DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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.
3. Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 9, 13, 17-18, 20-21, 23-25, 37-38 and 40-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Pub. No. 2013/0258445 A1 by Arsenault (Hereinafter Arsenault) in view of US Patent Pub. No. 2010/0253061 A1 by Whiteman (Hereinafter Whiteman).
Regarding Claim 1, Arsenault teaches a sensor (Fig. 2), comprising (Fig. 1-12):
a photonic material (Fig. 2 @ 10, Par. [0035]) comprising a plurality of refractive index variations (Par. [0064]);
an optical input directed towards the photonic material (Par. [0004, 0035]) but does not explicitly teach a backing layer adjacent to the photonic material, wherein the backing layer absorbs visible light.
However, Whiteman teaches the backing layer absorbs visible light (Fig. 2-5 @ Dark absorbing layer, Par. [0098, 0103-0104]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Arsenault by Whiteman as taught above such that a backing layer adjacent to the photonic material, wherein the backing layer absorbs visible light is accomplished in order to best visualize the optical effects of the photonic crystal material against a dark non-selectively absorbing background (Whiteman, Par. [0103]).
Regarding Claim 3, Arsenault teaches the photonic material (See Claim 1 rejection above) but does not explicitly teach has a Young's modulus of less than or equal to 10,000 kPa and greater than or equal to 1 kPa.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use a Young's modulus of less than or equal to 10,000 kPa and greater than or equal to 1 kPa in order to achieve an optimal balance between high optical responsiveness and structural integrity.
The examiner takes Official Notice that a Young's modulus of less than or equal to 10,000 kPa and greater than or equal to 1 kPa is well-known, or to be common knowledge in the art is capable of instant and unquestionable demonstration as being well-known. As noted by the court in In re Ahlert, 424 F.2d 1088, 1091, 165 USPQ 418,420 (CCPA 1970).
Regarding Claim 4, Arsenault teaches the photonic material (See Claim 1 rejection above) but does not explicitly teach the photonic material comprises microscale refractive index variations.
However, it is considered obvious to try all known solutions when there is a recognized need in the art (microscale refractive index variations), there had been a finite number of identified, predictable solutions to the recognized need (microscale refractive index variations, nanoscale refractive index variations), and when one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP § 2143, E. Furthermore, such an arrangement would imply to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use microscale refractive index variations in order to control light by blocking certain colors while pass other colors.
Regarding Claim 5, Arsenault teaches the photonic material (See Claim 1 rejection above) but does not explicitly teach the photonic material comprises nanoscale refractive index variations.
However, it is considered obvious to try all known solutions when there is a recognized need in the art (nanoscale refractive index variations), there had been a finite number of identified, predictable solutions to the recognized need (nanoscale refractive index variations, microscale refractive index variations), and when one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP § 2143, E. Furthermore, such an arrangement would imply to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use nanoscale refractive index variations in order to control light by blocking certain colors while pass other colors.
Regarding Claim 7, Arsenault teaches the photonic material comprises a photopolymer (Par. [0004, 0043, 0070]).
Regarding Claim 9, Arsenault teaches the photonic material exhibits reversible color variation under applied mechanical force (Par. [0002,0007-0008, 0035, 0038]).
Regarding Claim 13, Arsenault as modified by Whiteman teaches a blocking layer (Whiteman, Par. 0148]: scattering layer, i.e. the blocking layer) adjacent to the photonic material, wherein the blocking layer (Whiteman, Par. [0148]: scattering layer, i.e. the blocking layer) is capable of reducing diffusion (Whiteman, Par. [0149]: diffuse reducing the glare of the photonic crystal film) between the photonic material and the backing layer (See Claim 1 rejection above).
Regarding Claim 17, Arsenault as modified by Whiteman teaches an apparatus (See Claim 1 rejection above), comprising:
a photonic material comprising a plurality of refractive index variations (See Claim 1 rejection above);
a backing layer adjacent to the photonic material (See Claim 1 rejection above);
a blocking layer adjacent to the photonic material (See Claim 13 rejection above); and
a chamber (Fig. 2 @ 40, Par. [0044]: chamber) adjacent to the blocking layer (See Claim 13 rejection above), wherein the chamber is configured to apply pressure (Fig. 2 @ F) to the blocking layer (See Claim 13 rejection above), the photonic material, and/or the backing layer (See Claim 1 rejection above).
Regarding Claim 18, Arsenault as modified by Whiteman teaches a grip (Whiteman, Fig. 2 @ Adhesive, i.e. the grip), wherein the backing layer (Whiteman, Fig. 2 @ Dark absorbing layer, Par. [0098, 0103-0104]) is disposed on the grip (Whiteman, (Fig. 2 @ Adhesive, i.e. the grip).
Regarding Claim 20, Arsenault as modified by Whiteman teaches the chamber is an air chamber configured to receive compressed air (Whiteman, Par. [0012-0013]).
Regarding Claim 21, Arsenault teaches the chamber (See Claim 17 rejection above) but does not explicitly teach a gas cylinder operatively associated with the chamber.
However, it is considered obvious to try all known solutions when there is a recognized need in the art (a gas cylinder), there had been a finite number of identified, predictable solutions to the recognized need (a gas cylinder, any other gas suppliable container), and when one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP § 2143, E. Furthermore, such an arrangement would imply to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a gas cylinder operatively associated with the chamber in order to supply gas to chamber safely and also make system portable and simple to use.
Regarding Claim 23, Arsenault as modified by Whiteman teaches the photonic material comprises microscale refractive index variations (See Claim 4 rejection above).
Regarding Claim 24, Arsenault as modified by Whiteman teaches the photonic material comprises nanoscale refractive index variations (See Claim 5 rejection above).
Regarding Claim 25, Arsenault as modified by Whiteman teaches the photonic material comprises a first set of refractive index variations and a second set of refractive index variations distinct from the first set of refractive index variations (See Claim 6 rejection above).
Regarding Claim 37, Arsenault as modified by Whiteman teaches an object recognition system (Arsenault, Fig. 2), the system comprising:
a photonic material comprising a plurality of refractive index variations (See Claim 17 rejection above);
a backing layer adjacent to the photonic material (See Claim 17 rejection above);
a blocking layer adjacent to the photonic material (See Claim 17 rejection above); and
an optical input directed towards the photonic material (See Claim 1 rejection above).
Regarding Claim 38, Arsenault as modified by Whiteman teaches an object, wherein the object comprises an identifiable topography (Whiteman, Par. [0079-0080]).
Regarding Claim 40, Arsenault as modified by Whiteman teaches an object is selected from a recyclable object, a manufactured object, a consumer good, a food object, and/or clothing (Whiteman, Par. [0079-0080]).
Regarding Claim 41, Arsenault as modified by Whiteman teaches a grip, wherein the backing layer is disposed on the grip (See Claim 18 rejection above).
4. Claims 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arsenault in view of Whiteman as applied to Claim 1 above and further in view of WO2020/180250A1 by Yang et al. (hereinafter Yang).
Regarding Claim 2, Arsenault as modified by Whiteman teaches the photonic material but does not explicitly teach comprises a plurality of voxels, wherein each voxel comprises a set of refractive index variations.
However, Yang teaches a plurality of voxels (Par. [0038]), wherein each voxel comprises a set of refractive index variations (Par. [0028, 0051]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Arsenault as modified by Whiteman by Yang as taught above such that each voxel comprises a set of refractive index variations is accomplished in order to reflect vivid color (Yang, Par. [0038]).
5. Claims 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arsenault in view of Whiteman as applied to Claim 1 above and further in view of US Patent Pub. No. 2017/0168236 A1 by Huang et al. (hereinafter Huang).
Regarding Claim 6, Arsenault as modified by Whiteman teaches the photonic material but does not explicitly teach comprises a first set of refractive index variations and a second set of refractive index variations distinct from the first set of refractive index variations.
However, Huang teaches a first set of refractive index variations (Fig. 1 @ 4, Abstract) and a second set of refractive index variations (Fig. 1 @ 6, Abstract) distinct from the first set of refractive index variations (Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Arsenault as modified by Whiteman by Huang as taught above such that a first set of refractive index variations and a second set of refractive index variations distinct from the first set of refractive index variations is accomplished in order to generate different modulation depths and support only specific mode of light propagation (Huang, Abstract).
Additional Prior Art
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. The reference listed teaches of other prior art method/system of integrated photonic crystal.
US Patent Pub. No. 2015/0285996 A1 by Selvaraja (Fig. 1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMIL AHMED whose telephone number is (571)272-1950. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 AM - 5:00 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, Kara Geisel can be reached on 571-272-2416. 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.
/JAMIL AHMED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights