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 .
Current Status
Claim(s) 1, 11-13 are amended.
Claim(s) 1-20 are pending. With this Office Action, claim(s) 1-16 are rejected, and claim(s) 17-20 are non-elected and withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments submitted 2/18/26 have been considered, but, respectfully, are not found persuasive.
Applicant argues, as best understood, because the specification of the application (Remarks, pp. 6-7) is different from the specifications of the Banerjee (p. 7) and Frazier (p. 8) references, the combination does not teach the claims (pp. 8-10), asserting the claims are thus not met.
With respect to the remarks, first, although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Second, the limitations of the claims were identified and correlated with the references as indicated above and in the first office action on the merits. Applicant has merely made the allegation that the limitations are not met, and has not provided any evidence or argument directed to how the identified elements in the previous action fail to meet the claimed limitations or to how the identified elements are otherwise distinguishable from the claimed limitations. Rather, Applicant has offered only generic summaries of other aspects of the references and the specification. If a prima facie case of obviousness is established, the burden shifts to the applicant to come forward with arguments and/or evidence to rebut the prima facie case. See, e.g., In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 692, 16 USPQ2d 1897, 1901 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2145.
Third, 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).
Lastly, as to blackbody radiation specifically, included herewith is NPL (hereinafter the Zeilik reference), explaining the blackbody radiation is different depending on temperature. The present specification (at para. 22-24, 28, 30, 32, esp. para. 24) seems to contemplate emission only in the infrared range; however, the sun is a blackbody radiator, and emits in IR, visible, UV, etc. (see Figs. 13.5, 13.6 in reference). So this term is very broad, and if the reference device is capable of reflecting sunlight, it meets the limitation. However, as set forth below, the Banerjee reference also contemplates reflection in both US and IR (para. 24); further the claim does not require a whole blackbody spectrum be reflected, and that does not seem the intent of the disclosed invention (see above sections of application specification), thus it is not treated as such.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-6, 8-11 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Banerjee (US Patent Publication 20100208338) in view of Frazier (US Patent Publication 20220291421).
Regarding claim 1: Banerjee teaches (figures 3, 5-6) A vehicle (for use in vehicles [0076]), comprising: a multilayer reflector (photonic structure 100), the multilayer reflector comprising a plurality of alternating layers (see fig. 3) of a first material with a first refractive index and a second material with a second refractive index, the second refractive index being higher than the first refractive index (high and low refractive index material layers 102 and 104) to reflect blackbody radiation away from the component (Banerjee, para. 24, “reflectance profile such that the optimized multilayer photonic structure reflects UV and IR light”).
Banerjee does not teach an outer shell defining an interior or a component located within the interior of the vehicle.
In a similar field of endeavor, Frazier teaches a hypersonic vehicle with an outer shell (optical window 20) that houses a component (sensor 12), and wherein a multilayer reflector is located between the outer shell and the component (optical coating layer 24 between the sensor and the optical window in figures 1 and 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the vehicle with a multilayer reflector, according to Banerjee, to have the multilayer reflector be between an outer shell and a component, as taught by Frazier, for the purposes of reducing the stray light going towards the sensor (Frazier [0054]).
Regarding claim 2: Banerjee and Frazier teach the vehicle according to claim 1, as set forth above. Banerjee does not teach wherein the vehicle is a hypersonic vehicle. Frazier further teaches wherein the vehicle is hypersonic (see figure 1 hypersonic vehicle 10).
Regarding claim 3: Banerjee and Frazier teach the vehicle according to claim 2, as set forth above. Banerjee does not teach wherein the hypersonic vehicle is a hypersonic aircraft. Frazier further teaches wherein the hypersonic vehicle is a hypersonic aircraft (see figure 1).
Regarding claim 4: Banerjee and Frazier teach the vehicle according to claim 1, as set forth above. Banerjee further teaches wherein the first material is barium fluoride and the second material is germanium (Table 1 has both material listed for use in the alternating layers).
Regarding claim 5: Banerjee and Frazier teach the vehicle according to claim 1, as set forth above. Banerjee further teaches wherein the thickness of layers of the plurality of alternating layers vary through the depth of the multilayer reflector (figs. 5-6 the thickness varies; paragraph [0062]).
Regarding claim 6: Banerjee and Frazier teach the vehicle according to claim 1, as set forth above. Banerjee does not teach wherein the component comprises an electronic component, and wherein the multilayer reflector is formed on a package for the electronic component.
Frazier further teaches wherein the component comprises an electronic component (component is a sensor 12, which is necessarily electronic), and wherein the multilayer reflector is formed on a package (formed on window substrate 22) for the electronic component. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the vehicle and multilayer film, according to Banerjee, to include an electronic component and a package, taught by Frazier, for the purposes of utilizing the sensor and decreasing the amount of stray light going towards the electronic component and sensors (Frazier [0034]).
Regarding claim 8: Banerjee and Frazier teach the vehicle according to claim 1, as set forth above. Banerjee does not teach wherein the component comprises an electronic component, and wherein the multilayer reflector is formed on a container holding the electronic component.
Frazier further teaches wherein the component comprises an electronic component (component is a sensor 12, which is necessarily electronic), and wherein the multilayer reflector is formed on a container holding the electronic component (the multilayer reflector is formed onto the optical window, which is part of the vehicle which is a container holding the electronic component). The reason for modifying the vehicle with the multilayer film being formed on the container are the same reasons as indicated in claim 6, as set forth above.
Regarding claim 9: Banerjee and Frazier teach the vehicle according to claim 1, as set forth above. Banerjee further teaches wherein the plurality of alternating layers of the multilayer reflector comprise thicknesses selected to provide a peak reflectance at an infrared wavelength (As seen in table 1, materials may be chosen and thickness may vary to suit a specific reflectance, Infrared included [0029]).
Regarding claim 10: Banerjee and Frazier teach the vehicle according to claim 1, as set forth above. Banerjee teaches wherein the multilayer reflector is positioned to reflect infrared light from a hotter source location to a cooler destination location (since the same materials are used this would be inherent to the function of the device).
Regarding claim 11: Banerjee teaches a multilayer reflector (photonic structure 100), the multilayer reflector comprising a plurality of alternating layers (see fig. 3) of a first material with a first refractive index and a second material with a second refractive index, the second refractive index being higher than the first refractive index (high and low refractive index material layers 102 and 104); wherein the plurality of alternating layers of the multilayer reflector comprise thicknesses selected to provide a peak reflectance at an infrared wavelength (As seen in table 1, materials may be chosen and thickness may vary to suit a specific reflectance, Infrared included [0029]) to reflect blackbody radiation away from the electronic component (Banerjee, para. 24, “reflectance profile such that the optimized multilayer photonic structure reflects UV and IR light”).
Banerjee does not teach wherein the multilayer reflector is part of an electronic device.
In a similar field of endeavor, Frazier teaches an electronic component ((component is a sensor 12, which is necessarily electronic) with a multilayer reflector. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the multilayer film, according to Banerjee, to have it be part of an electronic component for the for the purposes of decreasing the amount of stray light going towards the electronic component and sensors (Frazier [0034]).
Regarding claim 14: Banerjee and Frazier teach the electronic component according to claim 11, as set forth above. Banerjee further teaches wherein the first material is barium fluoride and the second material is germanium (Table 1 has both material listed for use in the alternating layers).
Regarding claim 15: Banerjee and Frazier teach the electronic component according to claim 11, as set forth above. Banerjee further teaches wherein the thickness of layers of the plurality of alternating layers vary through the depth of the multilayer reflector (figs. 5-6 the thickness varies; paragraph [0062]).
Regarding claim 16: Banerjee and Frazier teach the electronic component according to claim 11, as set forth above. Banerjee does not teach wherein the hypersonic vehicle is a hypersonic aircraft. Frazier further teaches wherein the electronic component is part of a hypersonic aircraft (see figure 1).
Claims 7 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Banerjee (US Patent Publication 20100208338) in view of Frazier (US Patent Publication 20220291421) and further in view of Toda (US Patent Publication 20200408598).
Regarding claim 7: Banerjee and Frazier teach the vehicle according to claim 1, as set forth above. Banerjee does not teach wherein the component comprises an electronic component, and wherein the multilayer reflector is formed on a die contained within a package for the electronic component.
Frazier further teaches wherein the component is an electronic component (component is a sensor 12, which is necessarily electronic). However, Frazier does not teach wherein the multilayer reflector is formed on a die contained within a package for the electronic component.
In a similar field of endeavor, Toda teaches a multilayer film formed onto a semiconductor die (figure 3, layers formed on semiconductor substrate 24), all contained within a package (semiconductor chip sensor 21). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the vehicle, according to Banerjee and Frazier, to have the multilayer film be formed onto a die in a package, as taught by Toda, for the purposes of preventing reflection within the electronic component (Toda [0062]).
Regarding claim 12: Banerjee and Frazier teach the electronic component according to claim 11, as set forth above. Banerjee does not teach the component of claim 11 further comprising a package, and wherein the multilayer reflector is formed on the package for the electronic component.
Frazier further teaches wherein the component is an electronic component (component is a sensor 12, which is necessarily electronic). However, Frazier does not teach wherein the multilayer reflector is formed on a package for the electronic component.
In a similar field of endeavor, Toda teaches a multilayer film formed onto a semiconductor die (figure 3, layers formed on semiconductor substrate 24), all contained within a package (semiconductor chip sensor 21). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the vehicle, according to Banerjee and Frazier, to have the multilayer film be formed onto a die in a package, as taught by Toda, for the purposes of preventing reflection within the electronic component (Toda [0062]).
Regarding claim 13: Banerjee and Frazier teach the electronic component according to claim 11, as set forth above. The limitations of claim 13 are substantially the same as claim 7, as set forth above, so the same rejection applies.
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 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 JENNIFER D. CARRUTH whose telephone number is (571)272-9791, who can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9:00 AM - 4:00 PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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 Supervisory Examiner Carruth by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Director Allana L Bidder, can be reached on 571-272-5560. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JENNIFER D. CARRUTH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights