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 .
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.
Claim(s) 15-17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US PGPub 2016/0093760 to Kallos.
Regarding claim 15-17 and 20, Kallos teaches an asymmetric light propagation device (the device of Fig. 1, guides light in the direction 107 toward plane 105, ¶0028, 0029) comprising
At least one nanostructure 103 comprising a generally pyramidal shape having a first height “ltap” that is greater than or equal to a base width (equivalent to “d”, ¶0052, 0053)
At least one substrate 101 optically coupled to the at least one nanostructure 103, the at least one substrate having a cuboid shape (¶0031, 0037, 0041)
Wherein the at least one nanostructure 103 is configured to permit a first quantity of light to propagate in a forward direction (direction of 107 in Fig. 1, 207 in Fig. 2) and a second quantity of light (approaching zero light, ¶0030, 0042, 0043, 0051) in a backward direction, the first quantity of light is greater than the second quantity of light for a wavelength range.
Per claims 16 and 17, Kallos teaches the limitations of claim 15. The wavelength range of light in an embodiment is 350 nm to 8000 nm (Fig. 7, ¶0024, 0057).
Per claim 20, Kallos teaches the limitations of claim 15. The at least one nanostructure 103 is positioned on at least one substrate 101 to form at least one nanostructure-substrate pairing (Fig. 1; MPEP §2125).
The device comprises a plurality of nanostructure-substrate pairings arranged in a periodic array having a periodicity (equivalent to “d”) ranging from 10 nm to 1000 nm (¶0053).
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.
Claim(s) 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kallos as applied to claim 15 above.
Regarding claim 18, Kallos teaches the limitations of claim 18. The base width (equivalent to “d” of Fig. 1) ranges from 10 nm to 1000 nm and the first height is less than 100,000 nm (¶0053). In the case where the claimed ranges “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. 1990). MPEP §2144.05.
Regarding claim 19, Kallos teaches the limitations of claim 18. The at least one substrate 101 has a width (equivalent to “d”-“w” of Fig. 1) in a range as low as (10 nm – 2 nm) = 8 nm and as large as (1000 nm – 2 nm) = 998 nm and a second height “l” of less than 10,000 nm (¶0053). In the case where the claimed ranges “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. 1990). MPEP §2144.05.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kallos as applied to claim 20 above.
Regarding claim 21, Kallos teaches the limitations of claim 20. The device comprises a plurality of nanostructure-substrate pairings arranged in a periodic array having a periodicity (equivalent to “d”) ranging from 10 nm to 1000 nm (Fig. 1, ¶0053). In the case where the claimed ranges “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. 1990). MPEP §2144.05.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kallos as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of CN10707901A to Wang (machine translation relied upon herein).
Regarding claim 22, Kallos teaches the limitations of claim 15. Kallos teaches that the material of the at least one nanostructure and at least one substrate may comprise metals or dielectrics (¶0005, 0008). In one embodiment, the at least one nanostructure comprises aluminum oxide (¶0040).
The substrate has a plasmonic function (¶0013), which Kallos teaches can also be accomplished by metallic elements in other materials (¶0004). Kallos does not specifically teach that the at least one substrate comprises polymethylmethacrylate. Wang teaches a plasmonic function can be achieved by metallic elements comprised within polymethylmethacrylate (bottom p. 4 of translation, Example 1 on p. 9-12). Therefore it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to form the at least one substrate to comprise polymethylmethacrylate, as a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success of such a material having a plasmonic function. The prior art can be modified or combined to reject claims as prima facie obvious as long as there is a reasonable expectation of success. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (see MPEP § 2143.02).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ryan S Cannon whose telephone number is (571)270-7186. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am-5:30pm PST.
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, Jeffrey Barton can be reached on (571) 272-1307. 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.
Ryan S. Cannon
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1726
/RYAN S CANNON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights