DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
Claim(s) 1-29 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 1-29 is/are rejected.
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 .
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 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.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120 as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 17/496,528, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
Parent Application No. 17/496,528 fails to disclose the use of latex binders (claims 16-18, 25).
Therefore, claims 1-15, 19-24, 26-29 have an effective filing date of 10/07/2021.
However, claims 16-18, 25 have an effective filing date of 02/15/2023.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 5 is vague and indefinite because the claim language “the third pigmented component is configured to absorb energy of an electromagnetic spectrum in at least one of ultraviolet and visible ranges of the electromagnetic spectrum and is configured to emit energy in the visible range of the electromagnetic spectrum” appears to be inconsistent with claim 1 which requires “the third pigmented component is configured to absorb energy in a visible range of the electromagnetic spectrum and emit energy in an infrared range of the electromagnetic spectrum” in parent claim 1.
Additionally and/or alternatively, claim 5 is vague and indefinite because it is unclear whether claim 5 requires that the third pigmented composition to simultaneously satisfy the two limitations: (i) “the third pigmented component is configured to absorb energy in a visible range of the electromagnetic spectrum and emit energy in an infrared range of the electromagnetic spectrum” (claim 1); and (ii) “the third pigmented component is configured to absorb energy of an electromagnetic spectrum in at least one of ultraviolet and visible ranges of the electromagnetic spectrum and is configured to emit energy in the visible range of the electromagnetic spectrum” (claim 5).
NOTE: Claim 5 may be subject to rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 after the outstanding rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, are fully resolved.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 (AIA )
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-17, 19-24, 26-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
• VAN OVERMEERE ET AL (US 2020/0095429),
in view DAI ET AL (US 2021/0131708),
and in view of COLORED RADIATIVE COOLING COATINGS WITH FLUORESCENCE,
and in view of ZALICH ET AL (US 2017/0342278).
VAN OVERMEERE ET AL ‘429 discloses radiative cooling coating formulation, wherein the coating formulation comprises:
• a first component (e.g., a pigment) with >55% reflectance in a wavelengths range of 0.3 to 2.5 microns (wherein in certain embodiments, the first component has >95% reflectance in the wavelengths range of 0.3 to 2.5 microns). (e.g., polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE); barium sulfate; zinc oxides; aluminum oxides; magnesium oxides; TiO2; etc.) (corresponding to the recited “first component”);
• a second component (e.g., one or more polymeric binders) with >0.85 peak thermal emissivity in a window range of 4 to 35 microns (wherein in certain embodiments, the second component has >0.85 peak thermal emissivity in a window range of 8 to 13 microns) (e.g., ethyl cellulose; poly ethyl methacrylate (PEMA); poly methyl methacrylate (PMMA); polyvinyl butyral (PVB), cellulose acetate; polyethylene; polypropylene; polyethylene terephthalate (PET); polyethylene naphthalate (PEN); polyesters; polycarbonates; etc.) (corresponding to the recited “second component”);
• an additional pigment component (e.g., but not limited to, a white pigment, a reflective pigment, etc.) (corresponding to the recited “third pigmented component”);
• a third component (e.g., one or more polymeric binders) to mechanically bind together a mixture of the first and second components (corresponding to the recited “fourth component configured to mechanically bind”);
wherein the polymeric binder(s) in the coating formulation can be in the form of an aqueous emulsion (corresponding to the recited “latex”) of the polymeric binder(s). In the radiative cooling formulation, two or more of the first, second and third components can comprise the same material. The radiative cooling formulation can be used to form a passive radiative cooling apparatus (e.g., by applying the radiative cooling formulation to a surface to form a passive radiative cooling coating) using known painting technologies (e.g., brushing, spraying, rolling, dipping, doctor blading, etc.), wherein the coating of the radiative cooling formulation can comprise:
• a single layer (Figure 5A) containing the first component, second component, and third component; or
• a multilayer structure (Figure 5B) containing the first component, second component, and third component distributed therein;
The coating formed from the radiative cooling formulation provides a passive radiative cooling of at least 5 ºC below ambient temperature when solar illumination is present on the coating and without input of water or electricity. (entire document, e.g., Figures 1A-1D, 5A-5B, etc.; paragraph 0004, 0006-0016, 0018, 0022-0026, 0049, 0051-0066, 0071-0075, 0098-0106, etc.; claims 1-20, etc.) However, the reference does not specifically discuss the recited “pigmented component configured to emit at least a fraction of absorbed energy”.
DAI ET AL ‘708 discloses that it is well known in the art to incorporate fluorescent pigments in sub-ambient daytime radiative cooling (SDRC) coating compositions in order to improve the effective solar reflectance (ESR) and IR emissivity, and thereby reduce the overall solar absorption compared to coatings without fluorescent pigments. (paragraph 0002-0005, 0006-0007, 0015-0017, 0027-0029, 0056-0063, 0066-0067, 0078-0084, etc.)
