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 .
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
Claims 1-20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 and its dependents are rejected because it is not clear what is meant by “at least partly crosslinked polymer” because the crosslinking level is not defined. Furthermore, it is not clear how the prepolymer of formula (I) may be crosslinked.
Clarification is required. Clarification is also required with respect to how does one determine “a first spectral wavelength “.
Claim 4 is rejected because it is not clear what constitutes titanium dioxide in the form of TiOx. Clarification is required.
Claim 16 is rejected because it is not clear what constitutes “microstructured form”. Clarification is required.
Claim 20 is rejected because silicon dioxide is an inorganic oxide. Also is applicant claiming all of the reflection layers or just one layer. Clarification is required.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7-10, 12, 13, 15 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hurst (US 20170121219-appears on PTO-892).
Hurst teaches a method for planarization of a coated glass substrate by deposition of a silazane based layer thereon (see abstract). In the instant claim 1, a silazane would be a prepolymer of formula (I) wherein A is N, m1 and m2 are 0 and R1 and R2 are H or hydrocarbyl (see para 0012). In Hurst, the at least one layer based on one or more silazane has a thickness of at least 10 nm up to 800nm (see para 0015). The method may further comprise partially or completely converting the at least one layer based on one or more silazane to at least one layer based on silica and/or an organo silica (see para 0016). The conversion may comprise heating the glass at at least 100 C. The heating ensures that the layer based on the one or more silazane is cured to form a well adhered solid coating and provides for the crosslinking (see para 0018). The underlayer of Hurst preferably comprises at least one layer based on a transparent conductive coating (TCC). Preferably the TCC is a transparent conductive oxide (TCO) (see para 0025). The underlayer further comprises at least one further layer, wherein said at least one further layer is based on an oxide of a metal or of a metalloid, such as SiO.sub.2, SnO.sub.2, TiO.sub.2, silicon oxynitride and/or aluminum oxide. One layer of said at least one layer based on an oxide of a metal or of a metalloid is preferably located in direct contact with said major surface of said glass pane (see para 0027).
In some embodiments of Hurst the underlayer comprises more than one silver-based functional layer (reflective layer). For example, the underlayer may comprise two, three or more silver-based functional layers. When the underlayer comprises more than one silver-based functional layer, each silver-based functional layer may be spaced apart from an adjacent silver-based functional layer by a central anti-reflection layer (see para 0045). Hurst teaches various ways that the layers may be arranged (see para 0046-0047). Hurst meets the limitations of the claims other than the differences that are set forth below.
Hurst does not specifically teach that the glass substrate is a passive radiant cooler. However, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
With respect to the spectral wavelengths, reflectivity and emissivity, it would be reasonable to expect that Hurst meets these limitations since he teaches a reflective layer and an emissive layer that are within the scope of the present invention and these materials would possess the claimed reflectivity and emissivity at the claimed wavelengths.
Claims 1-5, 8-13, 15, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iyer (US 20130220682-appears on PTO-892).
Iyers teaches a silver-containing conductive member disposed on a portion of a surface of chemically-strengthened glass, wherein the conductive member comprises silver (reflective layer); disposing a layer comprising a curable polysilazane (emissive layer) onto at least a portion of the conductive member and at least a portion of the surface of the chemically-strengthened glass adjacent to the conductive member; and curing the curable polysilazane (see abstract; para 0019). The polysilazane comprises the groups set forth at paragraphs 0037.
Iyer teaches that a solution of the curable polysilazane is coated (1.08 mils (27 microns) nominal wet thickness) onto a piece of the chemically-strengthened glass from that has silver traces thereon. The silver traces are patterned to form a ladder with broken rungs separated by one millimeter. The silver traces are approximately 5-6 microns in thickness (see para 0047-0048). Iyer meets the limitations of the claims other than the differences that are set forth below.
Iyer does not specifically teach that the glass substrate is a passive radiant cooler. However, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
With respect to the spectral wavelengths, reflectivity and emissivity, it would be reasonable to expect that Iyer meets these limitations since he teaches a reflective layer and an emissive layer that are within the scope of the present invention and these materials would possess the claimed reflectivity and emissivity at the claimed wavelengths.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is cited for teaching the general state of the art and is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CEPHIA D TOOMER whose telephone number is (571)272-1126. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Prem Singh can be reached at 571-272-6368. 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.
/CEPHIA D TOOMER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771 18268353/20260119