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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-19, in the reply filed on 11/5/2025 is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because FIG. 16A shows thermal conductivity results of original wood (OW), PT-Glass and PTTW instead of glass, original wood (OW), PMMA and transparent wood (TW) as described on page 27, lines 1-4 of the specification. It is also unclear in FIG. 16B which thermal conductivity curves correspond to OW, PT-glass and PTTW. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 9 recites the limitation “birth” instead of “birch.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 19 recites the limitation “birth” instead of “birch.” Appropriate correction is required.
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 11, 16 and 18 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 11 recites the limitation “the first and second polymers.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for the “second” polymer in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the halide perovskite-based compound.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “the solar modulation ability at 0 cycle.” It is unclear if this refers to the solar modulation ability of the composite material at 0 cycles.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “the solar modulation ability.” It is unclear if this refers to the solar modulation ability of the composite material at 50 cycles.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “a tensile strength at about 56 MPa,” and “a thermal conductivity at at least 0.24 W/(m·K).” It is unclear if this means a tensile strength of about 56 MPa and a conductivity of at least 0.24 W/(m·K).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Fang (CN113715436 A, translation attached).
Regarding claim 1, Fang teaches an environment interactive composite board for an automobile, which comprises two layers of transparent outer boards (Abstract). A self-luminous layer and an environment response layer are arranged between the two layers of transparent outer boards (Abstract). The environment response layer comprises a response color changing layer and a response luminous layer (Abstract). The material of the responsive color changing layer includes temperature responsive color changing materials, humidity responsive color changing materials and mechanochromic materials (pages 2-3, lines 37 to 1). In addition, the material of the color-responsive layer can be various smart color-changing materials, which have different display effects from the self-luminous layer in terms of color (page 5, lines 29-30). In terms of the specific material selection of the color-changing material, an embodiment provides several preferred options (page 5, lines 35-36). Thermochromic materials include inorganic (vanadium dioxide (VO2), titanium dioxide, etc.) and organic triphenylmethanes, phenothiazines, spirocyclics, etc. (page 5, lines 36-38).
The transparent outer board is a transparent wood board (page 3, lines 10). With respect to the transparent wood board, Fang teaches that there is a strong bond between the wood matrix and the impregnated polymer (page 8, lines 2-5). Fang also teaches that the transparent outer board base layer provides installation location and protection for the remaining layers (page 3, lines 18-20).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 or 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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 10 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Li (“Optically Transparent Wood Substrate for Perovskite Solar Cells,” attached).
Regarding claims 1 and 10, Li teaches a perovskite solar cell that was assembled on ITO-coated transparent wood (page 6064, right column). The detailed device structure is transparent wood substrate/ITO/compact TiO2/(FAPbI3)0.85(MAPbBr3)0.15/Spiro-OMeTAD/Au as shown in Figure 1 (same section). The mixed perovskite (FAPbI3)0.85(MAPbBr3)0.15 (around 450 nm thick) was used as a light harvesting material (same section). The wood was infiltrated with a refractive index matched polymer, poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) (last line on page 6062, to first 3 lines on page 6063). The examiner notes that the Au layer would meet the claimed protective layer limitation.
However, it would also have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have expected that a layer of gold would be capable of functioning as a protective layer.
Regarding claims 2-4, the examiner notes that MAPbBr3 would meet the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 19, Li is applied in the same manner as applied above to claim 1. Li further teaches use of balsa wood (see the Experimental section on page S1 of the Supporting information).
Claim(s) 5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Fang (CN113715436 A, translation attached), as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 5, Fang remains as applied above.
Fang teaches that the thickness of the self-luminous layer and the thickness of the environmental response layer are 1 nm to 1000 nm (page 3, lines 6-7). The examiner notes that the claimed thickness of “about” 1.1 μm would overlap with Fang’s teaching of 1000 nm. In the alternative, the dimensions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 7, Fang does not explicitly disclose that the transparent outer board (the claimed protective layer) forms a hydrophobic surface.
However, Fang teaches an environmentally interactive composite sheet used in automobiles, automobile sunroofs and automobiles (page 2, lines 3-4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the exterior transparent wood board (the protective layer) with a hydrophobic surface in order to prevent rain from collecting on and/or being absorbed by the sunroof.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 2-4 and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fang (CN113715436 A, translation attached), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Du (“Study on the halide effect of MA4PbX6·2H2O hybrid perovskites – From thermochromic properties to practical deployment for smart windows”).
Regarding claims 2-3, Fang remains as applied above.
Fang teaches an environmentally interactive composite sheet used in automobiles, automobile sunroofs and automobiles (page 2, lines 3-4).
Fang does not explicitly disclose wherein the thermochromic layer comprises a halide perovskite-based compound having a chemical composition of A, B, and X, with A being one or more of a monovalent organic or metal cation, B being a bivalent metal cation, and X being one or more of a halide.
However, Du teaches that thermochromic smart windows empowered by the unique material properties and reversible thermochromism of dihydrated methylammonium lead halide hybrid perovskites (MA4PbX6·2H2O; X: halide) have risen as novel yet promising candidates for thermochromic smart windows, in which the halide plays a crucial role to the functionality and performance (Abstract). Desirable thermochromic performance includes the excellent optical properties, namely high luminous transmittance, τlum, and solar modulation ability, ∆τsol, (i.e. the difference of solar transmittance, sol, between the cold state and hot state of the perovskites) for indoor luminance and energy saving, as well as favourable transitional properties, namely moderate transition temperature, Ttrans, depending on the environment temperature, relatively narrow hysteresis width, ∆Ttrans, and short transition time, ttrans, for practical and realistic window applications (see the end of the Introduction, beginning at the bottom of the 1st column on page 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have used a dihydrated methylammonium lead halide hybrid perovskite having a general formula MA4PbX6·2H2O (where X is a halide) as the thermochromic material in the sunroof windows of Fang in order to provide the windows with excellent optical properties, namely high luminous transmittance (τlum) and solar modulation ability (∆τsol), for indoor luminance and energy saving, as well as favourable transitional properties, namely moderate transition temperature (Ttrans), relatively narrow hysteresis width (∆Ttrans) and short transition time (ttrans), for practical and realistic window applications, as suggested by Du (see the Abstract and the end of the Introduction, beginning at the bottom of the 1st column on page 2).
Regarding claim 4, Du teaches that the thermal-regulating performance of the applicable candidate mixed halide hybrid perovskite MA4PbI5Br1·2H2O is demonstrated in a model-house field investigation (Abstract).
Regarding claims 12-14, Du shows in Table 2 that MA4PbI6·2H2O has a τlum,hot of 22.1% with a transition temperature Ttrans,hot of 55.7 °C, and a τlum,cold of 78.6% with a transition temperature Ttrans,cold of 32.6 °C.
Claim(s) 2-3 and 12-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fang (CN113715436 A, translation attached), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Liu (“Organic Hybrid Perovskite (MAPbI3−xClx) for Thermochromic Smart Window with Strong Optical Regulation Ability, Low Transition Temperature, and Narrow Hysteresis Width”).
Regarding claims 2-3, Fang remains as applied above.
Fang does not explicitly disclose wherein the thermochromic layer comprises a halide perovskite-based compound having a chemical composition of A, B, and X, with A being one or more of a monovalent organic or metal cation, B being a bivalent metal cation, and X being one or more of a halide.
However, Liu teaches that a hydrated MAPbI3−xClx thermochromic perovskite smart window (H-MAPbI3−xClx TPSW) is proposed, which undergoes a reversible transition between a transparent state and a dark reddish-brown tinted state with a high solar modulation ability of 23.7% (Abstract). Liu teaches that the thermochromism of H-MAPbI3−xClx is attributed to hydration and dehydration (see the first 7 lines of Section 2.1). Liu further teaches a dehydration and hydration process between MA4PbI6−xClx·2H2O and MAPbI3−xClx (see the paragraph following equation (5) on page 7 of 12). The thermochromism is achieved by the manipulated phase transitions between dihydrated perovskite (low-temperature) and perovskite
(high-temperature) phases (see the Conclusion).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have used, as the thermochromic material in the sunroof windows of Fang, a thermochromic dihydrated perovskite having a general formula MA4PbI6−xClx·2H2O in a low temperature phase (and the general formula MAPbI3−xClx in a high-temperature phase) because Liu teaches that these thermochromic materials can provide windows with strong optical regulation ability, low transition temperature, and narrow hysteresis width (Abstract, and the sections cited above).
Regarding claim 12, Liu teaches that τlum of H-MAPbI3−xClx at the cold and hot states is 85.2% and 30.3%, respectively (see the left column on page 5 of 12, and Tables 1 and 2).
Regarding claims 13-14, Liu shows in Tables 1 and 2 that H-MAPbI3 has a τlum,hot of 37.4%, a τlum,cold of 85.4%, a Tc,h of 53.2 °C and a Tc,c of 30.3 °C.
Regarding claims 15-16, Liu teaches that, for H-MAPbI3−xClx, Δτsol can reach 23.7%, which is above 21% as claimed (see the left column on page 5 of 12, and Tables 1 and 2). Liu’s Figure 5a also illustrates the optical property test results, in which a τlum of the H-MAPbI3-xClx thermochromic perovskite smart window (TPSW) at both the hot and cold states remained almost unchanged over 50 cycles, resulting in a stable ∆τsol (page 8 of 12, end of left column). As estimated by the examiner from Figure 5a, the solar modulation ability of the composite material at 50 cycles is maintained at at least 94% of the solar modulation ability of the composite material at 0 cycles (where 22.2/23.7 = 94%).
Claim(s) 6-10 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fang (CN113715436 A, translation attached), as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Liangbing (WO 2022/011316 A1, attached).
Regarding claim 6, Fang remains as applied above.
Fang does not explicitly disclose wherein the protective layer comprises a second polymer selected from a group consisting of poly(methyl methacrylate), octadecyltrichorosilane, hexadecyltrimethoxysilane, and a combination thereof.
However, Liangbing teaches modified wood and/or transparent wood composites (Abstract). If it is determined that a transparent composite is desired, a contiguous piece of modified wood is infiltrated with an index-matching polymer (page 13, lines 11-13). Nonlimiting examples of polymers that can be infiltrated into the modified wood can include, but are not limited to, those described in International Publication No. WO-2017/136714 incorporated by reference (page 13, lines 23-27). WO-2017/136714 teaches, among other polymers, poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) (see page 10, lines 1-2 and page 11, line 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have used poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) as the polymer impregnated into the outer transparent wood boards of Fang because Liangbing teaches that PMMA is an example of a polymer that can be used to obtain a transparent wood composite for use in windows and skylights (Liangbing: page 13, lines 23-27; and WO-2017/136714: see page 10, lines 1-2 and page 11, line 1).
Regarding claim 7, Fang remains as applied above to claim 7, teaching the claimed limitations. However, Liangbing teaches further that, in some embodiments, a contiguous wood block is subjected to a UV-assisted photocatalytic oxidation treatment to in situ modify lignin therein, thereby converting a color of the wood to white (page 1, lines 26-28, and page 34, lines 2-4). The in situ modified lignin can also act as a barrier to water and improve the water stability of the modified wood due to the hydrophobic property of the lignin's aromatic rings (page 38, lines 16-17).
Regarding claim 8, Liangbing teaches that, in a representative embodiment, a material comprises a section of wood chemically-modified such that chromophores of lignin within the wood in its natural state are altered or removed (page 2, lines 16-19, and clause 41 on page 48). The section can retain at least 70% of the lignin of the wood in its natural state (same section). Liangbing teaches preserving most of the native lignin to act as a binder, thereby providing a robust wood scaffold for polymer infiltration while greatly reducing the chemical and energy consumption as well as processing time (pages 11-12, lines 34-2). Compared to delignified wood (e.g., tensile strength of 0.4 MPa), the lignin-modified wood has a substantially higher tensile strength (e.g., 20.6 MPa) due to the presence of the modified lignin binding with the well-oriented cellulose fibrils (page 12, lines 7-10). In Liangbing's “Second Example,” Liangbing teaches that, in the natural wood, the vertically-aligned wood channels enable H2O2 and UV light to penetrate efficiently into the wood structure for fast and in-depth de-coloration that can be achieved in less than 7 hours (page 34, lines 15-19).
Regarding claim 9, Liangbing teaches that balsa wood was used to prepare the modified wood because of its low density and hierarchical porous microstructure, but other hardwoods or softwoods could also be used (page 34, lines 23-24). Transparent wood with excellent optical transparency was also made from other wood species with different densities, in particular, oak and poplar, suggesting the universality of this approach (page 41, lines 31-33). Liangbing also teaches basswood (page 33, lines 17-29).
Regarding claim 10, in the same manner applied above to claim 6, Fang in view of Liangbing teaches outer transparent wood boards comprising transparent wood infiltrated with a variety of polymers, including poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) (Liangbing: page 13, lines 23-27; and WO-2017/136714: see page 10, line 1 to page 11, line 2).
Regarding claim 19, Fang is applied in the same manner applied above to claim 1.
Fang does not explicitly disclose wherein the wood-based material comprises any one of balsa wood, oak, beech, birth, ash and basswood.
However, Liangbing teaches modified wood and/or transparent wood composites (Abstract). Liangbing teaches that balsa wood was used to prepare modified wood because of its low density and hierarchical porous microstructure, but other hardwoods or softwoods could also be used (page 34, lines 23-24). Transparent wood with excellent optical transparency was also be made from other wood species with different densities, in particular, oak and poplar, suggesting the universality of this approach (page 41, lines 31-33). Liangbing also teaches basswood (page 33, lines 17-29).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have used, as the outer transparent wood boards of Fang, modified wood and/or transparent wood prepared from balsa wood, oak or basswood infiltrated with poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) in order to obtain a transparent wood composite suitable for use in windows and skylights (Liangbing: page 13, lines 23-27, and page 14, lines 19-21; and WO-2017/136714: see page 10, lines 1-2 and page 11, line 1).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fang (CN113715436 A, translation attached), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Du (“Study on the halide effect of MA4PbX6·2H2O hybrid perovskites – From thermochromic properties to practical deployment for smart windows”), further in view of Liangbing (WO 2022/011316 A1, attached).
Regarding claim 11, Fang remains as applied above to claim 1.
Fang does not explicitly disclose a halide perovskite-based compound having a general formula of (CH3NH3)4PbI6-x-yBrxCly·2H2O, with x and y each being 0 or a positive integer, and x+y ≤ 6.
However, Du teaches that thermochromic smart windows empowered by the unique material properties and reversible thermochromism of dihydrated methylammonium lead halide hybrid perovskites (MA4PbX6·2H2O; X: halide) have risen as novel yet promising candidates for thermochromic smart windows, in which the halide plays a crucial role to the functionality and performance (Abstract). Desirable thermochromic performance includes the excellent optical properties, namely high luminous transmittance, τlum, and solar modulation ability, ∆τsol, (i.e. the difference of solar transmittance, sol, between the cold state and hot state of the perovskites) for indoor luminance and energy saving, as well as favourable transitional properties, namely moderate transition temperature, Ttrans, depending on the environment temperature, relatively narrow hysteresis width, ∆Ttrans, and short transition time, ttrans, for practical and realistic window applications (see the end of the Introduction, beginning at the bottom of the 1st column on page 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have used a dihydrated methylammonium lead halide hybrid perovskite having a general formula MA4PbX6·2H2O (where X is a halide) as the thermochromic material in the sunroof windows of Fang in order to provide the windows with excellent optical properties, namely high luminous transmittance (τlum) and solar modulation ability (∆τsol), for indoor luminance and energy saving, as well as favourable transitional properties, namely moderate transition temperature (Ttrans), relatively narrow hysteresis width (∆Ttrans) and short transition time (ttrans), for practical and realistic window applications, as suggested by Du (see the Abstract and the end of the Introduction, beginning at the bottom of the 1st column on page 2).
Fang in view of Du does not explicitly disclose wherein the wood-based material comprises lignin-modified balsa wood, or wherein first and second polymers are poly(methyl methacrylate).
However, Liangbing teaches modified wood and/or transparent wood composites (Abstract). Liangbing teaches that balsa wood was used to prepare modified wood because of its low density and hierarchical porous microstructure, but other hardwoods or softwoods could also be used (page 34, lines 23-24). Transparent wood with excellent optical transparency was also be made from other wood species with different densities, in particular, oak and poplar, suggesting the universality of this approach (page 41, lines 31-33). Liangbing also teaches basswood (page 33, lines 17-29). Nonlimiting examples of polymers that can be infiltrated into the modified wood can include, but are not limited to, those described in International Publication No. WO-2017/136714 incorporated by reference (page 13, lines 23-27). WO-2017/136714 teaches, among other polymers, poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) (see page 10, lines 1-2 and page 11, line 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have used, as the outer transparent wood boards of Fang, modified wood and/or transparent wood prepared from balsa wood, oak or basswood infiltrated with poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) in order to obtain a transparent wood composite suitable for use in windows and skylights (Liangbing: page 13, lines 23-27, and page 14, lines 19-21; and WO-2017/136714: see page 10, lines 1-2 and page 11, line 1).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fang (CN113715436 A, translation attached) in view of Du (“Study on the halide effect of MA4PbX6·2H2O hybrid perovskites – From thermochromic properties to practical deployment for smart windows”), as applied to claim 2 above, further in view of Liangbing (WO 2022/011316 A1, attached).
Regarding claim 17, Fang in view of Du remains as applied above to claim 2.
Fang in view of Du does not explicitly disclose wherein the composite material has an optical haze of about 90% or above.
However, Liangbing teaches that, in some embodiments, a naturally-patterned transparent wood composite (also referred to as aesthetic wood) is provided (page 11, lines 1-2). The aesthetic wood can have aesthetic features (e.g., intact wood patterns), excellent optical properties (e.g., an average transmittance of ~80% and a haze of ~93%), good UV-blocking ability (e.g., a transmittance of ≤ 20%), and low thermal conductivity (0.24 W·m-1K-1) based on a process of spatially-selective delignification and refractive-index-matched polymer (e.g., epoxy resin) infiltration (page 11, lines 2-6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the composite material of Fang in view of Du with a haze of ~93% in order to obtain a transparent wood composite that has excellent optical properties and is suitable for use in windows and skylights (Liangbing: page 11, lines 2-6, and page 14, lines 19-21).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fang (CN113715436 A, translation attached) in view of Liangbing (WO 2022/011316 A1, attached), as applied to claim 7 above, further in view of Li ‘546 (US 2020/0023546 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Fang in view of Liangbing remains as applied above.
Fang in view of Liangbing does not explicitly disclose wherein the composite material has a tensile strength at about 56 MPa and a thermal conductivity at at least 0.24 W/(m·K).
However, Liangbing further teaches that, in some embodiments, a naturally-patterned transparent wood composite (also referred to as aesthetic wood) is provided (page 11, lines 1-2). The aesthetic wood can have aesthetic features (e.g., intact wood patterns), excellent optical properties (e.g., an average transmittance of ~80% and a haze of ~93%), good UV-blocking ability (e.g., a transmittance of ≤ 20%), and low thermal conductivity (0.24 W·m-1K-1) based on a process of spatially-selective delignification and refractive-index-matched polymer (e.g., epoxy resin) infiltration (page 11, lines 2-6). Moreover, the rapid fabrication process (e.g., chemical treatment of 2 hours or less) and mechanical robustness (e.g., a high longitudinal tensile strength of 91.95 MPa and toughness of 2.73 MJ·m-3) of the aesthetic wood can enable manufacturing at scale while saving large amounts of time and energy as compared to conventional complete delignification processes (page 11, lines 6-10).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the composite material of Fang in view of Liangbing with a thermal conductivity of 0.24 W·m-1K-1 and a tensile strength of 91.95 MPa in order to obtain mechanically robust windows and skylights that can also improve energy efficiency, as suggested by Liangbing (page 11, lines 1-10, and page 32, lines 23-30).
Fang in view of Liangbing does not explicitly disclose wherein the composite material has a flexural strength of about 93 MPa.
However, Li ‘546 teaches a transparent wood comprising at least one polymer and a wood substrate comprising more than 15% lignin, measured as Klason lignin, and having an optical transmittance of at least 60% (Abstract). In a 3-point bending test transparent wood (TW-H2O2) prepared according to an Example 3 from balsa with dimensions of 50 mmx50 mm and thickness of 1.5 mm showed comparable stress at break (100.7±8.7 MPa) with glass (116.3±12.5 MPa) ([0066] and [0049]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the composite material of Fang in view of Liangbing with a stress-at-break in a 3-point being test (a flexural strength) of around 100 MPa in order to provide the composite material with a stress-at-break comparable to that of glass ([0066]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kevin Worrell whose telephone number is (571)270-7728. 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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
/Kevin Worrell/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789