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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 18, Applicant argues that Hull’s pipe 21 is not “nested within the opening” of the V-shaped cross section. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Hull clearly teaches a reflector an elongated reflector having a concave cross-sectional V-shape that defines a round valley and an opening opposite the rounded valley facing, wherein the object to be cooled is nested within the opening and the opening is not covered, (Fig. 2, mirror surfaces 32 of fins 17, opening or aperture 34).
PNG
media_image1.png
684
910
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, amendments to the claim have overcome the rejection of record.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 6, 8-10, 12-14, 19 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
McCann US20090090488 in view of Hull et all. US4624113 in view of Ruan WO202072818A1 in view of Trombe US 3310102, discussed in previous office action, teach many of the limitation of independent claim 1 with the exception of the arrangement of the heat exchanger, temperature sensor, and air conditioner control configuration. While such individual features may exist in the prior art there is insufficient teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art to combine said features in a way as to achieve the claimed subject matter.
Absent having constructed the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would lack sufficient motivation to provide the additional features in the claimed arrangement. Thus, such a construction would require impermissible hindsight reasoning on the part of the examiner.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hull et all. US4624113 in view of Ruan WO202072818A1 in view of Trombe US 3310102.
Regarding claim 18, Hull et all. US4624113 discloses a device comprising:
an object to be cooled having first and second exterior surfaces, wherein the first exterior surface is configured to be exposed to sunlight (Fig.2, tube 21 comprising exterior surfaces 22 and fluid 18);
a radiative cooling coating on at least the second exterior surface of the object, the radiative cooling coating configured to lose thermal energy from the object (Col. 3 Ln. 57-Col. 4 Ln. 10),
the radiative cooling coating exhibiting high emissivity for certain wavelengths and high reflectance for certain solar spectrum wavelengths (Col. 3 Ln. 57-60),
the radiative cooling coating on the second exterior surface is configured to radiate the thermal energy in first directions (seen in Fig. 2, the body radiates in at least two directions, this interpretation is commensurate with instant Fig. 1 A); and
an elongated reflector having a concave cross-sectional V-shape that defines a round valley and an opening opposite the rounded valley facing, wherein the object to be cooled is nested within the opening and the opening is not covered, wherein the concave cross-sectional V-shape defines a surface configured to reflect the thermal energy radiated from the radiative cooling coating on the second of the exterior surfaces and redirect the thermal energy in the first directions wherein the reflector has a high reflectance (Fig. 2, mirror surfaces 32 of fins 17, opening or aperture 34).
PNG
media_image1.png
684
910
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Hull does not expressly disclose
the radiative cooling coating comprising a solar-reflective infrared-emissive paint that contains BaSO4 nanoparticles, is free of a polymeric matrix, and does not contain a metallic component
the radiative cooling coating exhibiting high emissivity for wavelengths of 8 to 13 micrometers and high reflectance for the solar spectrum wavelengths of 0.3 to 3 micrometers; and
wherein the reflector has a high reflectance for wavelengths of 5 to 30 micrometers.
Hull teaches a selective surface comprising a selective coating (Col. 3 Ln. 50-68).
Ruan WO202072818A1 teaches a radiative cooling coating (abstract) having high emissivity at wavelengths of 8-13 micrometers (abstract) and a high reflectance at wavelengths of 0.3-3 micrometers (abstract) comprising a solar-reflective infrared-emissive paint that contains nanoparticles, is free of a polymeric matrix, and does not contain a metallic component (¶6).
Ruan teaches that such a coating is known in the art with known predictable results (¶3-¶7, inter alia) which include reducing interference of high frequency signals (¶3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the radiating surface of the prior art device with the radiative cooling coating taught by Ruan doing so amounts to a known technique for improving radiative cooling bodies with the known predictable results of achieving cooling during day time and/or reducing high frequency interference.
Trombe US3310102 teaches a radiative cooling device comprising an object to be cooled (Fig. 3, 1b); and a reflector a reflector having a surface configured to reflect the thermal energy radiated from the radiative cooling coating on the second of the exterior surfaces and redirect the thermal energy in the first directions (reflector 3b), wherein the reflector has a high reflectance (Col. 4 Ln. 49-70).Trombe teaches the reflector is highly reflective for radiations emitted by the radiating body as well as for the sun’s rays (Col. 4 Ln. 49-60) and 99% of infrared rays (Col. 4 Ln. 70-75). The infrared spectrum is generally accepted to encompass wavelengths of 750 nm to 1000 μm. This necessarily represents a range of wavelengths which overlaps or encompasses the claimed range (‘3a high reflectance for wavelengths of 5 to 30 micrometers’). A reflector demonstrating a high reflectance over an encompassing range of wavelengths would necessarily demonstrate a high reflectance within the narrower range of the claims. The broadly recited limitation “wherein the reflector has a high reflectance for wavelengths of 5 to 30 micrometers” is non-exclusive. A reflector which has a high reflectance over an encompassing range of wavelengths is not excluded by the claims. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP2144.05.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to provide a reflector with a high reflectance for wavelengths of 5 to 30 microns since doing so amounts to a known technique for providing reflector in the field of radiative cooling devices with the known predictable result of reflecting radiation.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Deepak Deean whose telephone number is (571)270-3347. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 10-4.
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, Edelmira Bosques can be reached at (571)270-5614. 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.
/DEEPAK A DEEAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3762 /MICHAEL G HOANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762