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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/05/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the RCE filed on 03/05/2026.
Claims 1, 6, 8-13 and 15-20 are presently pending; claims 2-5, 7 and 14 are canceled; claims 18-20 are withdrawn; claim 1 is amended; claims 1, 6, 8-13 and 15-17 are under examination.
The objections to the abstract and specification are withdrawn in light of the amendments to the abstract and specification.
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 1, 6, 8, 10-11 and 13-17 over WANG in view of DAI, claim 9 over WANG in view of DAI and SHEFELBINE, claims 1, 6, 8 and 10-13 and 15-17 over DAI in view of XU and MECKLER, and claim 9 over DAI in view of XU, MECKLER and SHEFELBINE are withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims; the rejection of claim 14 is moot as this claim has been canceled.
New grounds of rejection are present herein in light of the amendments to the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 6, 8, 10-13 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ma, et al., “Effects of Stokes shift and Purcell enhancement on fluorescence-assisted radiative cooling”, Journal of Materials Chemistry A, published 24 May 2022 (hereinafter, “MA”), with evidence from “Ti-Pure™ Titanium Dioxide Product Overview”, Chemours, pg. 17 (hereinafter, “TI”) as to the rejection of claim 8.
Regarding claim 1, MA teaches a coating composition for reducing heat gain of an article (see MA at Abstract; it is noted that “for reducing heat gain of an article” is merely a recitation of an intended use of the composition and is therefore not considered to limit the present claim) comprising:
TiO2 particles (see MA at “Results and discussion”, pg. 19636);
hollow glass microspheres (see MA at “Results and discussion”, pg. 19637);
phosphor material particles having a quantum yield of at least about 90% and an excitation wavelength range from about 250 nm to about 440 nm, said excitation wavelength range matching that of the TiO2 particles, thereby enhancing heat gain reduction of the coating composition (see MA at “Results and discussion”, pg. 19637, teaching an excitation wavelength of about 90%); and
a polymer matrix (see MA at “Results and discussion”, pg. 19637);
wherein the TiO2 particles have a weight percentage of about 10%wt to about 30%wt with respect to the coating composition (see MA at “Results and discussion” and “Experimental”, pg. 19639, teaching combining 20 g of poly-styrene-acrylic emulsion, 12 g of TiO2, 0.4 g dispersant agent, 0.2 g suspension agent, 0.24 g leveling agent, 3 g hollow glass microspheres, 0.4 g anti foaming agent, 1 g film-forming agent, 2 g of BAM and an appropriate amount of water in a 50 mL beaker; i.e., a TiO2 content of 30 wt% not accounting for water; see Applicant’s specification at paragraphs [00117] and [00122] disclosing the identical composition resulting in the claimed weight percentage);
and the phosphor material particles are BaMgAl10O17:Eu2+ (see MA at “Results and discussion”, pg. 19637)
having a weight percentage of about 4 wt% to about 8 wt% with respect to the coating composition (see MA at “Results and discussion” and “Experimental”, pg. 19639, teaching combining 20 g of poly-styrene-acrylic emulsion, 12 g of TiO2, 0.4 g dispersant agent, 0.2 g suspension agent, 0.24 g leveling agent, 3 g hollow glass microspheres, 0.4 g anti foaming agent, 1 g film-forming agent, 2 g of BAM and an appropriate amount of water in a 50 mL beaker; i.e., a BAM content of about 5 wt% not accounting for water; see Applicant’s specification at paragraphs [0011], [00117] and [00122] disclosing the identical composition resulting in the claimed weight percentage);
wherein the TiO2 particles and the phosphor material particles are sized and formulated relative to each other such that the TiO2 particles adhere to and assemble into a dielectric shell around the phosphor material particles, the coated phosphor material particles having a Purcell factor of about 2.6 (see MA at Fig. 1a, pg. 19636, and “Results and Discussion” and pg. 19636-19637).
Regarding claim 6, MA teaches a coating composition according to claim 1, wherein the phosphor material has a particle size of about 8 μm to about 15 μm (see MA at Fig. 1b, pg. 19636, showing a phosphor particle with a size of around 10 μm).
Regarding claim 8, MA teaches a coating composition according to claim 1, wherein the TiO2 particles comprise a rutile crystal structure, an anatase crystal structure, or a mixture thereof (see MA at “Experimental”, pg. 19639, teaching Ti-Pure™ R902 TiO2 nanoparticles, which have a rutile crystal structure as evidenced by TI; see TI at pg. 17).
Regarding claim 10, MA teaches a coating composition according to claim 1, wherein the polymer comprises polystyrene, polyacrylate, polyalkylacrylate, polymethacrylate, polyalkylmethacrylate, polycarbonate, polyacryclic acid, polymethacrylic acid, or mixtures thereof, or copolymers thereof (see MA at “Results and discussion”, pg. 19636, teaching poly-styrene-acrylic emulsion).
Regarding claim 11, MA teaches a coating composition according to claim 1, wherein the polymer is polystyrene acrylic emulsion polymer (see MA at “Results and discussion”, pg. 19636).
Regarding claim 12, MA teaches a coating composition according to claim 1, wherein the polymer has a weight percentage of about 45%wt to about 60%wt with respect to the coating composition (see MA at “Results and discussion” and “Experimental”, pg. 19639, teaching combining 20 g of poly-styrene-acrylic emulsion, 12 g of TiO2, 0.4 g dispersant agent, 0.2 g suspension agent, 0.24 g leveling agent, 3 g hollow glass microspheres, 0.4 g anti foaming agent, 1 g film-forming agent, 2 g of BAM and an appropriate amount of water in a 50 mL beaker; i.e., a BAM content of about 5 wt% not accounting for water; see Applicant’s specification at paragraphs [0016], [00117] and [00122] disclosing the identical composition resulting in the claimed weight percentage).
Regarding claim 13, MA teaches a coating composition according to claim 1, wherein the coating composition, when applied on the article. MA does not explicitly teach that the coating composition reduces the heat gain of the article by at least about 15 °C; however, this limitation regarding the composition being applied to an article is a recitation of an intended use of the composition and is therefore not considered to limit the present product claim. MA teaches a coating composition as claimed by the present claim, therefore the coating composition of MA would be expected to exhibit the same properties as the claimed coating composition, including capacity for heat gain reduction when applied to an article. MPEP § 2112.01 (I) states that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP § 2112.01 (II) states that “Products of identical chemical composition cannot 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.
Regarding claim 15, MA teaches a coating composition according to claim 1, wherein the coating composition has an enhanced net cooling power by about 28 W/m2 caused by the presence of phosphor material (see MA at “Results and discussion”, pg. 19639).
Regarding claim 16, MA teaches a coating composition according to claim 1. The limitation of an article on which the coating composition is applied comprising infrastructure, clothing, or an automobile is merely a recitation of an intended use of the composition, and is therefore not considered to limit the present product claim.
Regarding claim 17, MA teaches a coating composition according to claim 1, further comprising a mixture of a dispersant agent, an antifoaming agent, a suspending agent, a levelling agent, a film-forming agent, water, or a mixture thereof (see MA at “Experimental”, pg. 19639).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MA in view of Shefelbine, et al. (WO-2019060492-A1) (hereinafter, “SHEFELBINE”).
Regarding claim 9, as applied to claim 1 above MA teaches a coating composition according to claim 1.
MA fails to explicitly teach that the hollow glass microspheres comprise a coating selected from the group consisting of silver, nickel, zinc(II) oxide, TiO2 with the anatase form, TiO2 with the rutile form, and a combination thereof.
However, it is known in the art to use coated hollow glass microspheres in coating compositions. SHEFELBINE teaches coating compositions comprising hollow glass microspheres (see SHEFELBINE at Abstract), wherein zinc oxide is added to the surface of the glass microspheres in order to improve glass chemical stability (see at SHEFELBINE paragraphs [0016] and [0020]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the coating composition of MA by simply substituting the hollow glass microspheres with zinc oxide coated hollow glass microspheres, as taught by SHEFELBINE (see SHEFELBINE at paragraphs [0016] and [0020]). One of ordinary skill in the art could have made such a substitution with a reasonable expectation of success, yielding the predictable result providing glass microspheres as a filler material for the coating composition. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use hollow microspheres having a zinc oxide coating for the benefit of improving the chemical stability of the glass, as taught by SHEFELBINE (see at SHEFELBINE paragraphs [0016] and [0020]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 03/05/2026 with respect to claim(s) 1, 6, 8-13 and 15-17 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new combination of references as set forth in the grounds of rejection above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH CATHERINE CASE whose telephone number is (703)756-5406. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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, Amber Orlando can be reached on 571-270-3149. 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.
/S.C.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1731
/ANTHONY J GREEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731