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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Specie II, claims 1-14, 17-19 and 21 in the reply filed on 08/14/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 16 and 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species I, III and IV, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 08/14/2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 18 reciting “further comprising further size classifying…” appear to have a typographical error and should be “comprising further size…” or “further comprising size…”. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 17-19 and 21 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 lines 1-2 recites the limitation “the only optical active layer”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 lines 1-2 reciting “optical active layer” is indefinite because the metes and bounds of the claimed “optical active” is not clear. “Optical active” can also mean “capable of rotating the plane of polarized light”, as evidenced by Merriam-Webster Dictionary (“Merriam-Webster” hereinafter) (see Merriam-Webster at page 1).
Specification did not define the claimed “optical active”. Examiner will interpret the recitation as a “layer that can absorb, refract, emit light”.
Examiner suggests clarifying the claimed limitation because “claims must particularly point out and distinctly define the metes and bounds of the subject matter to be protected by the patent grant... uncertainties of claim scope should be removed, as much as possible, during the examination process” (see MPEP 2171).
Claim 1 line 3 recites the limitation “the average thickness”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Examiner suggests amending the claim to either i) replace “the” with “an”, or ii) some other clarifying amendment so as to remove the ambiguity as set forth above.
Claim 3 line 2 reciting “an average atomic composition” is indefinite because it is not clear if the “average atomic composition” in claim 3 is the same or different from the “average atomic composition” in claim 1.
Examiner suggests amending the claim to either i) replace “an” with “the”, or ii) some other clarifying amendment so as to remove the ambiguity as set forth above.
Claim 4 line 2 reciting “an average atomic composition” is indefinite because it is not clear if the “average atomic composition” in claim 4 is the same or different from the “average atomic composition” in claim 1.
Examiner suggests amending the claim to either i) replace “an” with “the”, or ii) some other clarifying amendment so as to remove the ambiguity as set forth above.
Claim 5 lines 2-3 reciting “an average thickness…” is indefinite because it is not clear if the “average thickness” in claim 5 is the same or different from the “average thickness” in claim 1.
Examiner suggests amending the claim to either i) replace “an” with “the”, or ii) some other clarifying amendment so as to remove the ambiguity as set forth above.
Claim 6 lines 2-3 reciting “an average thickness…” is indefinite because it is not clear if the “average thickness” in claim 6 is the same or different from the “average thickness” in claim 1.
Examiner suggests amending the claim to either i) replace “an” with “the”, or ii) some other clarifying amendment so as to remove the ambiguity as set forth above.
Claim 7 line 2 recites the limitation “the d50 of the particle size distribution…”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Examiner suggests amending the claim to either i) replace “the” with “a”, or ii) some other clarifying amendment so as to remove the ambiguity as set forth above.
Claim 8 line 2 recites the limitation “the aspect ratio…”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Examiner suggests amending the claim to either i) replace “the” with “a”, or ii) some other clarifying amendment so as to remove the ambiguity as set forth above.
Claim 11 line 14 recites the limitation “the only optical active layer”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 lines 14-15 reciting “optical active layer” is indefinite because the metes and bounds of the claimed “optical active” is not clear. “Optical active” can also mean “capable of rotating the plane of polarized light”, as evidenced by Merriam-Webster Dictionary (“Merriam-Webster” hereinafter) (see Merriam-Webster at page 1).
Specification did not define the claimed “optical active”. Examiner will interpret the recitation as a “layer that can absorb, refract, emit light”.
Examiner suggests clarifying the claimed limitation because “claims must particularly point out and distinctly define the metes and bounds of the subject matter to be protected by the patent grant... uncertainties of claim scope should be removed, as much as possible, during the examination process” (see MPEP 2171).
Claim 11 line 8 recites the limitation “the particles”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Examiner suggests amending the claim to either i) replace “the” with “a”, or ii) some other clarifying amendment so as to remove the ambiguity as set forth above.
Claim 11 line 16 recites the limitation “the average thickness”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Examiner suggests amending the claim to either i) replace “the” with “an”, or ii) some other clarifying amendment so as to remove the ambiguity as set forth above.
Claims 2, 9-10, 12-14, 17-19 and 21 are rejected due to their dependency on claim 1.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 21 reciting “wherein the single platelet semiconductor has an average atomic composition of Si(1-y)Sny, wherein 0 < y < 0.90” fail to further limit the claimed “b) Si(1-y)Sny, wherein 0 < y < 0.90” in claim 1 since Applicant elected Specie II.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 is interpreted to require “the single semiconductor platelet… having an average atomic composition of Si(1-y)Sny, wherein 0 < y < 0.90”, since Applicant elected Specie II.
Claim 5 reciting “a silvery appearance” is interpreted based on specification at page 6 lines 20-26, shown below:
PNG
media_image1.png
253
788
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 9 reciting “not optically active metal oxide of refractive index n < 1.8” is interpreted based on specification at page 8 lines 16-18, shown below:
PNG
media_image2.png
110
728
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 11 is interpreted to require “the single semiconductor platelet… having an average atomic composition of Si(1-y)Sny, wherein 0 < y < 0.90”, since Applicant elected Specie II.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-14, 17-19 and 21would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: there are no prior art references of record that teach or fairly suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art all the cumulative limitations of each of the respective independent claims 1, 11 and 14.
Specifically, with respect to independent claims 1 and 14, it is noted that Banerjee (US 2015/0309231 A1) (“Banerjee” hereinafter) teaches an omnidirectional high-chroma red structural color pigment… in the form of a multilayer stack that has… a semiconductor absorber layer extending across the reflective core layer… the semiconductor absorber layer can have a thickness between 5-500 nm (see Banerjee at [0007] and [0009]). However, Banerjee does not explicitly teach the claimed “the single semiconductor platelet… having an average atomic composition of Si(1-y)Sny, wherein 0 < y < 0.90”. And, there are no prior art references of record that provide adequate teachings or apparent reason that would lead the person of ordinary skill to modify Banerjee as claimed.
As such, the prior art references of record fail to teach or render obvious the cumulative limitations of the independent claim 1 as claimed. Therefore, the cumulative limitations of the independent claim 1 is considered allowable.
Furthermore, claim 14 requires all the limitations of the allowable claim 1. As such, the cumulative limitations of the independent claim 14 is considered allowable.
Specifically, it is noted that Nagai et al. (Improvement of photoconductivity in Silicon Tin (SiSn) thin films, Journal of Non-Crystalline Solids, 2012) (“Nagai” hereinafter) teaches hydrogenated-amorphous silicon tin alloy (a-SiSn (C:H)) films have been prepared by very high frequency plasma enhanced chemical vapor deposition (VHF-PECVD) technique… results suggest that the hydrogen dilution plays an important role in development of high quality a-SiSn(C:H) photosensitive thin films (see Nagai at Abstract). However, Nagai does not explicitly teach the claimed “flaky effect pigment”, and the claimed “wherein 0 < y < 0.90” for the claimed “the single semiconductor platelet… having an average atomic composition of Si(1-y)Sny”. And, there are no prior art references of record that provide adequate teachings or apparent reason that would lead the person of ordinary skill to modify Nagai as claimed.
As such, the prior art references of record fail to teach or render obvious the cumulative limitations of the independent claim 11 as claimed. Therefore, the cumulative limitations of the independent claim 11 is considered allowable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARITES A GUINO-O UZZLE whose telephone number is (571)272-1039. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm EST.
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, Amber R Orlando can be reached at (571)270-3149. 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.
/MARITES A GUINO-O UZZLE/Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights