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/Restriction
REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions:
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
(1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or
(2) A product and a process of use of said product; or
(3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or
(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or
(5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c).
Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372.
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted.
Group I, claim(s) 26-39, drawn to a process for producing a structurally colored film.
Group II, claim(s) 40-45, drawn to a structurally colored film.
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons:
Groups I and II lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of a structured colored film, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Rousseau (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2010/0124651). Rousseau teaches a structured colored film in the form of a film containing nano-crystalline cellulose (Abstract and Page 3 Paragraph 0032). Therefore, no special technical feature exists between Groups I and II.
During a telephone conversation with Shu Wang on July 16, 2026 a provisional election was made to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 26-39. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 40-45 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
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 33 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 33 recites the limitation "the central portion" of the substrate. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 26, 29, 35, 36 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rousseau et al (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2010/0124651).
In the case of claim 26, Rousseau teaches a method for producing a structurally colored film in the form of a film containing nanocrystalline cellulose and a pigment (Abstract and Page 2 Paragraph 0018 and Page 3 Paragraph 0032). The method of Rousseau comprised depositing and spreading a suspension comprising cellulose nanocrystals onto a substrate using a spreader in the form of a reservoir dispensed/spread the suspension onto a fabric substrate (Pages 1-2 Paragraphs 0013 and 0015). Rousseau teaches having aged the deposited suspension in the form of an initial drying process (Page 2 Paragraph 0021). After aging/initial drying the suspension was dried in a second drying stage which resulted in a self-assembled/self-supporting film (Page 2 Paragraphs 0023-0028). Furthermore, Rousseau teachings having annealed the film in a third through fifth drying processes to increase water resistance of the film by increasing the solid content of the film (Pages 2-3 Paragraphs 0029-0030).
As for claim 29, Rousseau teaches that the production was conducted using a roll-to-roll printing process (Page 1 Paragraph 0013, Page 3 Paragraphs 0037 and Figures 1 and 5).
As for claim 35, Rousseau teaches that the suspension further comprised additives including fillers and/or polymers/plastics (Page 2 Paragraph 0018).
As for claim 36, Rousseau teaches that the films are peeled from the substrate by wound into a parent reel 36 as show in Figure 5 (Page 3 Paragraphs 0037-0038 and Figures 5 and 6).
As for claim 39, Rousseau teaches an embodiment wherein the films were fractured into particles by putting the films into a pulper to create a suspension (Page 3 Paragraph 0039).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 30, 37 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rousseau et al.
The teachings of Rousseau as it applies to claim 26 have been discussed previously and are incorporated herein.
In the case of claims 30, 37 and 38, Rousseau does not teach that the drying step was carried out at 10 to 250 ℃ and that the annealing/third drying step was carried out at a temperature of 100 to 250 ℃ for 1 to 120 minutes. However, generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP section 2144.05.II.A.
Furthermore, Rousseau teaches that the temperature profiles for drying which included temperature and drying times were controlled to allow moisture removal without destroying the film’s integrity (Page 3 Paragraphs 0031-0032).
Therefore, at the time the present invention was effectively filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have determined optimal drying temperatures and annealing temperatures and durations through routine experimentation because the drying/annealing temperature and duration affected the moisture removal and integrity of the film.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rousseau et al as applied to claim 26 above, and further in view of Youngblood ‘131 (U.S. Patent # 9,296,131).
The teachings of Rousseau as it applies to claim 26 have been discussed previously and are incorporated herein.
In the case of claim 27, Rousseau does not teach that the nanocrystal suspension comprised neutralized, partially neutralized or acidic forms of cellulose nanocrystals.
Youngblood ‘131 teaches a cellulose nanocrystal suspension used to form a cellulose nanocrystal film wherein the cellulose nanocrystals were neutralized in the form of having a neutral pH (Abstract). Youngblood ‘131 teaches having neutralized cellulose nanocrystals had improved orientation and mechanical properties (Column 4 Line 59 through Column 5 Line 3).
Based on the teaching of Youngblood ‘131, at the time the present invention was effectively filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used neutralized cellulose nanocrystals in the process of Rousseau because neutralized cellulose nanocrystals had improved orientation and mechanical properties.
Claims 28 and 31-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rousseau et al as applied to claim 26 above, and further in view of Youngblood ‘047 (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0263047).
The teachings of Rousseau as it applies to claim 26 have been discussed previously and are incorporated herein.
In the case of claim 28, Rousseau does not teach that the nanocrystal suspension was either biphasic or anisotropic.
Youngblood ‘047 teaches method for forming cellulose nanocrystal films by roll-to-roll fabrication using a nanocrystal suspension (Abstract and Page 2 Paragraphs 0033-0038). Youngblood ‘047 teaches that suspension which were anisotropic had enhanced orientation properties (Page 1 Paragraph 007 and Page 2 Paragraph 0028).
Based on the teachings of Youngblood ‘047, at the time the present invention was effectively filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used an anisotropic suspension as the nanocrystal suspension of Rousseau because anisotropic suspensions had enhanced orientation properties.
As for claims 31-33, Rosseau does not teach having treated a portion of the substrate to increase its surface energy prior to deposition.
Youngblood ‘047 teaches that prior to deposition the surface/central portion of a flexible substrate was treated with corona discharge to increase the surface energy of the substrate to higher than the surface tension of the suspension in order to prevent de-wetting of the substrate (Page 2 Paragraphs 0033-0037 and Page 4 Paragraph 0059).
Based on the teachings of Youngblood ‘047, at the time the present invention was effectively filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have corona discharge treated a central portion of the substrate of Rousseau in order increase the surface energy of the substrate to higher than the surface tension of the suspension in order to prevent de-wetting of the substrate during deposition.
As for claim 34, though Rosseau teaches having sheared the suspension to form a uniform dispersion prior to deposition (Page 1 Paragraph 0011) Rosseau does not teach having sonicated the suspension prior to deposition.
Youngblood ‘047 teaches that prior to deposition the suspensions were sonicated in order to form a homogenous solution (Pages 3-4 Paragraph 0058).
Based on the teachings of Youngblood ‘047, at the time the present invention was effectively filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have sonicated the suspensions of Rousseau prior to deposition because this was a known dispersion technique in the art for forming a homogenous/uniform suspension.
Conclusion
Claims 26 through 39 have been rejected. Claims 40 through 45 have been withdrawn. No claims were allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL P WIECZOREK whose telephone number is (571)270-5341. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 6:00 AM - 3:30 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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at (571)272-1418. 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.
/MICHAEL P WIECZOREK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights