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 Amendment
The new grounds of rejection set forth below are necessitated by applicant’s amendment filed on August 19, 2025. In particular, claim 1 which has been amended to limit the element “M” as well as narrowing the ratio of x/y. It also states that the composite oxide particles have hexagonal, tetragonal or cubic crystal structures. This combination of limitations was not present at the time of the previous office action. Thus, the following action is properly made final.
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) 1-2 and 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son et al (KR 10-1182194, please see machine translation for English translation and mapping) in view of Liu, Nanocrystalline CsxWO3 particle, Materials Characterization, 84, (2013) 182-187.
Regarding claims 1-2, Son teaches a near infrared absorbing material (Abstract) particles comprising AxByOz (page 5) where A can be Cs (Examples), B is W (Examples) which is CsxWyOx (tungsten bronze). The ratios of the subscripts are as follows: 0.001 ≤ x/y ≤ 1 and 3 < z/y ≤ 5 (page 3). Son teaches that this composition is crystallized with an annealing temperature (page 5) of 400 to 800 C for 0.2 to 2 hours under inert atmosphere.
However, Son does not explicitly state that the annealing will bring up the particular crystal structures as recited.
Liu teaches that annealing tungsten oxides will bring upon the formation of hexagonal crystal structure (page 183) at 600-900 C for 1 hour under nitrogen atmosphere.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the composite tungsten oxide of Son have the hexagonal crystal structure after annealing as taught by Liu. It would have been nothing more than using a known crystallization annealing method in a typical manner to achieve predictable results. KSR v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. _, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 4, Son teaches that the particle size is from 10 to 50 nm (page 6, first paragraph).
Regarding claim 5, modified Son teaches that the hexagonal crystal structure has lattice constants of a=7.404 and c=7.609 (Liu, third paragraph of results and discussion).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son et al (KR 10-1182194, please see machine translation for English translation and mapping) in view of Liu, Nanocrystalline CsxWO3 particle, Materials Characterization, 84, (2013) 182-187 and Suzuki et al (US 2010/0220388).
The discussion regarding Son and Liu in paragraph 4 above is incorporated here by reference.
Regarding claim 6, Son fails to teach that the surface of the particles is coated with a compound containing one or more elements selected from Si, Ti, Zr and Al.
Suzuki teaches tungsten oxide which is coated with Si, Ti, Zr or Al ([0130]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to coat the particles of modified Son with the Si, Ti, Zr or Al of Suzuki. One would have been motivated to do so in order to receive the expected benefit of improving weather resistance (Suzuki, [0130]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 19, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument: Kumagai and Yoshio do not teach the recited particles.
Examiner’s response: These references are no longer used in the above rejections and therefore, applicant’s arguments with regard to these references are considered moot.
Applicant’s argument: Liu does not teach the recited particles.
Examiner’s response: Liu is no longer used as a primary reference. Son is used as the primary reference which teaches the chemical formula of the recited particle. Liu is used as a secondary reference to teach the formation of the hexagonal crystal structure upon annealing of the particles.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 DORIS L LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-3872. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am - 5 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, Arrie Lanee Reuther can be reached at 571-270-7026. 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.
DORIS L. LEE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1764
/DORIS L LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764