COLORED RADIATIVE COOLING COATINGS WITH FLUORESCENCE discloses that it is well known in the art to utilize phosphors or quantum dots as photoluminescent (e.g., fluorescent) coloring agents for passive radiative cooling materials instead of conventional fluorescent pigments in order to improve the efficiency of the radiative cooling material, in addition to providing useful coloring agents for the radiative cooling material. The reference further discloses that phosphors and quantum dots generally absorb shorter wavelengths and emit longer wavelengths (i.e., down-conversion) -- for example: absorbing visible light and emitting near-IR (corresponding to the recited “third pigmented component is configured to absorb energy in a visible range of the electromagnetic spectrum and emit energy in an infrared range of the electromagnetic spectrum”); absorbing invisible UV and emitting visible (e.g., blue) light; etc. The reference further discloses that the ability of phosphors and quantum dots to absorb and/or emit specific bandwidths of visible light wavelengths allow the phosphors and quantum dots to impart a wide range of attractive colorations to the radiative cooling material while simultaneously improving radiative cooling efficiency, particularly when the optical properties and emission characteristics of quantum dots can be readily tuned (e.g., by varying dot size, etc.). (section 1, 2.5, 4.5, 5, etc.).
ZALICH ET AL ‘278) discloses that it is well known in the art to incorporate infrared (IR) fluorescent pigments capable of absorbing visible light wavelengths and emitting in the IR range (including, but not limited to the near-infrared (NIR) range) (corresponding to the recited “third pigmented component is configured to absorb energy in a visible range of the electromagnetic spectrum and emit energy in an infrared range of the electromagnetic spectrum”) -- e.g., but not limited to: semiconductor phosphors; colored pigments such as Egyptian blue, Han blue, Han purple, indigo, lazurite, cadmium red; etc.) in passive temperature-reducing coatings in order to provide colored articles which remain cooler in the sun compared to articles colored with conventional, non-fluorescent pigments.. (paragraph 0061-0076, etc.)
Regarding claims 1, 4, 7-17, 19-24, 26-29, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize known infrared (IR) fluorescent pigments which absorb visible wavelengths (thereby providing visible coloration) and emit in the IR range (which includes the near-infrared (NIR) range) (corresponding to the recited “third pigmented component is configured to absorb energy in a visible range of the electromagnetic spectrum and emit energy in an infrared range of the electromagnetic spectrum”) as suggested in ZALICH ET AL ‘278 and COLORED RADIATIVE COOLING COATINGS WITH FLUORESCENCE as the additional pigment component in the radiative cooling formulation of VAN OVERMEERE ET AL ‘429 to form visually attractive (e.g., colored) passive radiative cooling articles with superior radiative cooling performance relative to the same radiative cooling formulation without the fluorescent pigments and also provides radiative cooling coatings which exhibit temperatures below ambient temperature when exposed outdoors (as suggested by DAI ET AL ‘708).
Regarding claims 2-3, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize known photoluminescent materials exhibiting fluorescence (e.g., phosphors or quantum dots) (corresponding to the recited “third pigmented component is configured to absorb energy in a visible range of the electromagnetic spectrum and emit energy in an infrared range of the electromagnetic spectrum”) as suggested in ZALICH ET AL ‘278 and COLORED RADIATIVE COOLING COATINGS WITH FLUORESCENCE as an IR-fluorescent additional pigment component in the radiative cooling formulation of VAN OVERMEERE ET AL ‘429 to form passive radiative cooling articles with improved radiative cooling performance (relative to the same radiative cooling formulation without the fluorescent pigments, or relative to the same radiative cooling formulation with conventional fluorescent pigments), while simultaneously imparting a wide range of attractive colorations to the radiative cooling coatings (compared to conventional fluorescent pigments with limited color-altering capabilities).
Regarding claim 4, one of ordinary skill in the art would have selected cost-effective, functional amounts of known IR-fluorescent pigments in the radiative cooling formulation of VAN OVERMEERE ET AL ‘429 in order to obtain the specific effective solar reflectance (ESR) performance, IR emissivity, and reduced overall solar absorption for specific applications while avoiding the use of excessive amounts of relatively expensive materials (e.g., the IR-fluorescent pigments).
Regarding claim 6, one of ordinary skill in the art would have minimized the amount of IR-fluorescent pigments in the radiative cooling formulation of VAN OVERMEERE ET AL ‘429 in order to reduce overall material costs (from the relatively expensive IR-fluorescent pigments ) while still obtaining the specific effective solar reflectance (ESR) performance, IR emissivity, and reduced overall solar absorption for specific applications.
Regarding claim 10, since VAN OVERMEERE ET AL ‘429 discloses two or more of the first component (corresponding to the recited “first component”), the second component (corresponding to the recited “second component”) and/or the third component (corresponding to the recited “fourth component configured to mechanically bind”) can comprise the same material; VAN OVERMEERE ET AL ‘429 disclose radiative cooling formulations in which the first component (corresponding to the recited “first component”) and the third component (corresponding to the recited “fourth component configured to mechanically bind”) can comprise the same material in order to minimize the number of disparate materials in the radiative cooling formulation (and thereby minimize performance issues related to incompatibility between components)..
Regarding claim 11, since VAN OVERMEERE ET AL ‘429 discloses two or more of the first component (corresponding to the recited “first component”), the second component (corresponding to the recited “second component”) and/or the third component (corresponding to the recited “fourth component configured to mechanically bind”) can comprise the same material, VAN OVERMEERE ET AL ‘429 disclose radiative cooling formulations in which the second component (corresponding to the recited “second component”) and the third component (corresponding to the recited “fourth component configured to mechanically bind”) can comprise the same material in order to minimize the number of disparate materials in the radiative cooling formulation (and thereby minimize performance issues related to incompatibility between components).
Regarding claims 21, 28, since VAN OVERMEERE ET AL ‘429 discloses that the radiative cooling formulation can be a single layer containing the first component (corresponding to the recited “first component”), the second component (corresponding to the recited “second component”), and the third component (corresponding to the recited “fourth component configured to mechanically bind”), one of ordinary skill in the art would have also incorporated an IR-fluorescent additional pigment component (corresponding to the recited “third pigmented component is configured to absorb energy in a visible range of the electromagnetic spectrum and emit energy in an infrared range of the electromagnetic spectrum”) (as suggested in ZALICH ET AL ‘278 and COLORED RADIATIVE COOLING COATINGS WITH FLUORESCENCE) in the same single layer containing the second component (corresponding to the recited “second component”) of VAN OVERMEERE ET AL ‘429, wherein the single layer is applied by conventional coating methods using a single application step.
Regarding claims 22, 29, since VAN OVERMEERE ET AL ‘429 discloses that the radiative cooling formulation can be a multilayer structure containing the first component (corresponding to the recited “first component”), the second component (corresponding to the recited “second component”), and the third component (corresponding to the recited “fourth component configured to mechanically bind”) distributed5 therein, one of ordinary skill in the art would have distributed the first component (corresponding to the recited “first component”), the second component (corresponding to the recited “second component”), and the third component (corresponding to the recited “fourth component configured to mechanically bind”) in different layers of the multilayer radiative cooling formulation of VAN OVERMEERE ET AL ‘429 in order to more easily tailor the absorption and/or emission characteristics of individual layers and/or more easily optimize the performance properties (e.g., adhesion, durability, scratch resistance, hardness, flexibility, impact resistance, hydrophobic properties, stain resistance, chemical resistance, UV resistance, etc.) of individual layers (e.g., base layers versus top layers, etc.) for specific applications (e.g., roofs, tarps, automobile exteriors, etc.), wherein the different layers are applied by conventional coating methods in separate application steps.
Claim(s) 16-18, 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
• VAN OVERMEERE ET AL (US 2020/0095429), in view DAI ET AL (US 2021/0131708), and in view of COLORED RADIATIVE COOLING COATINGS WITH FLUORESCENCE, and in view of ZALICH ET AL (US 2017/0342278),
as applied to claim 1, 16-17, 19 above,
and further in view of JAHNS ET AL (US 2020/0362149).
JAHNS ET AL ‘149 disclose that it is well known in the art to utilize aqueous copolymer latex as a binder for durable, flexible coatings for outdoor surfaces (e.g., roofs, etc.), wherein the copolymer comprises:
• 25-70 wt% (preferably 10-35 wt%) of a first monomer M1 (e.g. vinyl aromatic compounds, such as styrene, etc.);
• at least 10 wt% (preferable 20-75 wt%) of a second monomer M2 (e.g., alkyl (meth)acrylates, etc.).
(paragraph 0001-0002, 0034, 0045-0046, 0048, 0050-0051, etc.)
Regarding claims 16-18, 25, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize known styrene-(meth)acrylate polymers as suggested in JAHNS ET AL ‘149 with the required thermal emissivity as at least the second component (corresponding to the recited “second component”) in the radiative cooling formulation of VAN OVERMEERE ET AL ‘429 in order to provide durable, flexible coatings for outdoor surfaces.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 10/02/2025 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the Claim Amendments filed 10/02/2025.
(A) In particular, Applicant argues that “Dai at least does not teach the recited third pigmented component configured to emit at least a fraction of absorbed energy, wherein the third pigmented component is configured to absorb energy in a visible range of the electromagnetic spectrum and emit energy in an infrared range of the electromagnetic spectrum of amended claim 1” and “Dai therefore does not teach or suggest a third pigmented component configured to absorb in the visible and emit in the infrared as required by the pending claims.” However, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
(B) Applicant argues that COLORED RADIATIVE COOLING COATINGS WITH FLUORESCENCE and JAHNS ET AL ‘149 fail to remedy the alleged deficiencies of VAN OVERMEERE ET AL ‘429 and DAI ET AL ‘708. Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the Claim Amendments filed 10/02/2025.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
ZALICH ET AL (US 2017/0342278) and ZALICH ET AL (US 2020/0190337) and ZALICH ET AL (US 2021/0163759) disclose temperature-reducing coatings containing IR fluorescent pigment.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Vivian Chen (Vivian.chen@uspto.gov) whose telephone number is (571) 272-1506. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Thursday from 8:30 AM to 6 PM. The examiner can also be reached on alternate Fridays.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Callie Shosho, can be reached on (571) 272-1123. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
The General Information telephone number for Technology Center 1700 is (571) 272-1700.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
February 7, 2026
/Vivian Chen/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights