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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/17/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues Steinhage fails to teach the 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 and also transmit more than 50% of one or more portions of the thermal radiation spectrum with a wavelength of 2.5-40 µm, because Steinhage relies on the layer subsequent to 3, 4, lead sulfide layer, i.e. 2, reflecting coating, to reflect the wavelengths above 2 µm. Applicant argues Steinhage does not teach nanoparticles or microparticles, but instead teaches lead sulfide and agglomerates thereof that are vapor deposited, which is known in the art to not form nanoparticles or microparticles. Applicant argues the layer of Steinhage is fundamentally different than the plasmonic nanoparticle layer of claim 14 which scatters and traps light and absorbs light energy and turns the energy into heat. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding applicant’s argument that Steinhage fails to teach the 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 and also transmit more than 50% of one or more portions of the thermal radiation spectrum with a wavelength of 2.5-40 µm, because Steinhage relies on the layer subsequent to 3, 4, lead sulfide layer, i.e. 2, reflecting coating, to reflect the wavelengths above 2 µm, at least col 2 lines 33-35 teach 6, rays, below the limiting wavelength [2 µm] are absorbed (emphasis added) by 3, 4, lead sulfide layers. The claim recites “scatter, reflect, or absorb”, and thus is considered to be taught by Steinhage.
Regarding applicant’s argument that Steinhage does not teach nanoparticles or microparticles, but instead teaches lead sulfide and agglomerates thereof that are vapor deposited, which is known in the art to not form nanoparticles or microparticles, Examiner notes that contrary to Applicant’s assertion that vapor deposition is not used for nanoparticle deposition, it is well known in the art that both physical vapor deposition and chemical vapor deposition are effective methods to deposit nanoparticles. For instance, Hebrink et al. (2023/0366642) [0165-0166] teach using vapor deposition to form nanostructures. Furthermore, Examiner notes that using broadest reasonable interpretation, the material that is used for layers 3 and 4, i.e. lead sulfide, would necessarily include particles of said material.
Regarding applicant’s argument that the layer of Steinhage is fundamentally different than the plasmonic nanoparticle layer of claim 14 which scatters and traps light and absorbs light energy and turns the energy into heat, Examiner notes that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., plasmonic nanoparticle layer that scatters and traps light and absorbs light energy and turns the energy into heat) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, and 4-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hebrink et al. (2023/0366642).
Regarding claim 1, Hebrink discloses a spectrally selective optical filter (at least Figure 1, 100, colored radiative cooling article) that blocks solar radiation (at least [0063], Figure 16 depicts high absorptivity of at least 0.5 micrometer wavelength) and transmits thermal radiation (at least Figure 16 depicts high transmittance of at least 8 micrometer wavelength) comprising: a film (100, colored radiative cooling article) comprising nanoparticles or microparticles (at least [0241]); wherein the 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 (at least Figure 16), and transmit more than 50% of one or more portions of the thermal radiation spectrum with a wavelength of 2.5-40 μm (at least Figure 16).
Regarding claim 2, Hebrink discloses the filter of claim 1, wherein the film is formed on a substrate which is shaped in a lens or an optical flat ([0098] teaches the mirrors may be deposited on a glass substrate, thus broadly interpreted as a lens or optical flat).
Regarding claim 4, Hebrink discloses the filter of claim 1, wherein the film has no significant absorptance across one or more portions of the solar and thermal wavelengths (at least Figure 16) and 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]).
Regarding claim 5, Hebrink discloses the filter of claim 4, wherein the average sizes of the nanoparticles or microparticles are less than 1 μm (at least [0085] teaches the inorganic particles have a volume average particle diameter of 5 nm to 1 micrometer).
Regarding claim 6, Hebrink discloses the filter of claim 4, wherein the film has a solar reflectance of greater than 0.8 (at least Figure 16) and thermal transmittance of greater than 0.5 (at least Figure 16).
Regarding claim 7, Hebrink discloses the filter of claim 1, wherein: the film has no significant absorptance across one or more portions of the thermal wavelengths (at least Figure 16); the film has significant absorptance across one or more portions of the solar wavelengths (at least Figure 16); and the film contains one or more of copper oxide (CuO) and iron oxide (FeO.sub.x) (at least [0066]).
Regarding claim 8, Hebrink discloses the filter of claim 7, wherein the average sizes of the nanoparticles or microparticles are less than 1 μm (at least [0085] teaches the inorganic particles have a colume average particle diameter of 5 nm o 1 micrometer).
Regarding claim 9, Hebrink discloses the filter of claim 7, wherein the film has a solar absorptance greater than 0.8 (at least Figure 16) and thermal transmittance greater than 0.6 (at least Figure 16).
Regarding claim 10, Hebrink 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 (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, Hebrink discloses the filter of claim 10, wherein the thermally reflective substrate comprises a metal ([0209]).
Regarding claim 12, Hebrink 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 (at least Figure 1 depicts a flat shape).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Steinhage et al. (4,199,218, of record).
Regarding claim 1, Steinhage discloses a spectrally selective optical filter (Figure 1) that blocks solar radiation (at least Abstract) and transmits thermal radiation (at least Abstract) comprising: a film (at least 3 and 4, finely flocked layers) comprising nanoparticles or microparticles; (at least col 2 lines 8-10 teach agglomerates of lead sulfide; Examiner notes that the material used, i.e. lead sulfide, necessarily includes nanoparticles or microparticles of the material in the composition of the layer and the agglomerates) wherein the 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 (4, finely flocked layer, absorbs 6, radiation, which has wavelengths below 2 micrometers; col 2 lines 17-18), and transmit more than 50% of one or more portions of the thermal radiation spectrum with a wavelength of 2.5-40 μm (3 and 4, finely flocked layers, transmit 5, radiation, which has wavelengths above 2 micrometers; col 2 lines 14-16).
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steinhage et al. (4,199,218, of record) in view of Chernichovski et al. (6,818,881, of record).
Regarding claim 3, Steinhage discloses the filter of claim 2, wherein the film formed on the substrate focuses or concentrates thermal radiation onto a region for detection (at least Figures 2 and 3).
Steinhage fails to teach diffusely scattering and diluting any solar radiation that is transmitted through. Steinhage and Chernichovski are related because both teach a spectrally selective filter.
Chernichovski teaches a filter including a film diffusely scattering and diluting any solar radiation that is transmitted through (col 1 lines 58-4 teach ZnS, by material property, transmits infrared radiation, while diffusion of visible and ultraviolet light).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Steinhage to incorporate the teachings of Chernichovski and provide diffusely scattering and diluting any solar radiation that is reflected off it. Doing so would allow for improved mitigation of unwanted solar radiation.
Claims 7 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steinhage et al. (4,199,218, of record) in view of Takishita et al. (2019/0148451, of record).
Regarding claim 7, Steinhage discloses the filter of claim 1, wherein: the film has no significant absorptance across one or more portions of the thermal wavelengths (Figure 1; at least Abstract); the film has significant absorptance across one or more portions of the solar wavelengths (at least Abstract).
Steinhage fails to teach wherein the film contains one or more of copper oxide (CuO) and iron oxide (FeO.sub.x). Steinhage and Takishita are related because both teach a spectrally selective filter.
Takishita teaches a filter wherein the film contains one or more of copper oxide (CuO) and iron oxide (FeO.sub.x) (at least [0071] teaches substituting PbS particles with iron oxide).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Steinhage to incorporate the teachings of Takishita and provide the film contains one or more of copper oxide (CuO) and iron oxide (FeO.sub.x). Doing so would allow for improved control of spectral properties of the filter.
Regarding claim 9, the modified Steinhage discloses the filter of claim 7, wherein the film has a solar absorptance greater than 0.8 (col 2 lines 8-10 teach 3 and 4, finely flocked layers, made of lead sulfide; Examiner notes that by material property, lead sulfide is known to have an absorptance of greater than 0.8 in portions of a wavelength range of 0.3-2.5 micrometers).
Although the modified Steinhage does not explicitly teach a thermal transmittance greater than 0.6, Examiner notes that Figure 1 depicts wavelengths greater than 2 micrometers are transmitted by the PbS layers. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the thermal transmittance to be greater than 0.6, since 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). Doing so would allow for adequate infrared radiation detected by the sensor.
Regarding claim 10, the modified Steinhage 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 (2, gold layer; Figure 1).
Regarding claim 11, the modified Steinhage discloses the filter of claim 10, wherein the thermally reflective substrate comprises a metal (2, gold layer).
Regarding claim 12, the modified Steinhage 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 (Figures 1-3).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steinhage et al. (4,199,218, of record) in view of Takishita et al. (2019/0148451, of record) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Chernichovski et al. (6,818,881, of record).
Regarding claim 13, the modified Steinhage 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 (at least Figures 2 and 3).
The modified Steinhage fails to teach diffusely scattering and diluting any solar radiation that is reflected off it. The modified Steinhage and Chernichovski are related because both teach a spectrally selective filter.
Chernichovski teaches a filter diffusely scattering and diluting any solar radiation that is reflected off it (col 1 lines 58-4 teach ZnS, by material property, transmits infrared radiation, while diffusion of visible and ultraviolet light).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have further modified Steinhage to incorporate the teachings of Chernichovski and provide diffusely scattering and diluting any solar radiation that is reflected off it. Doing so would allow for improved mitigation of unwanted solar radiation.
Claims 14-17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steinhage et al. (4,199,218, of record) in view of Takishita et al. (2019/0148451, of record) in view of Kamada et al. (2013/0260139).
Regarding claim 14, Steinhage discloses a spectrally selective filter (Figure 1) that absorbs solar radiation (at least Abstract) and reflects thermal radiation (at least Abstract) comprising: a film (3 and 4, finely flocked layers) optimized to scatter, trap and strongly absorb one or more portions of the solar spectrum with of wavelength of 0.3-2.5 μm (4, finely flocked layer, absorbs 6, radiation, which has wavelengths below 2 micrometers; col 2 lines 17-18) and substantially transmits one or more portions of the thermal radiation spectrum with a wavelength of 2.5-40 μm (3 and 4, finely flocked layers, transmit 5, radiation, which has wavelengths above 2 micrometers; col 2 lines 14-16); and a metallic substrate underneath the film (2, gold layer), which reflects back the thermal radiation transmitted by the film (Figure 1, col 2 lines 15-16).
Steinhage fails to teach the film containing plasmonic metal nanoparticles; wherein the plasmonic metal nanoparticles are arranged randomly, or hierarchically in random clusters. Steinhage and Takishita are related because both teach a spectrally selective filter.
Takishita teaches a spectrally selective filter comprising a film containing plasmonic metal nanoparticles (at least [0083-0084] teach substituting PbS particles with Ag particles, which Examiner notes is known by material property to be a plasmonic metal).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Steinhage to incorporate the teachings of Takishita and provide the film containing plasmonic metal nanoparticles. Doing so would allow for improved control of spectral properties of the filter.
The modified Steinhage fails to teach wherein the plasmonic metal nanoparticles are arranged randomly, or hierarchically in random clusters. The modified Steinhage and Kamada are related because each teach a spectrally selective filter.
Kamada teaches a spectrally selective filter wherein the 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 further modified Steinhage to incorporate the teachings of Kamada and provide wherein the 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.
Regarding claim 15, the modified Steinhage discloses the filter of claim 14, wherein the metal substrate comprises copper, zinc, aluminum, iron, nickel, and/or steel (col 2 lines 10-11 teach the coating is formed with gold and aluminum).
Regarding claim 16, the modified Steinhage discloses the filter of claim 14, wherein the plasmonic metal nanoparticles comprises at least one of copper, gold, silver, nickel, and/or their respective oxides (Takishita: at least [0083-0084] teach substituting PbS particles with Ag particles, which Examiner notes is known by material property to be a plasmonic metal).
Regarding claim 17, the modified Steinhage discloses the filter of claim 14, wherein the plasmonic metal nanoparticles have sizes between 5 nm and 1 μm (Takishita: at least [0069]).
Regarding claim 19, the modified Steinhage discloses the filter of claim 14, wherein the film has a solar absorptance of greater than 0.8 (col 2 lines 8-10 teach 3 and 4, finely flocked layers, made of lead sulfide; Examiner notes that by material property, lead sulfide is known to have an absorptance of greater than 0.8 in portions of a wavelength range of 0.3-2.5 micrometers) and thermal reflectance of greater than 0.8 (2, gold layer, is made of gold, which is known by material property to have reflective values reaching 98-99% across the infrared spectrum of 0.7-10 micrometers).
Regarding claim 20, the modified Steinhage 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 (Figures 1-3).
Conclusion
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