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 .
Response to Amendment/ Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 02/27/2026, with respect to claims 1 and 16 have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Response to Amendment
The affidavit under 37 CFR 1.130 filed 02/27/2026 is sufficient to overcome the rejection of claim 1 based upon 35 USC § 102(a)(1). The rejection of claim 1 has been withdrawn. However, upon further review and consideration, a new rejection is proffered below.
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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-8,11,15,17-18,20-21,27,35-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jankovic et al (US 20200269999 A1) in view of Emond et al (Low resistivity WxV1−xO2-based multilayer structure with high temperature coefficient of resistance for microbolometer applications).
Regarding claim 1, Jankovic discloses in figures 1-6 a structured product (100 thermal control material), comprising: at least two layers (Fig. 1) comprising a first layer and a second layer; wherein: the first layer comprises at least one material (104 solid state phase change material) having a temperature-dependent wavelength-integrated emissivity (para [0018]); the second layer comprises at least one reflective material (106 reflective thin film material) that is reflective to light in an 8-14 μm wavelength range (2-40 μm, para [0019]); and the structured product has a positive temperature-dependent wavelength-integrated emissivity (Abstract).
Jankovic fails to explicitly disclose wherein the at least one material comprises tungsten-doped vanadium dioxide having a formula of WxV1-xO2, wherein x is from greater than 0 to 5%, or 0.1-2%, or 1- 1.5%.
Emond teaches least one material comprises tungsten-doped vanadium dioxide having a formula of WxV1-xO2, wherein x is from greater than 0 to 5%, or 0.1-2%, or 1- 1.5% (ex: WxV1−xO2 (0 ≤ x ≤ 2.5)) multilayer structure exhibiting a bottom-up gradient of tungsten content).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Jankovic’s thermal control material with tungsten-doped vanadium dioxide as taught by Emond because this will higher temperature sensitivity and enhance the performance of the IR equipment.
Regarding claim 2, Jankovic discloses in figures 1-6 a structured product (100 thermal control material), wherein the at least one material (104) comprises doped or undoped vanadium dioxide (vanadium dioxide), or a combination thereof (para [0018]).
Regarding claim 3, Jankovic discloses in figures 1-6 a structured product (100 thermal control material), wherein the at least one material is doped with tungsten (tungsten), chromium, gallium, aluminum, or any combination thereof (para [0018]).
Regarding claim 5, Jankovic discloses in figures 1-6 a structured product (100); the at least one material (104) has a wavelength-integrated emissivity temperature-dependence (para [0018]); wherein the wavelength-integrated emissivity is integrated over a wavelength range of 8-14 μm (para [0019]). Jankovic fails to explicitly disclose wherein, within a temperature range of −100 to 100° C.; of at least 0.01 per ° C., at least 0.05 per ° C., at least 0.1 per ° C., or at least 0.2 per ° C.;
Emond teaches a temperature range of −100 to 100° C. (−20 °C and 95°); of at least 0.01 per ° C., at least 0.05 per ° C., at least 0.1 per ° C., or at least 0.2 per ° C. (Figs.2-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Jankovic’s material with Emond’s range of temperature because this will provide better temperature sensitivity.
Regarding claim 6, Jankovic discloses in figures 1-6 a structured product (100), wherein the wavelength-integrated emissivity is between 0.3 to 1 (Fig.5), wherein the wavelength-integrated emissivity is integrated over a wavelength range of 8-14 μm (para [0019]).
Regarding claim 7, Jankovic discloses in figures 1-6 a structured product (100) wherein the at least one material (104) exhibits a thermally-triggered phase transition from an insulating phase to a metallic phase when temperature is increased (Fig.5; para [0030]), and optionally wherein the phase transition is reversible (para [0018]).
Regarding claim 8, Jankovic discloses in figures 1-6 a structured product (100); the thermally-triggered phase transition results in an increase in the wavelength- integrated emissivity of at least 0.2 (Fig.5, para [0030]), wherein the wavelength-integrated emissivity (Fig.5) is integrated over a wavelength range of 8-14 pm (para [0019]). Jankovic fails to explicitly disclose a temperature range of 20-60° C.
Emond teaches a temperature range of 20-60° C (Fig.2, ex: 20 °C to 70 °C).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Jankovic thermal control material with temperature range as taught by Emond because this will improve thermal management and provide better performance of the IR device.
Regarding claim 11, Jankovic discloses in figures 1-6 a structured product (100 thermal control material), wherein the at least one reflective material (106) comprises a metallic material (layer of gold), a ceramic, an artificial photonic structure, or a combination thereof.
Regarding claim 15, Jankovic discloses in figures 1-6 a structured product (200 thermal control material), further comprising at least one dielectric material (zinc selenide).
Regarding claim 17, Jankovic discloses in figures 1-6 a structured product (200 thermal control material), wherein the first layer (Fig. 2) further comprises the at least one dielectric material (zinc selenide).
Regarding claim 18, Jankovic discloses in figures 1-6 a structured product (200 thermal control material), wherein the at least one material is dispersed in or on the at least one dielectric material (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 20, Jankovic discloses in figures 1-6 a structured product (200 thermal control material), wherein the structured product (200) further comprises a third layer (206) disposed between the first (204) and second layers (208), wherein the third layer (206) comprises the at least one dielectric material (para [0022]).
Regarding claim 21, Jankovic discloses in figures 1-6 a structured product (200 thermal control material), when the at least one material (204) is in a metallic phase, at least one of the following is satisfied: (a) components of the dispersed material (array of micro-structures, such as microcones) are spaced from each other such that a quarter wavelength photonic resonance cavity (206) is formed with light having a wavelength of 8-14 μm (2-40 μm); (b) the dispersed material (array of micro-structures, such as microcones) in or on the first layer (Fig.2) is spaced from the at least one reflective material (208) such that a quarter wavelength photonic resonance cavity (optical cavity) is formed with light having a wavelength of 8-14 μm; (c) the first layer comprises a continuous film of the at least one material, and the continuous film (Fig.2; para [0020]) is spaced from the at least one reflective material (208) such that a quarter wavelength photonic resonance cavity (206) is formed with light having a wavelength of 8-14 μm; or (d) any combination thereof.
Regarding claim 27, Jankovic discloses in figures 1-6 a structured product (200 thermal control material), wherein the structured product comprises a trilayer structure (Fig.2); the second layer comprises the at least one reflective material (208); and the third layer (206) comprises the at least one dielectric material (para [0020]); and wherein the third layer (206) is disposed between the first layer and the second layer (Fig.2). Jankovic fails to explicitly disclose W.sub.xV.sub.1-xO.sub.2; wherein x is 0-5% or 1-1.5%.
Emond teaches W.sub.xV.sub.1-xO.sub.2 (WxV1–xO2); wherein x is 0-5% or 1-1.5% (Fig.1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Jankovic’s thermal control material with Emond’s formula for tungsten-doped vanadium dioxide because this will provide a better temperature sensitivity.
Regarding claim 35, Jankovic discloses in figures 1-6 a structured product (100 thermal control material), further comprising a flexible substrate (102) disposed on the first layer (Fig.1), the second layer (Fig.1), or both the first layer and the second layer (Fig.1).
Regarding claim 36, Jankovic discloses in figures 1-6 a structured product (100 thermal control material), wherein the flexible substrate (102) is configured to conduct thermal energy (ex: The substrate can be formed from any appropriate material for forming a photonic metamaterial, and in the illustrated example, a double side polished silicon substrate is used) to the at least one material (para [0017]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jankovic et al in view of Emond and in further view of Harada et al (JP 11281816 A).
Regarding claim 16, Jankovic discloses in figures 1-6 a structured product (200 thermal control material), wherein the at least one dielectric material (zinc selenide); a wavelength range of 8-14 μm (2-40 μm); Jankovic and Emond fail to explicitly disclose a transmittance of at least 25% to light.
Harada teaches a transmittance of at least 25% to light (a transmittance of 60% or more for light).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Jankovic’s dielectric material with transmittance as taught by Harada because this will improve the detection and measuring of thermal radiation emitted by objects.
Claims 28 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jankovic et al in view of Emond et al and in further view of Fasold et al (US 20140247481 A1) and Yoshimura et al (JP H08319579 A).
Regarding claim 28, The combination of Jankovic and Emond a structured product (200), wherein the structured product comprises a trilayer structure (Fig.2), wherein the first layer comprises W.sub.xV.sub.1-xO.sub.2 (WxV1–xO2); wherein x is 0-5% or 1-1.5% (ex: WxV1−xO2 (0 ≤ x ≤ 2.5)), and wherein the second layer is disposed between the first layer and the third layer (Fig. 2). Jankovic and Emond fail to explicitly disclose barium fluoride; aluminum.
Fasold teaches barium fluoride (para [0051]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Jankovic as modified with Fasold barium fluoride because this will improve the temperature sensitivity of the system.
Jankovic as modified and Fasold fail to teach aluminum.
Yoshimura teaches aluminum (para [0004]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Jankovic as modified with Yoshimura aluminum layer because this is affordable and will improve the temperature sensitivity of the system.
Regarding claim 34, The combination of Jankovic, Emond and Yoshimura disclose a structured product (200 thermal control material), wherein the third layer (Fig.2) has a thickness that satisfies the following equation:
d=(0.25×m×λ)/n wherein d is thickness of the third layer (Fig.2), m is any integer greater than or equal to one, n is the real part of the refractive index of the third layer, and λ (Fig.1) is a resonance peak wavelength in a range of 8-14 μm (2-40 μm).
The motivation for having this thickness would be the same as the one listed above.
Claims 37 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jankovic et al in view of Emond et al and Congard et al (US 20040202812 A1).
Regarding claim 37, Jankovic discloses in figures 1-6 a structured product (100); substrate (104). Jankovic and Emond fail to explicitly disclose an adhesive or glue.
Congard teaches an adhesive (ex: adhesive material; para [0026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Jankovic’s substrate with Congard’s adhesive because this will provide better design flexibility by allowing to bond different materials on the substrate.
Regarding claim 38, Jankovic discloses in figures 1-6 a structured product (100), wherein the flexible substrate (104). Jankovic and Emond fail to explicitly disclose a polymer tape, polyethylene tape, SCOTCH tape, KAPTON tape, woven fabric, nonwoven fabric, or any combination thereof.
Congard teaches polyethylene tape and scotch tape (para [0040]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Jankovic’s substrate with Congard’s polyethylene tape and scotch tape because this will provide better design flexibility by allowing to bond different materials on the substrate.
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 MIREILLE SANDRA SADATE-MOUALEU whose telephone number is (571)272-2862. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 0730-1700.
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at 571-272-2375. 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.
/MIREILLE S SADATE-MOUALEU/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/PETER J MACCHIAROLO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights