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 with traverse of claims 8-25 in the reply filed on 07/09/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the Examiner has not shown that a serious burden would be required to examine all the claims.. This is not found persuasive because the inventive groups are separately classified in the art and therefore a search burden exists. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 1-7 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Interpretation
The term “synthetic brochosome” does not appear have a specific accepted definition in the prior art. As best understood, the term refers to a particulate having the structural features of a shape including surface pores that have a polygonal outer wall geometry. As such, any structure in the prior art meeting the elements of the structure as set forth above would meet the limitation of a “brochosome”, as claimed.
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 9 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 9 contains the trademark/trade names “IP-DIP”, “IP-S”, “IP-PDMS”, “IP-n162”, “IP-Visio”, “IP-Q”, “IP-G”, “IP-L”, “Ormocer” and “Ormocomp”.IP-S. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe photoresist compositions that include generic polymers, such as “IP-PDMS” including polydimethylsiloxane and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
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 8, 10, 16-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vyatskikh et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2018/0088462)
Regarding claim 8, Vyatskikh et al. teaches a method of making a 3D metal material shape having submicron features a photopolymerizable resist material which is coated onto a substrate which may include a metallic (i.e. conductive) material. (Abstract, par. [0005], [0028] and [0042]). The photopolymerizable material is then irradiated/patterned via lithography to form a 3D structure which can later be separated from the substrate. (par. [0042], [0046] and [0059]). As shown in Fig. 2A, the structures formed include a tetrakaidekahedron still attached on the substrate, before being pyrolyzed. (par. [0010]). The structure meets the limitation of a “synthetic brochosome” as claimed since the structure includes a shape including surface pores that have a polygonal outer wall geometry. Vyatskikh et al. therefore teaches a photoresist brochosome coated with a substrate of a conductive material, as claimed.
Regarding claim 10, the substrate material of Vyatskikh et al., equivalent to the claimed “conductive coating” may include titanium or stainless steel (i.e. comprise iron). (par. [0042]).
Regarding claims 16-17, the structure of Fig. 2A has open pores, surface cavities and a hollow core that is interconnecting the pores.
Regarding claim 19, Fig. 2A shows a coated substrate (the base coating on which the structure is formed) with the brochosome formed on the substrate.
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.
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 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vyatskikh et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2018/0088462).
Regarding claim 11, Vyatskikh et al. teaches that the size of the particle structures lies in the range of submicron to up 50 micrometers (par. [0029]), overlapping with the presently claimed range. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir.
Regarding claims 12-13 and 15, the thickness of the walls between the through holes can lie in the range of 2 to 10 micrometers as shown in Fig. 1G and 1J, which lies within the presently claimed range. Furthermore, the scale bars in 1G being 2 microns (par. [0009]) shows that the thickness of the photoresist is slightly more than 2 microns.
Regarding claim 14, as can be seen in Fig. 2A the content of the porous, empty space in the structure is more than 50% relative to the amount of “matter” represented by the printed photoresist material.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vyatskikh et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2018/0088462) in view of Greer et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2016/0056474).
Vyatskikh et al. is relied upon as described in the rejection of claim 8, above.
Vyatskikh et al. does not disclose a photoresist selected from the materials in claim 9.
Greer et al. teaches a method of making a scaffold structure by photolithography (Abstract and par. [0090]) and teaches that IP-DIP is a known photoresist material that is suitable for use multiphoton lithography. (par. [0078], [0080]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use IP-DIP as the photoresist material in Vyatskikh et al., as taught by Greer et al.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use IP-DIP in order to enable the use of multiphoton lithography allowing the formation of intricate small features in the photosensitive material.
Claims 8, 10-22 and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vyatskikh et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2018/0088462) in view of Wong et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2021/0181380)
In the alternative to the claim rejections based on Vyatskikh et al., alone, the claims are rejected as follows:
Regarding claim 8, Vyatskikh et al. teaches an additive manufacturing method of making a 3D metal material shape having submicron features a photopolymerizable resist material which is coated onto a substrate which may include a metallic (i.e. conductive) material. (Abstract, par. [0005], [0028] and [0042]). The photopolymerizable material is then irradiated/patterned via lithography to form a 3D structure which can later be separated from the substrate. (par. [0042], [0046] and [0059]). Vyatskikh et al. therefore teaches a photoresist structure coated with a substrate of a conductive material, as claimed.
Vyatskikh et al. does not explicitly disclose that the 3D printed material has the shape of a brochosome.
Wong et al. teaches synthetic brochosomes formed on a substrate (Abstract) wherein the structures are useful for the formation of non-stick coatings and optical features (par. [0004]) allowing the formation of antireflective coating. (par. [0006]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form brochosomes using the additive manufacturing process disclosed in Vyatskikh et al.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to make brochosomes using the process of Vyatskikh et al. for creating structures which are usable in a non-stick and antireflective coating compositions.
Regarding claim 10, the substrate material of Vyatskikh et al., equivalent to the claimed “conductive coating” may include titanium or stainless steel (i.e. comprise iron). (par. [0042]). Furthermore, Wong et al. teaches formation of a metal coating onto a polymer material for forming a metal brochosome including silver, gold, nickel, copper and chromium. (par. [0022]).
Regarding claim 11, Vyatskikh et al. teaches that the size of the particle structures lies in the range of submicron to up 50 micrometers (par. [0029]), overlapping with the presently claimed range. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir.
Regarding claims 12-13 and 15, the thickness of the walls between the through holes can lie in the range of 2 to 10 micrometers as shown in Fig. 1G and 1J, which lies within the presently claimed range. Furthermore, the scale bars in 1G being 2 microns (par. [0009]) shows that the thickness of the photoresist is slightly more than 2 microns.
Regarding claim 14, as can be seen in Fig. 2A the content of the porous, empty space in the structure is more than 50% relative to the amount of “matter” represented by the printed photoresist material.
Regarding claims 16-17, the structure of Fig. 2A has open pores, surface cavities and a hollow core that is interconnecting the pores.
Regarding claim 18, Wong et al. teaches that the brochosomes are arranged in a crystalline template structure. (par. [0024]).
Regarding claim 19, Fig. 2A shows a coated substrate (the base coating on which the structure is formed) with the brochosome formed on the substrate. Wong et al. further disclose that particles are arranged on a substrate. (par. [0025]).
Regarding claim 20, Wong et al. teaches that the crystal structure can be hexagonal close packing for forming an anti-reflective coating. (par. [0030], [0044] and [0046]).
Regarding claim 21, Wong et al. teaches controlling the inter-particle distance and pore diameter such that it alters the reflection amount of the anti-reflective coating. (par. [0024] and [0028]-[0029]). As shown in Fig. 1B, the distances between some of the particles are smaller than that of the pores.
PNG
media_image1.png
392
311
media_image1.png
Greyscale
"Where 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 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.05 (II). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have optimized interparticle distance and pore sizes. One of ordinary skill in the art would thus have been motivated to optimize these parameters to tune the anti-reflective properties of the coating by varying the distance between the brochosomes and their relative content to air/scaffold material.
Regarding claim 22, Wong et al. teaches synthetic brochosomes formed on a substrate (Abstract) wherein the structures are useful for the formation of non-stick coatings and optical features (par. [0004]) allowing the formation of antireflective coating. (par. [0006]).
Regarding claim 24, the brochosomes disclosed in Vyatskikh in view of Wong et al. include both open and closed pores. (see Vyatskikh et al. 2A, Wong et al., Fig. 1B and 1A).
Regarding claim 25, Vyatskikh in view of Wong et al. teaches an antireflective coating composition containing synthetic brochsomes as claimed. However, the recitation in the claims that the coated substrate is “for information encryption at a wavelength in a range of 2.5 microns to about 25 microns” is merely an intended use. Applicants’ attention is drawn to MPEP 2111.02 which states that intended use statements must be evaluated to determine whether the intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists, does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vyatskikh et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2018/0088462) in view Wong et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2021/0181380), further in view of Greer et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2016/0056474).
Vyatskikh in view of Wong et al. is relied upon as described in the rejection of claim 8, above.
Vyatskikh in view of Wong et al. does not disclose a photoresist selected from the materials in claim 9.
Greer et al. teaches a method of making a scaffold structure by photolithography (Abstract and par. [0090]) and teaches that IP-DIP is a known photoresist material that is suitable for use multiphoton lithography. (par. [0078], [0080]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use IP-DIP as the photoresist material in Vyatskikh et al., as taught by Greer et al.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use IP-DIP in order to enable the use of multiphoton lithography allowing the formation of intricate small features in the photosensitive material.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vyatskikh et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2018/0088462) in view of Wong et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2021/0181380), further in view of Zhang (CN 206193426).
Vatskikh in view of Wong et al. is relied upon as described in the rejection of claim 8, above.
Vatskikh in view of Wong et al. does not disclose a reflectance at in the range of 2.5 microns to 25 microns in the range claimed.
Zhang et al. teaches an infrared transparent protective color for an infrared image detector wherein the cover includes an antireflective layer composition (Abstract) having a transmittance of 90% or more at wavelengths of 8-12 microns (page 2) (i.e. a reflectance of 10% or less as claimed).
It would have been obvious to optimize the brochosome coating composition, including size, spacing and pore diameters, in the combination of Vatskikh in view of Wong et al. in order to have a transmittance of 90% or more for long infrared wavelengths including 8-12 microns, encompassed within the presently claimed range.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have a high long infrared transmittance in order to be used as an antireflective film for use in an infrared imaging detector for improving the efficiency thereof.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDRE F FERRE whose telephone number is (571)270-5763. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8 am to 4 pm ET.
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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at 5712721490. 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.
/ALEXANDRE F FERRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788 09/21/2026
Prosecution Insights