DETAILED ACTION
This is the third Office Action regarding application number 18/934,334, filed on 11/01/2024, which is a CON of 17/295,523, filed on 05/20/2021, and which claims foreign priority to DE 10 2018 009 125.3, filed on 11/21/2018.
This action is in response to the Applicant’s Response received 01/23/2026.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1-12 and 15-19 are amended.
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
No claim is allowed.
The Office’s objections to the Specification and Drawings are withdrawn in light of the Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112 has been withdrawn in light of the Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101 has been withdrawn in light of the Applicant’s amendments.
Upon further examination, the Office has set forth a new ground of rejection.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments received 01/23/2026 have been carefully considered but they are not found persuasive regarding the 103 rejections.
The examiner determines that the two prior art references cited below are in fact in the same field of endeavor as they both involve the conversion of elementary particles into electrical energy. KASTURE involves applications in energy harvesting and sensing, for example. The examiner additionally requests definitive evidence and/or other experimental documentation to support the applicant’s position that neutrino interaction is in fact occurring. Without any supporting evidence, the examiner is unable to accept the applicant’s arguments as being more than speculation. As previously explained in the 101 rejection of the previous office action, prior art references suggest that it is more likely than not that converting neutrinos to electricity is not feasible in any meaningful way.
Objections
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it includes speculative applications of the invention, specifically interactions with neutrinos. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claims 2 and 3 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “a film” that comprises at least one electrically conductive structure. Claim 2 recites that the at least one electrically conductive structure is…arranged on the film. However, the conductive structure is already a part of the film, thus it cannot be arranged on the film, as that not logically possible for any part of the film to be arranged on itself. The applicant should amend and remove the phrase “arranged on the film”, since claim 1 already recites that the conductive structure is arranged over the coating.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Indefiniteness
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is amended to recite “the at least one electrically conductive structure”, but a different phrasing was previously recited “at least one electrically conductive structural element”. The applicant must use consistent language to avoid creating ambiguity of claim scope.
Claim 3 recites “the fabric is configured in the form of multiple threads of a mesh”. However, paragraph 9 of the instant specification describes that the at least one conductive structural element can be configured, in thread or fabric form, as multiple threads arranged on the film and/or as a fabric arranged on the film. That is, it is either thread OR fabric, and not that the fabric is configured as threads.
Claim 19 was previously recited as indefinite, and it remains indefinite in its amended form. Specifically, claim 19 recites “the film made of metal or a metal alloy and the coating”. However, only the carrier is made of metal or a metal alloy, and the carrier is a subcomponent of the film. The claim scope is unclear because it seems to imply that the newly recited conductor is applied only to the portions of the film made of metal or a metal alloy and the coating?
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SCHUBART (WO 2016/142056 A1; English translation provided by US 2018/0053941 A1) in view of KASTURE (“Plasmonic quasicrystals with broadband transmission enhancement”).
Regarding claim 1, SCHUBART teaches a film (para. 4) comprising:
a carrier made of metal or a metal alloy (“film made of metal or a metal alloy”, para. 4);
a coating disposed on the carrier, the coating containing at least graphene and silicon (“a coating which comprises graphene and silicon”, para. 4).
SCHUBART does not disclose expressly at least one electrically conductive structural element arranged over the coating, the at least one electrically conductive structure having a thickness in the nanometer range.
KASTURE teaches a 100nm thick gold film configured as rhombuses having 1mm leg lengths, to obtain a broadband transmission enhancement of over an order of magnitude (pg. 6, conclusion).
Skilled artisans would have found it obvious to modify SCHUBART and add a 100nm thick gold film configured as rhombuses having 1mm leg lengths to obtain a broadband transmission enhancement of over an order of magnitude as taught by KASTURE.
Regarding claim 2, modified SCHUBART teaches the film according to Claim 1, wherein the at least one electrically conductive structural element is configured as a fabric arranged on the film (“mesh” in the sense of a woven structure, similar to a fabric).
Regarding claim 3, modified SCHUBART teaches the film according to Claim 2, wherein the fabric is configured in the form of multiple threads or a mesh (“mesh” in the sense of a tiled pattern).
Regarding claim 4, modified SCHUBART teaches the film according to Claim 3, wherein structures in the form of a mesh have a rhombus structure, preferably having rhombuses with equal legs preferably with a leg length between 0.5 and 1.5 millimeters (leg length of 1mm).
Regarding claim 5, modified SCHUBART teaches the film according to Claim 1, wherein the thickness of the at least one electrically conductive structure or of the at least one conductive structural element is 50 to 750 nanometers (gold is 100nm thick).
Regarding claim 6, modified SCHUBART teaches the film according to Claim 1, wherein the at least one electrically conductive structure or the at least one conductive structural element consists of gold, silver, aluminum or copper (gold taught as material).
Regarding claim 7, modified SCHUBART teaches the film according to Claim 1, wherein the at least one electrically conductive structure or the at least one conductive structural element is vapor deposited or sprayed onto the film and consequently onto the coating thereof (gold is sputtered, which is a type of spray).
Regarding claim 8, modified SCHUBART teaches the film according to Claim 7, wherein the vapor depositing is effected by means of a template, wherein the template predefines the mesh or lattice structure of the fabric (claim 7 does not require vapor deposition).
Regarding claim 9, modified SCHUBART teaches the film according to Claim 1, wherein the at least one film is enveloped in an airtight manner or is arranged in an airtight manner in a housing (SCHUBART, para. 16 describes a vacuum and para. 17 describes “sealed” to exclude air to increase stability).
Regarding claim 10, modified SCHUBART teaches the film according to Claim 9, wherein a technical vacuum is present in an internal space of the housing which encloses the at least one film (SCHUBART, para. 16 describes a vacuum and para. 17 describes “sealed” to exclude air to increase stability).
Regarding claim 11, modified SCHUBART teaches the file according to claim 1, wherein the film has a device for consuming electrical energy (intended use).
Regarding claim 12, modified SCHUBART teaches the arrangement of at least one film or multiple films according to Claim 1, wherein multiple films are arranged in layers or at least one film is folded multiple times in such a manner that portions of the film formed by the folding are arranged in layers or at least one film is rolled up (SCHUBART teaches rolled and stacked, para. 19)
Regarding claim 13, modified SCHUBART teaches the arrangement according to Claim 12, wherein a layer formation of the at least one layered film is effected as a consequence of a pressurization on at least one side of the at least one film which lies in contact with another sublayer of the at least one film or of a further film (SCHUBART teaches gluing, para. 11)
Regarding claim 14, modified SCHUBART teaches the arrangement according to Claim 12, wherein the at least one layered film or the films stick(s) to one another due to adhesion during layer formation (SCHUBART teaches gluing, para. 11)
Regarding claim 15, modified SCHUBART teaches the arrangement according to Claim 12, wherein respective sublayers of the at least one film are demarcated from one another in an electrically insulated manner by means of an insulating layer and the insulating layer is preferably an electrically non-conductive lacquer layer (layer of insulation should be paced between the stacked films, SCHUBART, para. 19).
Regarding claim 16, modified SCHUBART teaches the arrangement according to Claim 12, wherein if multiple films are arranged in layers without an insulating layer, a series connection of the films can be effected, and if an insulating layer is present between multiple films, a parallel connection of the films can be effected (SCHUBART, para. 19, series and parallel connections achieve 1W).
Regarding claim 17, modified SCHUBART teaches the arrangement of at least one film Claim 12, wherein the at least one film is part of a frame, of a body, of a housing or of a suitable component of an energy consumer (intended use).
Regarding claim 18, modified SCHUBART teaches the arrangement of at least one film according to Claim 17, wherein the energy consumer is a vehicle, a lighting system or a device operated with electric energy (intended use).
Regarding claim 19, modified SCHUBART teaches the arrangement of at least one film or multiple films according to Claim 12, wherein a conductor is applied in each case to the carrier film made of metal or a metal alloy and the coating, and wherein electric energy can be dissipated in order to supply a consumer unit with electric energy (intended use).
Regarding claim 20, modified SCHUBART teaches the film according to claim 19, wherein the consumer unit is a light emitting diode (intended use).
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELO TRIVISONNO whose telephone number is (571) 272-5201 or by email at <angelo.trivisonno@uspto.gov>. The examiner can normally be reached on MONDAY-FRIDAY, 9:00a-5:00pm EST. The examiner's supervisor, NIKI BAKHTIARI, can be reached at (571) 272-3433.
/ANGELO TRIVISONNO/
Primary Examiner