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 14-15 are pending. Claims 2, 9-13, and 16-17 are canceled.
Amendments to the claims, filed 14 September 2026, 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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 14 September 2026 has been entered.
Withdrawn Rejections
The 35 U.S.C. §103 rejection of claims 4-5, 7-8, 14-15, made of record in the previous Office action, are withdrawn due to Applicant’s arguments.
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 and 6 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 claim 1:
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 since the light-absorbing layer absorbs the light transmitted through the optical laminate and prevents reflection of said transmitted light (paragraphs [0048; 0059]).
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.
As to the claimed reflectance, Oshima discloses that the light-absorbing layer comprising the black paint prevents reflection of light transmitted through the optical laminated since the light absorbing layer absorbs the light. Zou teaches that the doping of TEMPO moiety into the PDA microstructures narrows energy bandgap and improves the light absorption behavior of typical. Zou teaches that the TEMPO-doped PDA were able to absorb more visible light for exhibiting higher blackness. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily conclude that the prior art combination desires a light-absorbing layer that absorbs as much light as possible (conversely reflecting as little light as possible). Furthermore, given the same intent and the substantially identical composition and structure, one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude that the prior art combination encompasses an embodiment that is substantially identical to the claims (i.e., a black film having a reflectance of less than 0.5%).
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 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "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). See MPEP §2112.01(I).
Regarding instant claim 6:
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
Claim 3 is 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 claim 3:
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 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 are 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 Mitina et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. US 2010/0288963 A1) (Mitina).
Regarding instant claims 4-5:
Oshima in view of Zhou and Zou discloses the black film as cited in the rejection of claim 1, 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, Mitina discloses silica nanoparticles and polymer compositions comprising said nanoparticles (paragraph [0002]), wherein said compositions are inclusive of water-based paints having improved scratch resistance, and dirt pick-up resistance (paragraph [0020]).
Mitina further discloses that the silica particles are 1 micron or smaller (paragraph [0058) (i.e., inclusive of an average size in a wavelength of visible light).
Before the effective filing date of the claims, 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 silica nanoparticles of Mitina into the black film of Oshima in view of Zhou and Zou, wherein any intimate mixture of the components results in the claimed substrate particles covered with polydopamine or polymerized dopamine derivative. The motivation for doing so would have been to produce a film having improved scratch resistance and dirt pickup.
Claims 7-8 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oshima in view of Zou and Mitina.
Regarding instant claims 7-8 and 14-15:
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, Mitina discloses silica nanoparticles and polymer compositions comprising said nanoparticles (paragraph [0002]), wherein said compositions are inclusive of water-based paints having improved scratch resistance, and dirt pick-up resistance (paragraph [0020]).
The disclosure of water-based paints would indicate that the silica nanoparticle dissolved in an aqueous solution are within the scope of the prior art.
Mitina further discloses that the silica particles are 1 micron or smaller (paragraph [0058) (i.e., inclusive of an average size in a wavelength of visible light).
Before the effective filing date of the claims, 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 silica nanoparticles of Mitina into the black film of Oshima in view of Zhou and Zou, wherein any intimate mixture of the components results in the claimed substrate particles covered with polydopamine or polymerized dopamine derivative. The motivation for doing so would have been to produce a film having improved scratch resistance and dirt pickup.
Answers to Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the prior art rejections based on the teachings of Oshima are fully considered, but are unpersuasive.
Applicant contends that the prior art fails to render obvious the limitations of claim 1, which recites that “the film has a reflectance of less than 0.5%.” Applicant argues that Oshima is directed to a reflective screen having a reflectance of 50% or more with respect to red, green, and blue (i.e., visible light).
Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive. While the entirety of Oshima is concerned with a reflective screen having a reflectance outside of the claimed range, the prior art rejection of record cites a portion of Oshima’s structure, i.e., the light-absorbing layer composed of a black paint that enables the reflective sheet to reflect back desired wavelengths since the light-absorbing layer absorbs the light transmitted through the optical laminate and prevents reflection of said transmitted light.
As both Oshima and Zou teach a composition and structure that desirably absorbs light, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily conclude that the prior art combination desires a light-absorbing layer that absorbs as much light as possible (conversely reflecting as little light as possible). Furthermore, given the same intent and the substantially identical composition and structure, one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude that the prior art combination encompasses an embodiment that is substantially identical to the claims (i.e., a black film having a reflectance of less than 0.5%).
Applicant’s arguments regarding the prior art rejections relying on the teachings of Alsudir et al. (Polymer coatings for sensitive analysis of colloidal silica nanoparticles in water) are fully considered, but are moot since those rejections are withdrawn and replaced by new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
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 09/17/2026
/HUMERA N. SHEIKH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights