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 amendment filed on 05/05/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Northcott et al. (10,502,879).
Regarding claim 1, Northcott discloses a spectrally selective optical filter (at least Figure 12, 24, infrared-transparent layer) that blocks solar radiation (col 6 line 66 - col 7 line 2 teach 24, infrared-transparent layer, blocks at least 90% of visible light at wavelengths 400-700 nm) and transmits thermal radiation (col 7 lines 2-6 teach 24, infrared-transparent layer, transmits at least 50% of infrared light at wavelengths of 900 to 1000 nm) comprising: a film (24, infrared-transparent layer) comprising discrete plasmonic nanoparticles or microparticles having average sizes between 0.05 μm and 1 μm (70, nanoparticle; col 5 lines 17-20 teach 70, nanoparticle, is plasmonic, and has a diameter of 20 to 200 nm); wherein the average sizes of the discrete plasmonic nanoparticles or microparticles are within solar wavelengths such that the discrete nanoparticles or microparticles scatter, reflect, or absorb more than 80% of one or more portions of the solar spectrum with a wavelength of 0.3-2.5 μm (col 6 line 66 - col 7 line 2 teach 24, infrared-transparent layer, blocks at least 90% of visible light at wavelengths 400-700 nm; col 5 lines 21-25 teach the nanoparticle size affects the wavelengths of light that are scattered and absorbed), and wherein the average sizes of the discrete plasmonic nanoparticles or microparticles are less than thermal radiation wavelengths such that the film transmits more than 50% of one or more portions of the thermal radiation spectrum (col 7 lines 2-6 teach 24, infrared-transparent layer, transmits at least 50% of infrared light at wavelengths of 900 to 1000 nm; col 5 lines 21-25 teach the nanoparticle size affects the wavelengths of light that are scattered and absorbed).
Northcott fails to teach the thermal radiation spectrum has a wavelength of 2.5-40 μm.
However, Examiner notes that Northcutt (col 5 lines 21-25) teaches the nanoparticle size affects the wavelengths of light that are scattered and absorbed, thus the transmittance spectrum is a result effective variable dependent on the size of the particles used. Thus it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to adjust the size of the nanoparticles such that the film transmits more than 50% of on or more portions of the thermal radiation spectrum which has a wavelength of 2.5 - 40 μm. Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233). In other words, although Northcott is silent to the transmittance amount at 2.5-40 μm, an appropriate size of the nanoparticles can be chosen to affect the desired wavelength of light. Doing so would allow for improved transmittance of a wider spectrum of thermal radiation, thereby improving imaging quality at a desired wavelength.
Regarding claim 2, the modified Northcott discloses the filter of claim 1, wherein the film is formed on a substrate (Figure 1, 20, infrared component) which is shaped in a lens or an optical flat (Figure 2, 66, lens).
Regarding claim 3, the modified Northcott discloses the filter of claim 2, wherein the film formed on the substrate focuses or concentrates thermal radiation onto a region for detection (62, infrared image sensor) while diffusely scattering and diluting any solar radiation that is transmitted through (at least col 6 lines 38-43).
Claims 4, 6, 7, and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Northcott et al. (10,502,879) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hebrink et al. (2023/0366642, of record).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Northcott discloses the filter of claim 1, wherein the film has no significant absorptance across one or more portions of the solar and thermal wavelengths (Figures 5-7 depict no significant scattering and absorption near 800 nm).
The modified Northcott fails to teach the film contains one or more of poly(ethene)/poly(ethylene) (PE), poly(vinylidene fluoride) (PVdF), zinc sulfide (ZnS), zinc selenide (ZnSe), sodium chloride (NaCl), and/or air in the form of pores. The modified Northcott and Hebrink are related because both teach a spectrally selective filter.
Hebrink teaches a spectrally selective filter wherein the film contains one or more of poly(ethene)/poly(ethylene) (PE), poly(vinylidene fluoride) (PVdF), zinc sulfide (ZnS), zinc selenide (ZnSe), sodium chloride (NaCl), and/or air in the form of pores (at least [0065, 0075, 0085, 0241]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Northcott to incorporate the teachings of Hebrink and provide wherein the film contains one or more of poly(ethene)/poly(ethylene) (PE), poly(vinylidene fluoride) (PVdF), zinc sulfide (ZnS), zinc selenide (ZnSe), sodium chloride (NaCl), and/or air in the form of pores. Doing so would allow for improved durability and transmission characteristics for the film.
Regarding claim 6, the modified Northcott discloses the filter of claim 4, wherein the film has a solar reflectance of greater than 0.8 (at least col 4 lines 12-16 teach reflectance of visible wavelengths of at least 70%, thus interpreted as 70% or more, which can be 70%-99%) and thermal transmittance of greater than 0.5 (col 7 lines 2-6 teach 24, infrared-transparent layer, transmits at least 50% of infrared light at wavelengths of 900 to 1000 nm).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Northcott discloses the filter of claim 1, wherein: the film has no significant absorptance across one or more portions of the thermal wavelengths (Figures 5-7 depict no significant scattering and absorption near 800 nm); the film has significant absorptance across one or more portions of the solar wavelengths (Figures 5-7 depict significant scattering and absorption near 500 nm).
The modified Northcott fails to teach wherein the film contains one or more of copper oxide (CuO) and iron oxide (FeO.sub.x). The modified Northcott and Hebrink are related because both teach a spectrally selective filter.
Hebrink teaches a spectrally selective filter wherein the film contains one or more of copper oxide (CuO) and iron oxide (FeO.sub.x) (at least [0066]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Northcott to incorporate the teachings of Hebrink and provide the film contains one or more of copper oxide (CuO) and iron oxide (FeO.sub.x). Doing so would allow for reflection of some infrared light, thereby further reducing solar radiation.
Regarding claim 9, the modified Northcott discloses the filter of claim 7, wherein the film has a solar absorptance greater than 0.8 (at least col 4 lines 12-16 teach reflectance of visible wavelengths of at least 70%, thus interpreted as 70% or more, which can be 70%-99%) and thermal transmittance greater than 0.6 (col 7 lines 2-6 teach 24, infrared-transparent layer, transmits at least 50% of infrared light at wavelengths of 900 to 1000 nm).
Regarding claim 10, the modified Northcott discloses the filter of claim 7, wherein the film is placed or coated on a thermally reflective substrate such that the film absorbs solar wavelengths and reflects thermal radiation (Hebrink: at least [0205] teaches an optional infrared-reflective layer may be disposed between the white diffusely reflective microporous layer and the non-white color reflective mirror; Figure 16).
Regarding claim 11, the modified Northcott discloses the filter of claim 10, wherein the thermally reflective substrate comprises a metal (Hebrink: [0209]).
Regarding claim 12, the modified Northcott discloses the filter of claim 10, wherein the film and the substrate together are flat or have the curvature of a parabola, ellipse, or a sphere (Hebrink: at least Figure 1 depicts a flat shape).
Regarding claim 13, the modified Northcott discloses the filter of claim 12, wherein the combined form of the film and substrate focuses or concentrates thermal radiation onto a region for detection (62, infrared image sensor), while diffusely scattering and diluting any solar radiation that is reflected off it (at least col 6 lines 38-43).
Claims 14-17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Northcott et al. (10,502,879) in view of Kamada et al. (2013/0260139, of record), in view of Hebrink et al. (2023/0366642, of record).
Regarding claim 14, Northcott discloses a spectrally selective filter (at least Figure 12, 24, infrared-transparent layer) that absorbs solar radiation (col 6 line 66 - col 7 line 2 teach 24, infrared-transparent layer, blocks at least 90% of visible light at wavelengths 400-700 nm; col 3 lines 62-63 teach 24, layer, absorbs visible light) and reflects thermal radiation (col 7 lines 2-6 teach 24, infrared-transparent layer, transmits at least 50% of infrared light at wavelengths of 900 to 1000 nm) comprising: a film (24, infrared-transparent layer) containing discrete plasmonic metal nanoparticles (70, nanoparticle; col 5 lines 17-20 teach 70, nanoparticle, is plasmonic, and has a diameter of 20 to 200 nm) with their sizes optimized to scatter, trap and strongly absorb one or more portions of the solar spectrum with of wavelength of 0.3-2.5 μm via plasmonic absorption (col 6 line 66 - col 7 line 2 teach 24, infrared-transparent layer, blocks at least 90% of visible light at wavelengths 400-700 nm; col 5 lines 21-25 teach the nanoparticle size affects the wavelengths of light that are scattered and absorbed) and wherein the film substantially transmits one or more portions of the thermal radiation spectrum (col 7 lines 2-6 teach 24, infrared-transparent layer, transmits at least 50% of infrared light at wavelengths of 900 to 1000 nm; col 5 lines 21-25 teach the nanoparticle size affects the wavelengths of light that are scattered and absorbed).
