DETAILED ACTION
This is an Office action based on application number 18/076,406 filed 7 December 2022, which claims priority to EP21214427.3 filed 14 December 2021. Claims 1, 3-8, and 10-17 are pending. Claims 2 and 9 are canceled.
Amendments to the claims, filed 4 December 2025, have been entered into the above-identified application.
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 .
Withdrawn Rejections
The prior art rejections, made of record in the previous Office action, are withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendments.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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, 7-8, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oshima et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. US 2005/0280898 A1) (Oshima) in view of Zhou et al. (Bioinspired Lignin-Polydopamine Nanocapsules with Strong Bioadhesion for Long-Acting and High-Performance Natural Sunscreens) and Zou et al. (Regulating the absorption spectrum of polydopamine) (Zou).
Regarding instant claims 1 and 7:
Oshima discloses a reflective sheet comprising a substrate and a light-absorbing layer composed of a black paint that enables the reflective sheet to reflect back desired wavelengths (paragraphs [0048; 0059]).
A black paint would suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art that a liquid application is within the scope of Oshima.
Oshima does not disclose a substrate covered with the polydopamine of the claims.
However, Zou discloses Zou polydopamine (PDA) with tunable light absorption properties via the direct copolymerization of 2,2,6,6-tetramethylpiperdine-1-oxyl (TEMPO). Zou teaches that the doping of TEMPO moiety into the PDA microstructures narrows energy bandgap and improves the light absorption behavior of typical PDA (page 1, second column, last paragraph). Zou teaches that the TEMPO-doped PDA were able to absorb more visible light for exhibiting higher blackness (page 3, column 1, second full paragraph). Zou teaches that PDA exhibits strong adhesive and light absorption properties (page 1, first column, first paragraph).
Additionally, Zhou discloses polydopamine-grafted lignin (AL-PDA) that act as the active ingredient in formulating sunscreen (Abstract).
Said “lignin” meets the claimed substrate, and the grafted polydopamine is construed to cover the surface of the lignin substrate to form a coating.
Zhou teaches that the combination of lignin and PDA impart excellent UV resistance, good antioxidant capacity, and photostability (page 3232, column 1, last paragraph).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of the prior art before him or her, to use the TEMPO-doped PDA of Zou as a component in the black pain of Oshima. The motivation for doing so would have been that said TEMPO-doped PDA provides enhanced ,blackness, strong adhesive properties, and strong light absorption properties. Further, it would have been obvious to graft the PDA to the lignin of Zhou. The motivation for doing so would have been to impart excellent UV resistance, good antioxidant capacity, and photostability.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Zou and Zhou with Oshima to obtain the invention as set for by the instant claims.
Regarding instant claims 6 and 13:
Figure 2 of Zhou, reproduced below, illustrates that the AL-PDA have particle sizes between 100 and 500 nm, which meets the claimed nanolignin.
PNG
media_image1.png
191
257
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding instant claim 8:
Zhou further discloses that the method for preparing the AL-PDA involves particles a suspension of said particles in a solution containing water (i.e., an aqueous solution) (page 3232, column 2, second paragraph).
Regarding instant claim 14:
Oshima discloses a reflective sheet comprising a substrate and a light-absorbing layer composed of a black paint that enables the reflective sheet to reflect back desired wavelengths (paragraphs [0048; 0059]).
A black paint would suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art that a liquid application is within the scope of Oshima.
Oshima does not disclose a substrate covered with the polydopamine of the claims.
Zhou discloses polydopamine-grafted lignin (AL-PDA) that act as the active ingredient in formulating sunscreen (Abstract).
Said “lignin” meets the claimed substrate, and the grafted polydopamine is construed to cover the surface of the lignin substrate to form a coating.
Zhou teaches that the combination of lignin and PDA impart excellent UV resistance, good antioxidant capacity, and photostability (page 3232, column 1, last paragraph).
Zhou further discloses that that the AL-PDA is formed by dissolving different amounts of AL and dopamine hydrochloride to form a suspension and adding water to said suspension (page 3232, column 2, second paragraph).
Said “dopamine hydrochloride” is construed to meet the claimed dopamine/dopamine derivative monomer.
Additionally, However, Zou discloses Zou polydopamine (PDA) with tunable light absorption properties via the direct copolymerization of 2,2,6,6-tetramethylpiperdine-1-oxyl (TEMPO). Zou teaches that the doping of TEMPO moiety into the PDA microstructures narrows energy bandgap and improves the light absorption behavior of typical PDA (page 1, second column, last paragraph). Zou teaches that the TEMPO-doped PDA were able to absorb more visible light for exhibiting higher blackness (page 3, column 1, second full paragraph). Zou teaches that PDA exhibits strong adhesive and light absorption properties (page 1, first column, first paragraph).
Applicant defines TEMPO as an oxidative catalyst in their original disclosure (see Specification at page 6, lines 8-10).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of the prior art before him or her, to use the TEMPO-doped PDA of Zou as a component in the black pain of Oshima. The motivation for doing so would have been that said TEMPO-doped PDA provides enhanced ,blackness, strong adhesive properties, and strong light absorption properties. Further, it would have been obvious to graft the PDA to the lignin of Zhou. The motivation for doing so would have been to impart excellent UV resistance, good antioxidant capacity, and photostability.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Zou and Zhou with Oshima to obtain the invention as set for by the instant claims.
Claims 3, 10, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oshima in view of Zhou and Zou as applied to claims 1, 7, 14 above, and further in view of Liu et al. (Polydopamine-coated cellulose nanocrystal as functional filler to fabricate nanocomposite hydrogel with controllable performance in response to near-infrared light) (Liu).
Regarding instant claims 3, 10, and 15:
Oshima in view of Zhou and Zou discloses the black film, liquid paint, and method as cited in the rejection of claims 1, 7, and 14, above.
Oshima in view of Zhou and Zou does not explicitly disclose a substrate comprising nanocellulose.
However, Liu discloses cellulose nanocrystals (CNCs) coated with polydopamine to endow these plant-derived nanofillers with good light absorption properties (Abstract). Liu teaches that cellulose attracts much attention because it’s the most abundant biopolymer and possesses advantages of renewability, biodegradability, and unique physiochemical properties; furthermore, CNCs are one of the most ideal fillers due to their high surface area, low density, and good mechanical strength (page 2257, first column).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of the prior art before him or her, to also use the cellulose nanocrystals of Liu as the particulate substrate in the composition of Oshima in view of Zou and Zhou. The motivation for doing so would have been that CNCs possesses advantages of renewability, biodegradability, unique physiochemical properties, high surface area, low density, and good mechanical strength. Furthermore, Liu establishes CNCs as art-recognized particulate substrates capable of carrying a polydopamine coating; therefore, the combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007). See MPEP § 2143(A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Liu with Oshima in view of Zhou and Zou to obtain the invention as specified by the instant claims.
Claims 4-5, 11-12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oshima in view of Zhou and Zou as applied to claims 1, 7, and 14 above, and further in view of Alsudir et al. (Polymer coatings for sensitive analysis of colloidal silica nanoparticles in water).
Regarding instant claims 4-5, 11-12, and 16:
Oshima in view of Zhou and Zou discloses the black film, liquid paint, and method as cited in the rejection of claims 1, 7, and 14, above.
Oshima in view of Zhou and Zou does not explicitly disclose a substrate particle inclusive of silica having a size within the visible light wavelength.
However, Alsudir discloses silica nanoparticles having increased UV light absorption through a coating composed of polydopamine (Abstract). Alsudir further discloses that SiO2 nanoparticles can be made larger in experimental conditions to offer more sensitive detection by CE-UV (page 1295, first column, first full paragraph), wherein detection is accomplished through additional absorption of UV detector light (page 1295, first column, first partial paragraph).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of the prior art before him or her, to also use the silica nanoparticles as the particulate substrate in the composition of Oshima in view of Zhou and Zou. The motivation for doing so would have been that polydopamine coated silica nanoparticles can have their sizes tailored to increase UV light absorption. Furthermore, Alsudir establishes silica nanoparticles as art-recognized particulate substrates capable of carrying a polydopamine coating for the purpose of creating a UV-absorbing composition; therefore, the combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007). See MPEP § 2143(A).
As to the claimed particle size, since the instant specification is silent to unexpected results, the specific particle size of the silica substrate is not considered to confer patentability to the claims. As the UV-absorption is a variable that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the size of the silica composition, the precise amount would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed amount cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the particle size of the silica in the prior art combination to obtain the desired UV absorption (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the 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 223).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Alsudir with Oshima in view of Zhou and Zou to obtain the invention as specified by the instant claims.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oshima in view of Zhou and Zou as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nolte et al. (US Patent Application US 2012/0037041 A1) (Nolte).
Regarding instant claim 17:
Oshima in view of Zhou and Zou discloses the black film, liquid paint, and method as cited in the rejection of claims 1, above.
Oshima in view of Zhou and Zou does not discloses a substrate inclusive of nanostructure glass, nanostructure metal, or metal foam.
However, Nolte disclose metal nanoparticles used as additives in paints to achieve particular effects such as mechanical stability, abrasion resistance, and surface characteristics (paragraph [0049]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of the prior art before him or her, to include the metal nanoparticles of Nolte into the paint composition of Oshima in view of Zhou and Zou, wherein any intimate mixture reads on the claimed substrate. The motivation for doing so would have ben to impart mechanical stability and abrasion resistance to a painted article.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Nolte with Oshima in view of Zhou and Zou to obtain the invention as specified by the instant claims.
Answers to Applicant’s Arguments
In response to Applicant’s amendments, the previous rejections over the prior art are withdrawn and replaced by new grounds of rejection.
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 Thomas A Mangohig whose telephone number is (571)270-7664. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 Eastern.
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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at (571)272-1490. 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.
/TAM/Examiner, Art Unit 1788 03/23/2026
/Alicia Chevalier/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1788
Prosecution Insights