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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on November 25, 2025 has been entered.
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.
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 1-11, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (CN 111607976) in view of Cui et al. (US 2019/0239586) as evidenced by Kurtz (Chapter 1-A Primer on UHMWPE, UHMWPE Biomaterials Handbook, 2009, pg. 1-6). Note: A machine translation is being used for CN 111607976.
Considering Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, and 11: Chen et al. teaches a laminate for radiation cooling (pg. 2) comprising a first layer and second layer (pg. 2), the first layer reflecting visible light and the second layer reflecting ultraviolet light (pg. 2), where the first layer comprises a polyurethane that is preferably a polycarbonate polyurethane and a heat reflective pigment that is preferably tiantium dioxide or zinc oxide (pg. 2), and the second layer comprising an ultraviolet reflecting pigment that is preferably barium sulfate or calcium carbonate or aluminum oxide in a polymer matrix (pg. 2). Chen et al. teaches the filler of the second layer as having a particle size of 100 to 200 nm (pg. 6).
Chen et al. does not teach the second layer as using a porous ultrahigh molecular weight polyethylene as the polymer matrix. However, Cui et al. teaches a porous film having particulate fillers embedded within the pores (¶0058; Fig. 1(a)), where the polymer matrix is ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (¶0053; 0085). Kurtz teaches UHMWPE as having a molecular weight of greater than 3,500,000 (Table 1.1). Chen et al. and Cui et al. are analogous art as they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely radiational cooling coatings. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have used a porous ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene as the matrix of the second layer of Chen et al., and the motivation to do so would have been, as Cui et al. suggests, it is infrared transparent and thus allows for the transmission of heat to the environment (¶0052).
Cui et al. teaches the pores size as influencing the scattering of light in the desired spectrum (¶0057) and thus it would be considered a result effective variable. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have optimized the pore size through routine experimentation, and the motivation to do so would have been, as Cui et al. suggests, to control the wavelength of light scattered by the coating (¶0057).
Chen et al. is does not teach the claimed thickness of the second layer. However, Cui et al. teaches the thickness of the reflective layer as being 80 to 160 microns (¶0042). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have formed a layer with the thickness of Cui et al. in the laminate of Chen et al., and the motivation to do so would have been, as Cui et al. suggests, it allows for an optimal combination of solar reflection and infrared transparency (¶0042).
Considering Claim 3: Chen et al. teaches the filler of the first layer as having grain size of 200 to 900 nm (pg. 6).
Considering Claim 4: Chen et al. is silent towards the molecular weight of the polyurethane polymer. However, the molecular weight controls the flowability of the coating and thus would be considered to be a result effective variable. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have optimized the molecular weight through routine experimentation, and the motivation to do so would have been, to allow for easy application of the coating the fabric substrate.
Considering Claim 5: Chen et al. teaches the weight ratio of the filler and polyurethane matrix as being 1:1 to 2:1 (pg. 3).
Considering Claim 8: Cui et al. teaches the porosity as being 20 to 30% (¶0057).
Cui et al. teaches the pores size as influencing the scattering of light in the desired spectrum (¶0057) and thus it would be considered a result effective variable. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have optimized the pore size through routine experimentation, and the motivation to do so would have been, as Cui et al. suggests, to control the wavelength of light scattered by the coating (¶0057).
Considering Claim 9: Chen et al. teaches the filler of the second layer as being 50 to 75 weight percent of the layer, or 0.5 to 0.75 g/mL (pg. 3).
Considering Claims 10 and 13: The Office realizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by the reference(s). However, the reference(s) teaches all of the claimed ingredients, in the claimed amounts, and teaches the composition as being made by a substantially similar process. The original specification does not provide any disclosure on how to obtain the claimed properties outside the components of the composition itself. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. the bad gap and reflection rates, would necessarily arise from a composition with all the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts. "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. If it is the applicant’s position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant’s position; and (2) it would be the Office’s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure that there is no teaching enabling a person of ordinary skill in the art to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients, absent undue experimentation.
Considering Claim 14: Chen et al. teaches an article comprising the laminate (pg. 2).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (CN 111607976) in view of Cui et al. (US 2019/0239586) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Yang et al. (EP 3819425).
Considering Claim 15: Chen et al. and Cui et al. collectively teach the article of claim 14 as shown above.
Chen et al. does not teach applying the textile product to a vehicle. However, Yang et al. teaches applying a radiational cooling fabric to a vehicle as a car cover (¶0019). Chen et al. and Yang et al. are analogous art as they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely radiational cooling systems. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have used the fabric of Chen et al. as a car cover, as in Yang et al., and the motivation to do so would have been, as Yang et al. suggests, it is a suitable use for the radiational cooling textile.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 25, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, because:
A) In response to applicant's argument that the laminate has excellent UV reflection and IR radiation rates, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
B) The applicant’s argument that the combination does not teach the presence of fillers in the pores of the ultraviolet light reflecting coating layer is not persuasive. Cui et al. teaches a porous film having particulate fillers embedded within the pores (¶0058; Fig. 1(a)), where the polymer matrix is ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (¶0053; 0085). As shown in Fig. 1(a), the filler is disposed within pores in the polymer matrix.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIAM J HEINCER whose telephone number is (571)270-3297. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00.
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, Mark Eashoo can be reached at 571-272-1197. 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.
/LIAM J HEINCER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767
Prosecution Insights