Northcott fails to teach the thermal radiation spectrum has a wavelength of 2.5-40 μm; wherein the discrete plasmonic metal nanoparticles are arranged randomly, or hierarchically in random clusters; and a metallic substrate, wherein the film is deposited on the metallic substrate, wherein the metallic substrate reflects back the thermal radiation transmitted by the film containing discrete plasmonic metal nanoparticles.
However, Examiner notes that Northcutt (col 5 lines 21-25) teaches the nanoparticle size affects the wavelengths of light that are scattered and absorbed, thus the transmittance spectrum is a result effective variable dependent on the size of the particles used. Thus it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to adjust the size of the nanoparticles such that the film transmits more than 50% of on or more portions of the thermal radiation spectrum which has a wavelength of 2.5 - 40 μm. Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233). In other words, although Northcott is silent to the transmittance amount at 2.5-40 μm, an appropriate size of the nanoparticles can be chosen to affect the desired wavelength of light. Doing so would allow for improved transmittance of a wider spectrum of thermal radiation, thereby improving imaging quality at a desired wavelength.
The modified Northcutt fails to teach wherein the discrete plasmonic metal nanoparticles are arranged randomly, or hierarchically in random clusters; and a metallic substrate, wherein the film is deposited on the metallic substrate, wherein the metallic substrate reflects back the thermal radiation transmitted by the film containing discrete plasmonic metal nanoparticles. The modified Northcott and Kamada are related because both teach a spectrally selective filter.
Kamada teaches a spectrally selective filter wherein the discrete plasmonic metal nanoparticles are arranged randomly, or hierarchically in random clusters (at least [0077, 0080]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Northcott to incorporate the teachings of Kamada and provide wherein the discrete plasmonic metal nanoparticles are arranged randomly, or hierarchically in random clusters. Doing so would allow for elimination of a moire appearance in the filter, while improving shielding performance.
The modified Northcott fails to teach a metallic substrate, wherein the film is deposited on the metallic substrate, wherein the metallic substrate reflects back the thermal radiation transmitted by the film containing discrete plasmonic metal nanoparticles. The modified Northcott and Hebrink are related because both teach a spectrally selective filter.
Hebrink teaches a spectrally selective filter comprising: a metallic substrate (at least [0205] teaches an optional infrared-reflective layer may be disposed between the white diffusely reflective microporous layer and the non-white color reflective mirror; Figure 16; [0209] teaches the IR-reflective layer can be made of metal), wherein the film is deposited on the metallic substrate ([0205]), wherein the metallic substrate reflects back the thermal radiation transmitted by the film containing discrete nanoparticles ([0205]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Northcott to incorporate the teachings of Hebrink and provide a metallic substrate, wherein the film is deposited on the metallic substrate, wherein the metallic substrate reflects back the thermal radiation transmitted by the film containing discrete plasmonic metal nanoparticles. Doing so would allow for reflection of some infrared light, thereby further reducing solar radiation.
Regarding claim 15, the modified Northcott discloses the filter of claim 14, wherein the metallic substrate comprises copper, zinc, aluminum, iron, nickel, and/or steel (Hebrink: [0209]).
Regarding claim 16, the modified Northcott discloses the filter of claim 14, wherein the discrete plasmonic metal nanoparticles comprises at least one of copper, gold, silver, nickel, and/or their respective oxides (col 5 lines 17-18).
Regarding claim 17, the modified Northcott discloses the filter of claim 14, wherein the discrete plasmonic metal nanoparticles have sizes between 5 nm and 1 μm (70, nanoparticle; col 5 lines 17-20 teach 70, nanoparticle, is plasmonic, and has a diameter of 20 to 200 nm).
Regarding claim 19, the modified Northcott discloses the filter of claim 14, wherein the film has a solar absorptance of greater than 0.8 (at least col 4 lines 12-16 teach reflectance of visible wavelengths of at least 70%, thus interpreted as 70% or more, which can be 70%-99%) and thermal reflectance of greater than 0.8 (col 7 lines 2-6 teach 24, infrared-transparent layer, transmits at least 80% of infrared light at wavelengths of 900 to 1000 nm).
Regarding claim 20, the modified Northcott discloses the filter of claim 14, where the combined form of the film and substrate is flat, or has the curvature of a parabola, ellipse or a sphere (Hebrink: at least Figure 1 depicts a flat shape).
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 BALRAM T PARBADIA whose telephone number is (571)270-0602. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm, Monday - Friday.
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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at (571) 272-2713. 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.
/BALRAM T PARBADIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights