DETAILED ACTION
An Office Action was mailed 07/28/2025.
Applicant filed a response, amended claims 1,17 and 20, and cancelled claim 18.
Claims 1-17 and 19-20 are pending. Claims 1-16 and 20 are rejected. Claims 17 and 19 are withdrawn from consideration.
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 .
Examiner’s note
In the Response filed 06/24/2025, Applicant elected Species II, wherein the pigment comprises a semiconductor particle with an indirect bandgap of at least 3.1eV. Claim 1 has been amended to recite “wherein the at least one pigment material comprises aluminum oxide, aluminum nitride, barium sulfate, calcium sulfate, silicon oxide, or anatase titanium oxide.” Because anatase titanium dioxide is the only species which reads on elected Species II, the claims have been examined as requiring titanium dioxide anatase for the Office Action.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 12, the term “or” should be amended to read “and” in order to comply with proper Markush group language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 1, 6-7, 12-20, 23, 25 and 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Overmeere et al, US 2018/0244928 A1 (Van Overmeere) in view of Qi et al, “Effect of titanium dioxide (TiO2) with different crystal forms and surface modifications on cooling property and surface wettability of cool roofing materials” (Qi), and Yu et al, US 2018/0180331 A1 (Yu).
Van Overmeere and Yu were cited in the IDS filed 12/23/2024.
Regarding claim 1, Van Overmeere teaches a daytime passive radiative cooling formulation including a binder comprising a first polymer and a second polymer that are practically water insoluble and are substantially non-absorbing to light having wavelengths in a solar spectrum. The first polymer has a first emissivity peak value greater than 0.85 at a wavelength between 4 and 35µm, and the second polymer has a second emissivity peak value greater than 0.85 at a wavelength between 4 and 35µm (Van Overmeere; [0005]).
The formulation also includes a solar reflector material embedded in the binder, wherein the solar reflector material may comprise barium sulfate (Van Overmeere; [0005] and [0009]). In an alternative embodiment the solar reflector may comprise polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) (i.e., fluoropolymer binder material as claimed) (Van Overmeere; [0061]).
Titanium dioxide may also be embedded in the binder (Van Overmeere; [0010], [0062]). Alternatively, a titanium dioxide layer may also be applied over the coating (Van Overmeere; [0019], [0028] and [0062]). The titanium dioxide may perform photocatalytic degradation of particles, gases, and pollutants that would otherwise result in increased solar absorbance and decreased solar reflectance (Van Overmeere; [0062]).
In certain implementations, the method further includes applying a layer on the coating, wherein the layer includes one or more of polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), fluorinated ethylene-propylene (FEP), ethylene tetrafluoroethylene (ETFE), or hexafluoropropylene/vinylidene fluoride copolymer (THV or P(VdF-HFP) as claimed) (i.e., fluoropolymer binder material as claimed) (Van Overmeere; [0017] and [0026]).
As is evidenced on pages 15-16, Table 1 of the instant specification, these fluoropolymers have refractive indices less than 1.45 as claimed:
PTFE = about 1.35
FEP = about 1.34
ETFE = about 1.40
P(VdF-HFP) or THV = about 1.40.
FIG. 1B of Van Overmeere illustrates an apparatus 100c including a coating 120 on a substrate 110, and a first layer 130 on the coating. The first layer 130 comprises one or more of a hydrophobic material, TiO2, or a fluoropolymer, wherein the fluoropolymer includes, e.g., PTFE, FEP or ETFE (Van Overmeere; [0071]).
PNG
media_image1.png
208
670
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The cooling formulation may comprise a solvent that dissolves the polymers (Van Overmeere; [0063] and [0065]).
The radiative cooling coatings result in coatings with a solar reflectance of greater than 0.95, which is above 0.94 as claimed (Van Overmeere; [0095-0096]).
Substrates for the radiative cooling compositions include a roof structure (Van Overmeere; [0022], [0029], and [0087]). The coating is applied to a roof to cool the roof, i.e., “cool roof” technology (Van Overmeere; [0051]).
Given that Van Overmeere discloses radiative cooling coatings, including those comprising a polymeric binder; a solvent; PTFE, FEP, ETFE, or P(VdF-HFP) of the claimed refractive index; and TiO2, wherein the coating has a solar reflectance of at least 0.94, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use such daytime reactive cooling coatings, which are both disclosed by Van Overmeere and encompassed within the scope of the present claims.
Van Overmeere does not explicitly teach:
a pigment comprising titanium anatase as claimed; and
wherein the radiative cooling coating has a pigment to binder volume ratio exceeding the critical pigment volume concentration to achieve at least one air void, wherein the at least one air void has a refractive index of about 1.
With respect to the difference 1), Qi compares cool roofing materials to solve overheating concerns from absorbed solar energy and infrared energy absorbed from ambient. Four types of titanium dioxide were tested, including hydrophobic rutile TiO2, hydrophilic anatase TiO2, unmodified rutile TiO2, and unmodified anatase TiO2. These were chosen to fabricate cool roofing materials due to their high solar reflectance and excellent heat-insulation properties (Qi; Abstract). Using poly(acrylonitrile-styrene-butyl acrylate) as the resin matrix, a new generation of cool roofing materials with high solar reflectance and high thermal emissivity as well as a hydrophobic surface was achieved (Qi; page 35, para 2-3).
Unmodified anatase TiO2 particles enhanced the reflectance in the NIR region and the whole solar spectrum to 58.6% and 69.0% respectively (Qi; page 38, para 1). It is well known that most of the NIR solar energy lies within the NIR wavelengths of 700-1500nm, and higher reflectance within the wavelength can result in better cooling property (Qi; pages 39-40, para 1 of “3.6. Cooling Property”).
All of the tested materials had thermal emissivity, over 0.86, and exhibited excellent properties of heat release. The addition of TiO2 particles can largely improve NIR and solar reflectance (Qi; page 42, “4. Conclusion”).
Qui is analogous art as it teaches cooling and reflective coatings comprising anatase titanium oxide.
In light of the motivation provided by Qi, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to: 1) add titanium dioxide particles to the radiative cooling compositions of Van Overmeere, not only as a photocatalytic material, but also as a solar reflector material, and 2) to use anatase titanium dioxide as the titanium particles, in order to obtain the improved thermal emissivity, heat release properties, and improved NIR and solar reflectance when used in a “cool roof” formulations.
With respect to the difference 2), Yu teaches a system for radiative cooling and heating (Yu; [0003]). The system comprises a top layer including one or more polymers, and may comprise one or more additives having a reflectivity of greater than 0.3 in at least a portion of the solar spectrum, wherein said additives include titanium dioxide (Yu; [0015-0016]). In certain embodiments, the polymer is polyvinylidene difluoride (PVDF) incorporated into the top layer, wherein the PVDF fibers have air voids. The voids can scatter sunlight, which can result in a higher solar reflectivity (Yu; [0064-0065] and [0128]). The mass ratios of each component can be modulated to obtain the best optical, mechanical and chemical performance while minimizing the use of each constituent (Yu; [0130]).
Yu teaches that the refractive indices the nano- and/or micro-structures can be different from each other in one or more portions of the solar spectrum to enhance scattering (Yu; [0125]).
The coatings can be used on a roof (Yu; [0066-0067] and [0070]).
Yu is analogous art as it teaches radiative cooling compositions comprising a fluororesin, titanium dioxide and air voids.
In light of the motivation provided by Yu, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modulate the mass ratio, and hence volume ratio, of the titanium oxide and fluoropolymers in the radiative cooling formulation of Van Overmeere in view of Qi, in order to obtain the best optical, mechanical and chemical performance while minimizing the use of each constituent.
Further, it would have been obvious to those skilled in the art to include an air void in the fluoropolymer-containing layer, such as the PVDF-containing layer of Van Overmeere in view of Qi, in order to obtain improved light scattering and solar reflectivity. It would have been obvious to those skilled in the art to vary the refractive index of the air void, including over the presently claimed, in order to enhance scattering in one or more portions of the solar spectrum, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
It has long been an axiom of United States patent law that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of result-effective variables by routine experimentation. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages."); In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980) ("[D]iscovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art."); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955) ("[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation."). "Only if the 'results of optimizing a variable' are 'unexpectedly good' can a patent be obtained for the claimed critical range." In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (quoting In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620 (CCPA 1977)).
Regarding claim 6, Van Overmeere in view of Qi and Yu are relied upon as teaching the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above, wherein the radiative cooling formulations comprise anatase TiO2. The TiO2 may be in the form of particles (i.e., powder) (Van Overmeere; [0064]).
Van Overmeere does not explicitly teach wherein the TiO2 particles have a diameter from about 100nm to about 3µm as claimed.
With respect to the difference, Qi teaches that although the particle size of individual unmodified anatase TiO2 spherical particles are 290nm, it is widely accepted that the particle size of TiO2 increases with particle agglomeration. It is also well known that as the particle size approaches approximately one-half that of the incident radiation wavelength, scattering efficiency is improved significantly according to Mie theory. An optimum particle size of distribution between 294nm and 1050nm (1.05µm) provides strong scattering property. The eventual particle size of unmodified TiO2 particles are mostly within the range of 295-1050nm because of particle agglomeration (Qi; page 39, para 1). This particle size range falls with the claimed from about 100nm to about 3µm.
In light of the teachings of Qi, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art that the anatase titanium dioxide in the radiative cooling formulations of Van Overmeere in view of Qi and Yu would have an eventual particle size of mostly within the range of 295-1050nm, which falls within the claimed range, because of particle agglomeration.
Regarding claim 7, Van Overmeere in view of Qi and Yu are relied upon as teaching the limitations of claim 6 as discussed above.
Van Overmeere does not explicitly teach wherein the powder diameters have a distribution with a standard deviation of greater than 1 µm for broadband solar scattering.
With respect to the difference, Qi teaches it is well known that as the particle size of anatase TiO2 approaches approximately one-half that of the incident radiation wavelength, scattering efficiency is improved significantly according to Mie theory. An optimum particle size distribution of between 294nm and 1050nm (1.05µm) provides strong scattering property (Qi; page 39, para 1). Therefore, Qi teaches that the scattering property of anatase TiO2 is dependent upon the particle size distribution.
It has long been an axiom of United States patent law that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of result-effective variables by routine experimentation. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages."); In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980) ("[D]iscovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art."); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955) ("[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation."). "Only if the 'results of optimizing a variable' are 'unexpectedly good' can a patent be obtained for the claimed critical range." In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (quoting In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620 (CCPA 1977)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary the particle size/diameter distribution, including over the presently claimed with a standard deviation of greater than 1µm, in order to obtain the desired broadband solar scattering.
Regarding claim 12, Van Overmeere in view of Qi and Yu are relied upon as teaching the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Van Overmeere in view of Qi, do not explicitly teach wherein the at least one air void has a diameter and the diameters have a distribution with a standard deviation of greater than 1 µm for broadband solar scattering.
With respect to the difference, Yu teaches that the materials, sizes, and mass ratio of the nano- and micro-structures can be chosen to obtain high reflectivity in the solar range. The refractive indices of the nano- and/or micro-structures can be different from each other in one or more portions of the solar spectrum to enhance scattering. For the given refractive indices, the nano- and/or micro-structure's sizes can be chosen such that incident solar radiation is scattered backwards as a consequence of Mie resonances into the external environment. In certain embodiments, multiple nano- and/or micro-structures can have different sizes to back-scatter light at different wavelengths. The additive can include one or more artificially introduced air voids. Furthermore, to enhance back-scattering of a broad range of solar radiation, nano- and/or micro-structures of different sizes can be used (Yu; [0125]).
In light of the motivation provided by Yu, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary the diameters and standard deviation of particle size distribution in the formulations of Van Overmeere in view of Qi and Yu, including over the presently claimed, in order to obtain the desired solar scattering.
It has long been an axiom of United States patent law that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of result-effective variables by routine experimentation. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages."); In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980) ("[D]iscovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art."); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955) ("[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation."). "Only if the 'results of optimizing a variable' are 'unexpectedly good' can a patent be obtained for the claimed critical range." In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (quoting In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620 (CCPA 1977)).
Regarding claims 13-14, Van Overmeere in view of Qi and Yu are relied upon as teaching the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Van Overmeere teaches that the first layer may comprises one or more of a fluoropolymer including, e.g., PTFE, FEP, ETFE and THV (i.e., a second pigment having a refractive index of less than 1.45, wherein the second pigment is PTFE, FEP, ETFE or THV) (Van Overmeere; [0017], [0026], [0071]). The radiative cooling formulation may be a dispersion of particles (i.e., the fluoropolymers may be in particle or “powder” form as claimed) (Van Overmeere; [0064]).
Given that Van Overmeere discloses a mixture of particulate fluoropolymers that overlaps the presently claimed coating comprising a powder second pigment, wherein the second pigment is, for example, PTFE, FEP, ETFE and THV, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the fluoropolymer mixtures, which are both disclosed by Van Overmeere and encompassed within the scope of the present claims, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 15, Van Overmeere in view of Qi and Yu are relied upon as teaching the limitations of claim 14 as discussed above. Van Overmeere teaches that the solar reflector may have a distribution of sizes and morphologies, wherein the solar reflector may comprise PTFE (Van Overmeere; [0061]). The solar reflector may also comprise BaSO4, wherein a mean particle size (volume) distribution is from about 0.1 to 5µm (i.e., 100nm to 5µm) (Van Overmeere; [0060]). From the teachings Van Overmeere, those skilled in the art would understand that the solar reflectors and/or fluororesins of Van Overmeere may have a particle size distribution of from about 0.1 to 5µm. This particle size overlaps with the claimed diameter range of from about 100nm to about 3µm.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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).
Regarding claim 16, Van Overmeere in view of Qi and Yu are relied upon as teaching the limitations of claim 15 as discussed above, wherein the second powder pigment may have a particle size distribution of from about 0.1 to 5µm. This particle size distribution has a standard deviation of greater than 1µm as claimed, thus resulting in broadband solar scattering as claimed.
Regarding claim 17, Van Overmeere in view of Qi and Yu are relied upon as teaching the limitations of claim 13 as discussed above. As is evidenced on pages 15-16, Table 1 of the instant specification, TiO2 anatase (pigment 1) has a refractive index of greater than about 2. The resins of Van Overmeere (second pigment) have refractive indices as follows:
PTFE = about 1.35
FEP = about 1.34
ETFE = about 1.40
P(VdF-HFP) (i.e., Van Overmeere’s THV) = about 1.40
Therefore, the absolute value of the difference between the anatase TiO2 (first pigment) and fluororesin (second pigment) of Van Overmeere is at least 0.1 as claimed.
Regarding claim 18, Van Overmeere in view of Qi and Yu are relied upon as teaching the limitations of claim 13 as discussed above. Van Overmeere teaches that the radiative cooling layers may comprise one or more of a fluoropolymer including, e.g., PTFE, FEP, ETFE and THV (Van Overmeere; [0017], [0026], [0071]).
Regarding claim 19, Van Overmeere in view of Qi and Yu are relied upon as teaching the limitations of claim 13 as discussed above.
Van Overmeere in view of Qui do not explicitly teach wherein the radiative cooling coating has volume ratio between the second pigment to binder, wherein the volume ratio exceeds the critical pigment volume concentration to achieve at least one air void, wherein the at least one air void has a refractive index of about 1.
With respect to the difference, Yu teaches a system for radiative cooling and heating (Yu; [0003]). The system comprises a top layer including one or more polymers, and may comprise one or more additives having a reflectivity of greater than 0.3 in at least a portion of the solar spectrum, wherein said additives include titanium dioxide (Yu; [0015-0016]). In certain embodiments, the polymer is polyvinylidene difluoride (PVDF) incorporated into the top layer, wherein the PVDF fibers have air voids. The voids can scatter sunlight, which can result in a higher solar reflectivity (Yu; [0064-0065] and [0128]). The mass ratios of each component can be modulated to obtain the best optical, mechanical and chemical performance while minimizing the use of each constituent (Yu; [0130]).
Yu teaches that the refractive indices the nano- and/or micro-structures can be different from each other in one or more portions of the solar spectrum to enhance scattering (Yu; [0125]).
The coatings can be used on a roof (Yu; [0066-0067] and [0070]).
In light of the motivation provided by Yu, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modulate the mass ratio, and hence volume ratio, of the pigments and fluoropolymers in the radiative cooling formulation of Van Overmeere in view of Qi, in order to obtain the best optical, mechanical and chemical performance while minimizing the use of each constituent.
Further, it would have been obvious to those skilled in the art to include an air void in the fluoropolymer-containing layer, such as the PVDF-containing layer of Van Overmeere in view of Qi, in order to obtain improved light scattering and solar reflectivity. It would have been obvious to those skilled in the art to vary the refractive index of the air void, including over the presently claimed, in order to enhance scattering in one or more portions of the solar spectrum.
It has long been an axiom of United States patent law that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of result-effective variables by routine experimentation. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages."); In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980) ("[D]iscovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art."); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955) ("[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation."). "Only if the 'results of optimizing a variable' are 'unexpectedly good' can a patent be obtained for the claimed critical range." In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (quoting In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620 (CCPA 1977)).
Regarding claim 20, Van Overmeere in view of Qi and Yu are relied upon as teaching the limitations of claim 19 as discussed above.
Van Overmeere in view of Qi and Yu do not explicitly teach wherein the at least one air void has a diameter and the diameters have a distribution with a standard deviation of greater than 1 µm for broadband solar scattering.
With respect to the difference, Yu teaches that the materials, sizes, and mass ratio of the nano- and micro-structures can be chosen to obtain high reflectivity in the solar range. The refractive indices of the nano- and/or micro-structures can be different from each other in one or more portions of the solar spectrum to enhance scattering. For the given refractive indices, the nano- and/or micro-structure's sizes can be chosen such that incident solar radiation is scattered backwards as a consequence of Mie resonances into the external environment. In certain embodiments, multiple nano- and/or micro-structures can have different sizes to back-scatter light at different wavelengths. The additive can include one or more artificially introduced air voids. Furthermore, to enhance back-scattering of a broad range of solar radiation, nano- and/or micro-structures of different sizes can be used (Yu; [0125]).
In light of the motivation provided by Yu, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary the diameters and standard deviation of particle size distribution in the formulations of Van Overmeere in view of Qi and Yu, including over the presently claimed, in order to obtain the desired solar scattering.
It has long been an axiom of United States patent law that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of result-effective variables by routine experimentation. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages."); In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980) ("[D]iscovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art."); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955) ("[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation."). "Only if the 'results of optimizing a variable' are 'unexpectedly good' can a patent be obtained for the claimed critical range." In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (quoting In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620 (CCPA 1977)).
Regarding claims 23 and 25, Van Overmeere in view of Qi and Yu are relied upon as teaching the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Van Overmeere teaches that the radiative cooling formulations include a binder, wherein the binder is a plurality of polymers (Van Overmeere; [0005]). These polymers include thickening agents (claim 25) such as ethyl cellulose (Van Overmeere; [0011]). The compositions may also comprise a solvent that dissolves the polymers, wherein the solvents are coalescing agents (claim 23) as claimed such as Butyl Carbitol (Van Overmeere; [0063]).
Given that Van Overmeere discloses polymeric binders and solvents that overlaps the presently claimed thickening and coalescing agents, including e.g., methylcellulose and Butyl Carbitol, it therefore would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use thickening and coalescing agents in the formulations of Van Overmeere in view of Qi and Yu, which are both disclosed by Van Overmeere and encompassed within the scope of the present claims, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 27, Van Overmeere in view of Qi and Yu are relied upon as teaching the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Van Overmeere teaches that the radiative cooling formulations can be a radiative cooling paint, and may be applied by spraying (Van Overmeere; [0048] and [0052]).
Regarding claim 28, Van Overmeere in view of Qi and Yu are relied upon as teaching the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Van Overmeere in view of Qi and Yu do not explicitly teach wherein the coating is applied as a UV-reflective top coat on an UV-absorptive rutile TiO2-based white paint.
However, the recitation in the claims that the coating is applied as a UV-reflective top coat on an UV-absorptive rutile TiO2-based white paint is merely an intended use. Applicants’ attention is drawn to MPEP 2111.02 which states that intended use statements must be evaluated to determine whether the intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists, does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
It is the examiner’s position that the intended use recited in the present claims does not result in a structural difference between the presently claimed invention and the prior art, and further that the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use. Given that Van Overmeere in view of Qi and Yu discloses coatings as presently claimed, it is clear that the coatings of Van Overmeere in view of Qi and Yu would be capable of performing the intended use as presently claimed, i.e., applied as a UV-reflective top coat on an UV-absorptive rutile TiO2-based white paint, as required in the above cited portion of the MPEP, and thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Overmeere in view of Qi and Yu as applied to claim 1 above, and further taken in view of evidence by Gieseler et al, “Apparent emissivity measurement of semi-transparent materials part 1: Experimental realization” (Gieseler).
Regarding claim 10, Van Overmeere in view of Qi and Yu are relied upon as teaching the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above, wherein Van Overmeere teaches, for example, PTFE as a preferred fluororesin for addition to the radiative cooling formulations (Van Overmeere; [0017], [0026] and [0061]).
As is evidenced by Gieseler, PTFE has an emittance of at least 0.8 in wavelength range from about 6µm to about 25µm as claimed (Gieseler; page 11, Fig. 20).
Given that Van Overmeere discloses fluoropolymer that overlaps the presently claimed binder material, including, e.g., PTFE which has an emittance of at least 0.8 in wavelength range from about 6µm to about 25µm, it therefore would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to use the PTFE, which is both disclosed by Van Overmeere and encompassed within the scope of the present claims, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claims 24 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Overmeere view of Qi and Yu as applied to claims 23 and 25 above, and further in view of Greenwood et al, WO 2019/179974 A1 (Greenwood).
Regarding claim 24, Van Overmeere in view of Qi and Yu are relied upon as teaching the limitations of claim 23 as discussed above, wherein the cool roof formulations may comprise a solvent with coalescing properties such as Butyl Carbitol (Van Overmeere; [0063]).
Van Overmeere in view of Qi and Yu do not explicitly teach wherein the compositions comprise the coalescing agent triethyl phosphate, polyethylene glycol, or 2-Butoxyethanol.
With respect to the difference, Greenwood teaches a “cool roof” or solar reflective coating composition comprising an organosilane-functionalized colloidal silica and hollow microspheres (Greenwood; Abstract). The compositions may contain one or more solvents, wherein examples of commercially available organic solvents include Butyl Carbitol and Butyl Cellosolve (ethylene glycol monobutyl ether, i.e., 2-buxtoxyethanol as claimed) (Greenwood; page 18, line 30-page 19, line 6).
Greenwood is analogous art as it teaches cool roof reflective coating compositions.
The teachings of Greenwood would have presented a recognition of equivalency in the prior art and would have presented strong evidence of obviousness in combining Butyl Carbitol and Butyl Cellosolve (i.e., 2-buxtoxyethanol as claimed), in order to provide a solvent for a cool roof coating formulation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to at least partially substitute the Butyl Carbitol solvent in the coatings of Van Overmeere in view of Qi and Yu with 2-buxtoxyethanol, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention, because the combining equivalents known for the same purpose is prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.06.I.).
It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose…[T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art. In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069 1072. Ex parte Quadranti, 25 USPQ2d 1071 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992) (mixture of two known herbicides held prima facie obvious); and In re Couvaras, 70 F.4th 1374, 1378-79, 2023 USPQ2d 697 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (That the two claimed types of active agents, GABA-a agonists and ARBs, were known to be useful for the same purpose—alleviating hypertension—alone can serve as a motivation to combine).
Regarding claim 26, Van Overmeere in view of Qi and Yu are relied upon as teaching the limitations of claim 25 as discussed above, wherein the cool roof formulations include the thickening agent ethyl cellulose (Van Overmeere; [0011]).
Van Overmeere in view of Qi and Yu do not explicitly teach wherein the compositions comprise the thickening agent methylcellulose.
With respect to the difference, Greenwood teaches that the cool roof compositions may comprise an organic binder, wherein the organic binder is a water soluble polymer selected from, for example, methylcellulose and ethylcellulose (Greenwood; page 15, line 29-page 16, line 5).
The teachings of Greenwood would have presented a recognition of equivalency in the prior art and would have presented strong evidence of obviousness in combining methylcellulose and ethylcellulose in order to provide a polymeric binder for a cool roof coating formulation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to at least partially substitute the ethylcellulose binder in the coatings of Van Overmeere in view of Qi and Tu with methylcellulose, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention, because the combining equivalents known for the same purpose is prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.06.I.).
It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose…[T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art. In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069 1072. Ex parte Quadranti, 25 USPQ2d 1071 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992) (mixture of two known herbicides held prima facie obvious); and In re Couvaras, 70 F.4th 1374, 1378-79, 2023 USPQ2d 697 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (That the two claimed types of active agents, GABA-a agonists and ARBs, were known to be useful for the same purpose—alleviating hypertension—alone can serve as a motivation to combine).
Response to Arguments
1) Applicant’s Amendments filed 11/24/2025 have overcome the claim objections previously of record. Note, however, the new claim objection due to Applicant’s Amendments.
2) Applicant’s Amendments filed 11/24/2025 have overcome the 35 U.S.C. §112(a) enablement and scope of enablement rejections previously of record. Specifically, the claims now define the claimed pigment material and the claimed binder material. The present claims also recite a pigment to binder volume ratio exceeding the critical pigment volume concentration to achieve at least one air void.
3) Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, pages 3, filed 11/24/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) rejection over Wanatabe have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1, 4-5 and 8 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, pages 3, filed 11/24/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. §103 rejection over Wanatabe, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 6, 10, 13-15, 17-18, 21-22 and 27-28 has been withdrawn.
Specifically, the claims as amended require the limitations of claim 11, which are neither disclosed or suggested by Wanatabe. Wanatabe does not teach or suggest compositions wherein a pigment to binder volume ratio exceeds the critical pigment volume concentration to achieve at least one air void, wherein the at least one air void has a refractive index of about 1.
4) Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, pages 3, filed 11/24/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. §103 rejection of claims 1, 4-8, 13-18, 22-23, 25, and 27-28 over Overmeere in view of Qi; of claim 10 over Overmeere in view of Qi, and further in view of Gieseler; and of claims 24 and 26 over Overmeere in view of Qi, and further in view of Greenwood, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, these rejections have been withdrawn.
Specifically, the claims as amended require the limitations of claim 11, which was not previously rejected over the combination of references. These references, alone or in combination, do not teach compositions wherein a pigment to binder volume ratio exceeds the critical pigment volume concentration to achieve at least one air void, wherein the at least one air void has a refractive index of about 1.
However, note the new grounds of rejection Van Overmeere in view of Qi and Yu due to Applicant’s claim amendments.
5) Applicant's arguments filed 11/24/2025, regarding the combination of Van Overmeere in view of Qi and Yu, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues:
“Amended claim 1 is patentable over Overmeere in view of Qi, and further in view of Yu, as the combination of Overmeere, Qi, and Yu does not teach the limitations of claims 5 and/or 8, which are now incorporated into claim 1.”
Remarks, page 5.
Examiner respectfully traverses because the combination of Overmeere and Qui teach the limitations of claim 5 (anatase titanium dioxide) and claim 8 (fluoropolymer binder materials) for the reasons set forth on pages 20-24 of the Office Action mailed 07/28/2025.
Specifically, Van Overmeere teaches fluoropolymer binder materials as claimed (Van Overmeere; [0017], [0026] and [0061]), and Qui teaches anatase titanium dioxide as claimed (Qi; Abstract; page 35, para 2-3; page 38, para 1; pages 39-40, para 1 of “3.6. Cooling Property” and page 42, “4. Conclusion”). Further, the combination with Yu meets the claimed air void requirement (Yu; [0064-0065] and [0128]). Because Applicant has not provided any reasoning why the combination does not teach the claim limitations as set forth in the rejection, the rejection over Overmeere in view of Qi and Yu is maintained as set forth on pages 4-8 above.
Therefore, Applicant’s Remarks have been fully considered, but are not deemed persuasive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
David et al, US 9,419,189B1, teaches a high reflective material, wherein the reflectivity can be 96-100%, depending on the material composition and method of construction. In some embodiments, white diffuse reflector materials can be made from titanium oxide particles, including anatase, dispersed in a matrix of silicone. The titanium oxide particles may range from 50nm or smaller to 600nm. In other embodiments, the diffused white reflector can be composed of a network of polytetrafluoroethylene particles or fibers with inter-penetrating air pores or gaps. In some embodiments the diffuse white reflector material comprises a material with air pores such as hollow silica spheres embedded with an encapsulant (David; col. 9, lines 27-41).
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 CAROLINE D LIOTT whose telephone number is (703)756-1836. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5.
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, Coris Fung can be reached at (571)270-5713. 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.
/CDL/Examiner, Art Unit 1732
/CORIS FUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1732