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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “at least one vent” recited in Claim 14 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 2, 4-7, 9-10, 12-13, 15 and 17 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claims 2, 4-5, 7, 9-10, 12-13, 15 and 17 recite a broad recitation, and the claims also recite a narrower statement of the range/limitation, see the limitation(s) preceded by the phrase “more specifically” or “even more specifically” or “in particular”. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Furthermore, with regard to Claims 2 and 4-6 the claims recite “comprises, essentially consists or consists of” which causes confusion since “comprises” is open-ended and allows for unlisted elements, while "consists of" is closed and strictly excludes any element not explicitly listed. Thus, the claims are indefinite since it is unclear whether the claims are open-ended or closed-ended.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 3859211 A1 (hereinafter “BOURQUE”) in view of JP 63115794 A (hereinafter “DEGAWA”).
PNG
media_image1.png
602
1131
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 1, BOURQUE discloses a flame producing assembly comprising: a hood (4) configured to shield a flame produced by the flame producing assembly (see 3) from wind and/or protect a user from heat generated by the flame. BOURQUE further discloses that “The term thermochromic coating may refer to the fact that the color appearance of a coating on the metallic shield changes in response to a temperature change of the metallic shield. The type of coating is not particularly limited and intended to in particular also include films, labels and strips of materials which are provided on the surface of the metallic shield.” And “the thermochromic coating is configured to reversibly change color in response to an increase of the temperature of metallic shield to a first temperature of ≥ 60° C and to a decrease of temperature of metallic shield to a second temperature which is 0-20° C below first temperature.”
BOURQUE does not explicitly disclose a shape-shifting layer provided on the hood, wherein the shape-shifting layer is configured to shape-shift from a first shape to a second shape when heated above a first threshold temperature, wherein the first threshold temperature is at least about 40°C.
DEGAWA teaches a shape memory alloy sheet material which can be deformed from the nonflat shape into a flat shape, with the transformation temperature of the shape memory alloy as a boundary. Thus, the sheet material is reversibly changed from the nonflat shape into the flat shape by a temperature change, resulting in that reflected light 3 obtained by the reflection of the light 2 incident on the sheet material is changed. As a result, the tone of the sheet material 1 is also changed. Thus, the sheet material exhibits thermochromism.
PNG
media_image2.png
560
1146
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify BOURQUE wherein said thermochromic coating comprises a shape-shifting layer provided on the hood, wherein the shape-shifting layer is configured to shape-shift from a first shape to a second shape when heated above a first threshold temperature, wherein the first threshold temperature is at least about 40°C as taught and/or suggested by DEGAWA, since both references teach a thermochromic layer, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to replace BOURQUE’s thermochromic coating with DEGAWA’s shape-shifting thermochromic layer to achieve the predictable result of visually alerting or warning a user when the temperature of said hood of said flame producing assembly is above or below a particular threshold temperature.
Regarding Claim 3, DEGAWA further teaches wherein the shape-shifting layer (1) is configured to shape-shift from the second shape to the first shape when cooling below a second threshold temperature, wherein the second threshold temperature is equal to or lower than the first threshold temperature (see the Abstract: “PURPOSE: To enhance thermal sensitivity and develop thermochromism, by forming a nonflat shaped sheet material from a shape memory alloy so that the sheet material can be deformed from the nonflat shape into a flat shape, with the transformation temperature of the shape memory alloy as a boundary. CONSTITUTION: When a sawtooth shaped sheet material 1 formed by minute working is formed of a shape memory alloy having a transformation temperature of 20°C, the sheet material has a corrugated shape when the ambient temperature is not higher than 20°C, whereas when the ambient temperature exceeds 20°C, the sheet is restored to a flat shape (the shape when the sheet material is formed) due to the shape memory property of the alloy. When the temperature is lowered to or below 20°C, the sheet material is again changed into the corrugated shape. Thus, the sheet material is reversibly changed from the nonflat shape into the flat shape by a temperature change, resulting in that reflected light 3 obtained by the reflection of the light 2 incident on the sheet material is changed. As a result, the tone of the sheet material 1 is also changed. Thus, the sheet material exhibits thermochromism.”).
Regarding Claim 7, BOURQUE further discloses wherein the first threshold temperature is between about 45 °C to about 90 °C, more specifically between about 50 °C to about 80 °C and in particular between about 55 °C to about 75 °C (see para. [0008]: “In some embodiments, the thermochromic coating may be configured to change from a colored state to a decolored state in response to an increase of the temperature of the metallic shield to a first temperature of about 60 °C or above.”).
Regarding Claim 15, BOURQUE further discloses wherein a first part of the shape-shifting layer is attached to the surface of the hood and a second part of the shape-shifting layer is not attached to the surface of the hood, more specifically wherein the first part of the shape-shifting layer is attached to the surface of the hood by an adhesive (see paras. [0018] and [0060]: “In some embodiments, the thermochromic coating may be a label which is affixed onto the metallic shield with an adhesive.”).
BOURQUE in view of DEGAWA does not explicitly disclose even more specifically an adhesive configured to withstand temperatures of at least 100 °C.
Nonetheless, BOURQUE further discloses at para. [00300]: “In some embodiments, it may be advantageous that thermochromic coating is configured to reversibly change color in response to an increase of the temperature of the metallic shield to a first temperature of about 65 °C or above, or about 70°C or above, or about 75°C or above.”). Therefore, since BOURQUE discloses an open-ended upper range transition temperature, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to further modify BOURQUE in view of DEGAWA to comprise even more specifically an adhesive configured to withstand temperatures of at least 100 °C, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable (i.e., the operable temperature range for an adhesive) involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Further yet, BOURQUE in view of DEGAWA does not explicitly disclose wherein in particular by an adhesive selected from the group of cyanoacrylate, epoxy, acrylic, silicone, urethane and mixtures thereof.
Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify BOURQUE in view of DEGAWA wherein in particular by an adhesive selected from the group of cyanoacrylate, epoxy, acrylic, silicone, urethane and mixtures thereof, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim(s) 8-14 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BOURQUE in view of DEGAWA as applied to parent claim above, and further in view of US 20130269176 A1 (hereinafter “ISHIDA”).
Regarding Claims 8 and 16-17, DEGAWA further teaches wherein at least part of the shape-shifting layer (1) is configured to protrude outward from a surface of the hood (see Fig. 3 illustrating protrusions which protrude outward from a substrate surface); wherein the protrusion is a pyramidal structure (see the cross-sectional view of Fig. 2 in combination with the embodiment of Fig. 3 which, at a minimum, suggests a pyramidal structure).
BOURQUE in view of DEGAWA does not disclose wherein a height of the protrusion measured from the surface of the hood to a top of the protrusion is between about 0.5 mm to 10 mm, more specifically between about 1 mm to about 8 mm and in particular between about 2 mm to 6 mm.
Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify BOURQUE in view of DEGAWA wherein a height of the protrusion measured from the surface of the hood to a top of the protrusion is between about 0.5 mm to 10 mm, more specifically between about 1 mm to about 8 mm and in particular between about 2 mm to 6 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (i.e., a shape-shifting layer comprising protrusion of a given height effective to produce a thermochromic effect), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Furthermore, BOURQUE in view of DEGAWA does not disclose wherein at least part of the shape-shifting layer is configured to protrude outward from a surface of the hood when heated above the first threshold temperature.
PNG
media_image3.png
445
1638
media_image3.png
Greyscale
ISHIDA teaches a shape-shifting layer wherein at least part of the shape-shifting layer (11/23) is configured to protrude outward from a surface of a structure (31/31a) when heated above the first threshold temperature (“[0083] As shown in FIG. 9(a) and FIG. 9(b), a thin film actuator 11 comprises a stacked thin film 23 having stacked on one another a resin thin film 21 in a rectangular form as viewed on the plane and a shape memory alloy thin film 22 in a rectangular form as viewed on the plane. [0084] The thin film actuator 11 at the transformation temperature of the shape memory alloy thin film 22 or higher has a corrugated shape 11a having protrusions and depressions which respectively protrude and depress in the direction perpendicular to a plane defined by the long axis and short axis of the film, and which are alternately arranged in the direction of the long axis. The protrusions and depressions are changed to a flattened shape 11b by cooling the thin film actuator 11 to lower than the transformation temperature of the shape memory alloy thin film 22. This change in shape is reversible by heating and cooling the thin film actuator, and thus the actuator exhibits a two-way shape memory effect.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify BOURQUE in view of DEGAWA wherein at least part of the shape-shifting layer is configured to protrude outward from a surface of the hood when heated above the first threshold temperature as taught and/or suggested by ISHIDA, since ISHIDA states “[0089] The method of the invention for producing the thin film actuators 10, 11, 12 has a construction such that the stacked thin film 23 having the resin thin film 21 and the shape memory alloy thin film 22 stacked on one another is fixed to a shaping die member and heated and maintained in a state in which the resultant shape of the stacked thin film is restrained, and therefore there can be produced the thin film actuators 10, 11, 12 each comprising the stacked thin film 23 having stacked on one another the resin thin film 21, which has been changed in shape due to creep deformation, and the shape memory alloy thin film 22, which has suffered only elastic deformation and has not been changed in shape, and thus there can be provided a thin film actuator which is advantageous not only in that the thin film actuator can be largely changed in shape and easily controlled in the magnitude and direction of the change of shape, but also in that the thin film actuator is suppressed with respect to the deterioration of performance caused due to the use of the actuator.” Therefore, further modifying BOURQUE in view of DEGAWA and ISHIDA would result in a shape-shifting layer which suppresses the deterioration of performance caused due to the use of the shape-shifting layer.
Regarding Claim 9, BOURQUE in view of DEGAWA does not disclose wherein the flame producing assembly comprises one or more protrusions adjacent to the shape-shifting layer in the first shape, more specifically wherein the protrusion extends further from the flame producing assembly or the surface of the hood compared to the shape-shifting layer, in particular wherein the protrusion extends further from the flame producing assembly or the surface of the hood when the shape-shifting layer is in its second shape.
ISHIDA teaches a shape-shifting layer, wherein a support assembly (31/31a) comprises one or more protrusions (36) adjacent to the shape-shifting layer (23) in the first shape, more specifically wherein the protrusion extends further from the support assembly compared to the shape-shifting layer, in particular wherein the protrusion extends further from the support assembly when the shape-shifting layer is in its second shape (“[0056] As shown in FIG. 2, the stacked thin film 23 is first wound round the sidewall of a cylindrical die member 31 and the end of the stacked thin film 23 is fastened by a fixing member 36, and then the fixing member 36 is fixed using screws 35a, 35b. The other end of the stacked thin film 23, though not shown in FIG. 2, is similarly fixed using a fixing member and screws.” See also the embodiment of Fig. 9).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify BOURQUE in view of DEGAWA wherein the flame producing assembly comprises one or more protrusions adjacent to the shape-shifting layer in the first shape, more specifically wherein the protrusion extends further from the flame producing assembly or the surface of the hood compared to the shape-shifting layer, in particular wherein the protrusion extends further from the flame producing assembly or the surface of the hood when the shape-shifting layer is in its second shape as taught and/or suggested by ISHIDA, since such a modification would provide a means of securing said shape-shifting layer to said flame producing assembly thus guaranteeing a consistent and stable positioning of said shape-shifting layer.
Regarding Claims 10, BOURQUE in view of DEGAWA does not disclose wherein the flame producing assembly comprises a retaining structure, more specifically wherein at least part of the shape-shifting layer is disposed between the retaining structure and the surface of the hood when in the first shape and in the second shape.
ISHIDA teaches a shape-shifting layer, wherein the support assembly (31/31a) comprises a retaining structure (36), more specifically wherein at least part of the shape-shifting layer (23) is disposed between the retaining structure (36) and the surface of the support assembly (31/31a) when in the first shape and in the second shape (“[0056] As shown in FIG. 2, the stacked thin film 23 is first wound round the sidewall of a cylindrical die member 31 and the end of the stacked thin film 23 is fastened by a fixing member 36, and then the fixing member 36 is fixed using screws 35a, 35b. The other end of the stacked thin film 23, though not shown in FIG. 2, is similarly fixed using a fixing member and screws.” See also the embodiment of Fig. 9).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify BOURQUE in view of DEGAWA wherein the flame producing assembly comprises a retaining structure, more specifically wherein at least part of the shape-shifting layer is disposed between the retaining structure and the surface of the hood when in the first shape and in the second shape as taught and/or suggested by ISHIDA, since such a modification would provide a means of securing said shape-shifting layer to said flame producing assembly thus guaranteeing a consistent and stable positioning of said shape-shifting layer.
Regarding Claim 11, ISHIDA further teaches wherein an outer part of the retaining structure (36) forms an outer surface of the flame producing assembly (as disclosed by BOURQUE; equivalent to ISHIDA’s supporting structure 31/31a), wherein the outer part comprises at least one opening (i.e., the circumferential arc-area defined between opposing retaining structures 36), in particular wherein at least part of the shape-shifting layer (23) is configured to extend out of the at least one opening when in the second shape (see the embodiment of Fig. 9, particularly Fig. 9(a)) and not to extend out of the at least one opening when in the first shape (see Fig. 2; see also the embodiment of Fig. 9, particularly Fig. 9(b)).
Regarding Claim 12, ISHIDA further teaches wherein a gap (i.e., the gap between the retaining structure 36 and the underlying support assembly/structure 31/31a) is disposed between the outer part of the retaining structure (36) and the surface of the hood (as disclosed by BOURQUE; equivalent to ISHIDA’s supporting structure 31/31a), wherein the shape-shifting layer (23) is disposed in the gap, more specifically wherein the width of the gap is at least the thickness of the shape-shifting layer and in particular wherein the width of the gap is greater than the thickness of the shape-shifting layer (the retaining structure 36 overlaps the shape-shifting layer 23).
Regarding Claim 13, BOURQUE in view of DEGAWA and ISHIDA does not explicitly disclose wherein the width of the gap is between about 5 µm to about 1000 µm, more specifically between about 25 µm to about 200 µm, and in particular between about 50 µm to about 100 µm.
ISHIDA does further teach “[0023] (10) The method for producing a thin film actuator according to any one of items (1) to (9) above, wherein the total film thickness of the shape memory alloy thin film and the resin thin film is less than 400 µm.”
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to further modify BOURQUE in view of DEGAWA and ISHIDA wherein the width of the gap is between about 5 µm to about 1000 µm, more specifically between about 25 µm to about 200 µm, and in particular between about 50 µm to about 100 µm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding Claim 14, ISHIDA further teaches wherein the retaining structure (36) comprises at least one vent (i.e., see at least the space around and/or between fasteners 35a and 35b).
Claim(s) 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BOURQUE in view of DEGAWA as applied to parent claim above, and further in view of WO 2009093092 A1 (hereinafter “HU”).
Regarding Claims 2 and 4, BOURQUE in view of DEGAWA does not disclose wherein the shape-shifting layer comprises, essentially consists or consists of a shape-shifting polymer, more specifically a liquid crystal elastomer, even more specifically a nematic liquid crystal elastomer, and in particular a nematic liquid crystal elastomer comprising mesogens; wherein the shape-shifting layer comprises, essentially consists or consists of a liquid crystal elastomer, the liquid crystal elastomer is in a liquid crystalline phase at a temperature below the second threshold temperature and in a random coil conformation above the first threshold temperature.
HU teaches liquid crystal elastomers having two-way shape memory effect wherein the shape-shifting layer comprises, essentially consists or consists of a shape-shifting polymer, more specifically a liquid crystal elastomer (see the Abstract), even more specifically a nematic liquid crystal elastomer (“In one preferred form, the liquid crystal elastomers has a typical phase transition between LC phase and isotropic phase, including nematic LC phase to isotropic (N-I) phase transition and smetic LC phase to isotropic (S-I) phase transition .”), and in particular a nematic liquid crystal elastomer comprising mesogens (“In one preferred form, the liquid crystal elastomers can be the main-chain liquid crystal polymer which the mesogenic units are part of the backbone, or the side-chain liquid crystal polymer.”); wherein the shape-shifting layer comprises, essentially consists or consists of a liquid crystal elastomer (see again the Abstract), the liquid crystal elastomer is in a liquid crystalline phase at a temperature below the second threshold temperature and in a random coil conformation above the first threshold temperature (“For thermally- stimulated shape-changing polymers, shape-changing effect is based on phase transitions. A typical example is the liquid crystal elastomers (LCE) . On heating, as the temperature increases above the clear point (T.sub.x) of LCEs where the liquid crystal (LC) phase changes to isotropic phase, it can be observed that the shape changes to a higher temperature shape; on cooling, as the temperature decreases to below the T.sub.x of LCEs where the isotropic phase enters into LC phase again, then the shape recovers its low temperature shape again.” And “When the temperature is above the Tg, the polymer tends to adopt statistical chain conformations that hinder the anisotropic orientation of the mesogenic groups. Therefore, flexible spacers should be inserted between the backbone and mesogenic units to decouple their interactions. In such conditions, the mesogenic side chains can be anisotropically ordered in the liquid crystal state even though the polymer main chains tend to adopt the statically random coil conformations.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify BOURQUE in view of DEGAWA wherein the shape-shifting layer comprises, essentially consists or consists of a shape-shifting polymer, more specifically a liquid crystal elastomer, even more specifically a nematic liquid crystal elastomer, and in particular a nematic liquid crystal elastomer comprising mesogens; wherein the shape-shifting layer comprises, essentially consists or consists of a liquid crystal elastomer, the liquid crystal elastomer is in a liquid crystalline phase at a temperature below the second threshold temperature and in a random coil conformation above the first threshold temperature as taught and/or suggested by HU, since both DEGAWA and HU teach shape-shifting layers, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to substitute one shape-shifting layer for the other to achieve the predictable result of comprising a layer/material that exhibits thermochromism since liquid crystals shift how they reflect light as heat changes, showing different colors depending on the temperature.
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BOURQUE in view of DEGAWA and HU as applied to parent claim above, and further in view of US 11586075 B2 (hereinafter “WEI”).
Regarding Claim 6, HU teaches wherein the shape-shifting layer comprises, essentially consists or consists of a liquid crystal elastomer (see again the Abstract).
BOURQUE in view of DEGAWA and HU does not disclose the liquid crystal elastomer comprises a plurality of topological defects, in particular a plurality of topological defects with a topological strength of +1.
WEI teaches thermotropic liquid crystals comprising a plurality of topological defects (see Col. 14, Lns. 5-22: “As a proof-of-capability for arbitrary designer patterns, plasmonic metamasks were designed for clusters and arrays of topological defects in a nematic liquid crystal. The topological defects were used for two reasons. First, they are accompanied by strong gradients of the director fields and thus allow testing of the spatial scale limits of the pattern design. Second, the topological defects in nematic liquid crystals are central elements of numerous applications, such as directed colloidal assembly, electrokinetic motion, and programmable origami. Two-dimensional director fields of a nematic liquid crystal satisfy the Laplace equation under single elastic constant approximation. For single topological defects, the director orientation angle iv can be expressed as a linear function of the azimuthal angle φ: =+ wherein k represents the defect strength or charge.”), in particular a plurality of topological defects with a topological strength of +1 (see Col. 15, Lns. 50-55: “Metamasks for periodic arrays of topological defects were designed by tiling square patches of individual defects. The results are shown in FIG. 6a-j. FIGS. 6a and b are SEM images of illustrative plasmonic metamasks for +0.5/−0.5 and +1/−1 topological defect arrays.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify BOURQUE in view of DEGAWA and HU wherein the liquid crystal elastomer comprises a plurality of topological defects, in particular a plurality of topological defects with a topological strength of +1 as taught and/or suggested by WEI, since WEI states that “The topological defects were used for two reasons. First, they are accompanied by strong gradients of the director fields and thus allow testing of the spatial scale limits of the pattern design. Second, the topological defects in nematic liquid crystals are central elements of numerous applications, such as directed colloidal assembly, electrokinetic motion, and programmable origami.” (see Col. 14, Lns. 8-15).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure because the references are either in the same field of endeavor or are reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the applicant was concerned. Please see form PTO-892 (Notice of References Cited) attached to, or included with, this Office Action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORGE A PEREIRO whose telephone number is (571)270-3932 and whose fax number is (571) 270-4932. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00 - 5:00 EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at (571) 272-9059. 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.
/JORGE A PEREIRO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
Prosecution Insights