Cardillo abstract - polylactic acid microspheres, see also page 2, col. 2, para. 4), the spherical scatterers having an amorphous arrangement in the matrix material (Cardillo fig. 7b), the spherical scatterers (Fe2O3 particles) being configured to scatter ultraviolet light traveling in the matrix material (Cardillo pg. 7, col. 2, para. 2), the amorphous arrangement causing multiple scattering of the ultraviolet light (Cardillo fig. 7b – multiple scattering occurs since there are multiple particles); and
an absorbing material (Cardillo fig. 7b, see also pg. 7, col. 2, para. 2) disposed within one of the matrix material (Cardillo fig. 7b) or the spherical scatterers, the absorbing material configured to absorb the ultraviolet light traveling in the matrix material (Cardillo pg. 7, col. 2, para. 2).
Regarding claim 6, Sun teaches the photonic material of claim 1, wherein the spherical scatterers (Fe2O3) comprise air voids in the matrix material, or nanoparticles embedded in the matrix material (Cardillo page 2, col. 2, para. 4 – nanoparticles embedded).
Regarding claim 12, Cardillo teaches the photonic material of claim 1, and Cardillo further teaches wherein the matrix material comprises one or more of a biodegradable material, a polylactide, a poly(vinylalcohol) (PVA), silica, a polymer, a liquid, or an oxide (Cardillo page 2, col. 2, para. 4 – polylactic acid microspheres, biodegradable, polylactide, and a polymer).
Regarding claim 16, Cardillo teaches the photonic material of claim 1, and Cardillo further teaches wherein the matrix material forms a film (Cardillo abstract, see also fig. 7b – the PLA microspheres within a commercial sunscreen formulation which forms a film).
Regarding claim 20, Cardillo teaches the photonic material of claim 1, and Cardillo further teaches wherein the absorbing material comprises one or more of ZnO, TiO_2, or melanin (Cardillo pg. 6, col. 2, para. 2 – TiO_2 used with the PLA-Fe2O3 nanoparticles).
Regarding claim 24, Cardillo teaches an ultraviolet light protective coating comprising the photonic material of claim 1 (Cardillo abstract, see also fig. 7b - sunscreen).
Regarding claim 25, Cardillo teaches the ultraviolet light protective coating of claim 24, and Cardillo further teaches wherein the coating comprises a sunscreen (Cardillo abstract).
Regarding claim 30, Cardillo teaches the ultraviolet light protective coating of claim 24, and Cardillo further teaches wherein the matrix material forms fragments dispersed within a liquid (Cardillo fig. 7b – PLA microspheres are fragments disposed within sunscreen).
Regarding claim 32, Cardillo teaches the ultraviolet light protective coating of claim 24, and Cardillo further teaches wherein the photonic material is coated such that the liquid does not fill the spherical scatterers within the matrix (Cardillo fig. 7b – liquid does not fill the FeO3 within the PLA microspheres).
Regarding claim 34, Cardillo teaches the ultraviolet light protective coating of claim 24, and Cardillo further teaches wherein the photonic material forms a film (Cardillo fig. 7b – the sunscreen film on the skin).
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 2-3, 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cardillo as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Goncalves et al., "Optical Properties," Chapter 8 from Poly(Lactic Acid): Synthesis, Structures, Properties, Processing, and Applications, John Wiley & Sons, September 15, 2010, pages 97-112 (hereinafter “Goncalves”) cited by Applicant.
Regarding claim 2, Cardillo teaches the photonic material of claim 1.
Cardillo does not teach wherein a refractive index of the spherical scatterers is lower than a refractive index of the matrix material, or varies as a function of wavelength of light.
In the same field of endeavor, Goncalves teaches wherein a refractive index of the spherical scatterers is lower than a refractive index of the matrix material, or varies as a function of wavelength of light (Goncalves pg. 99, section 8.3 “Refractive Index”, para. 2) for the purpose of measuring a substance’s concentration (Goncalves pg. 99, section 8.3 “Refractive Index”, para. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein a refractive index of the spherical scatterers is lower than a refractive index of the matrix material, or varies as a function of wavelength of light as taught by Goncalves in the photonic material of Cardillo in order to measure the concentration of a substance (Goncalves pg. 99, section 8.3 “Refractive Index”, para. 1).
Regarding claim 3, Cardillo and Goncalves teach the photonic material of claim 2, and Goncalves further teaches wherein a refractive index of the spherical scatterers is lower than the refractive index of the matrix material by a difference of 0.2 to 2.7, or higher for UV light than for visible light (Goncalves fig. 8.2 – shows a higher refractive index for UV light than visible light).
Regarding claim 35, Cardillo teaches the photonic material of claim 1.
Cardillo does not specify wherein the photonic material transmits less than 30% of ultraviolet light, or more than 80% of visible light.
In the same field of endeavor, Goncalves teaches wherein the photonic material transmits less than 30% of ultraviolet light, or more than 80% of visible light (Goncalves fig. 8.1 – shows a transmittance of more than 80% for visible light for PLA) for the purpose of designing the right packaging to preserve products until they reach the consumer (Goncalves pg. 98, col. 1, para. 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a transmittance of more than 80% for visible light as taught by Goncalves in the photonic material of Cardillo in order to design the right packaging to preserve products until they reach the consumer (Goncalves pg. 98, col. 1, para. 2).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cardillo as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Correia, D.M., et al. “Processing and size range separation of pristine and magnetic poly( L -lactic acid) based microspheres for biomedical applications.” Journal of Colloid and Interface Science, vol. 476, Aug. 2016, pp. 79–86 (hereinafter “Correia”).
Regarding claim 8, Cardillo teaches the photonic material of claim 1.
Cardillo does not specify wherein the spherical scatterers have a diameter of 100-300 nm.
In the same field of endeavor, Correia teaches wherein the spherical scatterers have a diameter of 100-300 nm (Correia abstract – teaches a range for polylactic acid microspheres with a size range of 0.16-3.9 µm, or 160-3900 nm, which is an overlapping range made prima facie obvious (MPEP §2144.05)) for the purpose of assessing colloidal stability (Correia abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the spherical scatterers have a diameter of 100-300 nm as taught by Correia in the photonic material of Cardillo in order to assess colloidal stability (Correia abstract).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cardillo as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rojas-Ochoa, L. F., et al. “Photonic properties of strongly correlated colloidal liquids.” Physical Review Letters, vol. 93, no. 7, 13 Aug. 2004 (hereinafter “Rojas-Ochoa”).
Regarding claim 9, Cardillo teaches the photonic material of claim 1.
Cardillo does not specify wherein the positions of the spherical scatterers have short-range correlation.
In the same field of endeavor, Rojas-Ochoa teaches the positions of the spherical scatterers have short-range correlation (Rojas-Ochoa pg. 1, col. 2, para. 2, see also abstract) for the purpose of inducing an enhancement of the scattering strength while the total transmission shows strong wavelength dependence (Rojas-Ochoa abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the positions of the spherical scatterers have short-range correlation as taught by Rojas-Ochoa in the photonic material of Cardillo in order to induce an enhancement of the scattering strength while the total transmission shows strong wavelength dependence (Rojas-Ochoa abstract).
Regarding claim 10, Cardillo teaches the photonic material of claim 1.
Cardillo does not specify further comprising a first structure factor peak corresponding to the short-range correlation of spherical scatter position.
In the same field of endeavor, Rojas-Ochoa teaches further comprising a first structure factor peak corresponding to the short-range correlation of spherical scatter position (Rojas-Ochoa pg. 2, col. 2, para. 2-3 and pg. 4, col. 2, [17]) for the purpose of seeing how local order influences the transport of light (Rojas-Ochoa pg. 2, col. 2, para. 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a first structure factor peak corresponding to the short-range correlation of spherical scatter position as taught by Rojas-Ochoa in the photonic material of Cardillo in order to see how local order influences the transport of light (Rojas-Ochoa pg. 2, col. 2, para. 2).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cardillo as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Li et al., "Ordered Macroporous Titania Photonic Balls by Micrometer-Scale Spherical Assembly Templating," Journal of Materials Chemistry, published on web April 26, 2005, vol. 15(26), pages 2551-2556 (hereinafter “Li”) cited by Applicant.
Regarding claim 19, Cardillo teaches the photonic material of claim 1.
Cardillo does not specify wherein the photonic material comprises one or more of a polyurethane, cellulose, silk fibroin, or titania.
In the same field of endeavor, Li teaches wherein the photonic material comprises one or more of a polyurethane, cellulose, silk fibroin, or titania (Li abstract - titania) for the purpose of making well-defined microporous titania structure for opaline balls with controllable diameters (Li abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the photonic material comprising titania as taught by Li in the photonic material of Cardillo in order to make well-defined microporous titania structure for opaline balls with controllable diameters (Li abstract).
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cardillo as applied to claim 24 above, and further in view of Kasai et. al US Patent 11,389,379 (hereinafter “Kasai”).
Regarding claim 27, Cardillo teaches the ultraviolet light protective coating of claim 24.
Cardillo does not teach wherein a thickness of the coating is 5-100 μm.
In the same field of endeavor, Kasai teaches wherein a thickness of the coating is 5-100 μm (Kasai col. 33 lines 16-28 – Kasai teaches a film thickness preferably between 2 µm to 100 µm, which is an overlapping range made prima facie obvious (MPEP §2144.05)) for the purpose of preparing a relatively thick film (Kasai col. 33 lines 14-15). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a thickness of the coating is 5-100 μm as taught by Kasai in the coating of Cardillo in order to prepare a relatively thick film (Kasai col. 33 lines 14-15).
Claims 28 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cardillo as applied to claims 1 and 24 above, and further in view of Lim et al., "Transparent and UV-Reflective Photonic Films and Supraballs Composed of Hollow Silica Nanospheres," Particle & Particle Systems Characterization, published online February 19, 2020, vol. 37(4):1900405, pages 1-6 (hereinafter “Lim”) cited by Applicant.
Regarding claim 28, Cardillo teaches the ultraviolet light protective coating of claim 24.
Cardillo does not specify wherein the photonic material comprises photonic balls dispersed within a liquid.
In the same field of endeavor, Lim teaches wherein the photonic material comprises photonic balls dispersed within a liquid (Lim pg. 4, col. 2, para. 1 – the hollow silica particles, or supraballs, are dispersed in a nonvolatile solvent) for the purpose of achieving transparent UV-reflective supraballs (Lim pg. 4, col. 2, para. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have photonic balls dispersed within a liquid as taught by Lim in the photonic material of Cardillo in order to achieve transparent UV-reflective supraballs (Lim pg. 4, col. 2, para. 1).
Regarding claim 37, Cardillo teaches a method of manufacturing the coating of claim 24.
Cardillo does not specify comprising: forming a film of spherical scatterers in the matrix material, the spherical scatterers comprising air voids in the matrix material; and milling the film into fragments.
In the same field of endeavor, Lim teaches comprising:
forming a film of spherical scatterers in the matrix material (Lim abstract – hollow silica nanospheres), the spherical scatterers comprising air voids in the matrix material (Lim abstract – the silica nanosphere matrix is hollow, or an air void); and
milling the film into fragments (Lim pg. 2, col. 2, para. 5-6) for the purpose of achieving an optically transparent UV-reflective film (Lim abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have air void spherical scatterers in a matrix material as taught by Lim in the coating of Lim in order to achieve an optically transparent UV-reflective film (Lim abstract).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sun et. al US 20140254018, teaches a structure similar to the instant application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH M HALL whose telephone number is (703)756-5795. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5:30 pm PST.
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, Ricky Mack can be reached at (571)272-2333. 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.
/ELIZABETH M HALL/ Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/ZACHARY W WILKES/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872