DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Rejections under 35 USC 103
Applicant’s arguments filed 02/03/2026 with regard to the amended claim limitations and with respect to the rejections under 35 USC 103 have been considered, and, in light of the amendments, are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. A new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Rivas, et. al. (US 8279579 B1).
Applicant's arguments filed 02/03/2026 with respect to the rejections under 35 USC 103 on pg. 10 of 11 regarding “omnidirectional” have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The arguments are found to be unpersuasive because omnidirectional emissivity is a type of directional emissivity. Consequently, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, Wang teaches the claim limitation because the omnidirectional emissivity of Wang is a type of directional emissivity that includes all directions. Therefore, Wang teaches directional emissivity.
Additionally, in view of the amendments to the claims, Wang in view of the new reference (Rivas, et. al. (US 8279579 B1)) inherently teaches “directional emissivity” since the instant application indicates that this feature is a consequence of the structure (as noted in [0037], [0112]-[0114]), and since Wang in view of Rivas teaches the claimed structure. See MPEP 2112 (II) which states “[T]he fact that a characteristic is a necessary feature or result of a prior-art embodiment (that is itself sufficiently described and enabled) is enough for inherent anticipation, even if that fact was unknown at the time of the prior invention.”
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 .
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 5-8, 11-12, 15-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang, et. al. (W. Wang, L. Qi, Light Management with Patterned Micro- and Nanostructure Arrays for Photocatalysis, Photovoltaics, and Optoelectronic and Optical Devices. Adv. Funct. Mater. 2019, 29, 1807275. https://doi.org/10.1002/adfm.201807275.), hereinafter Wang, in view of Rivas, et. al. (US 8279579 B1), hereinafter Rivas.
Regarding claim 11, Wang teaches a surface with angled microstructures exhibiting broadband directional emissivity independent of polarization (micro- and nanostructure arrays employed as antireflective coatings/surfaces with broadband, omnidirectional, and polarization-insensitive antireflective performance, Section 2.2 first paragraph).
It is not clear that Wang teaches that the angled microstructures are each defined by a longitudinal axis angled at a non-normal angle with respect to a normal of the surface. Rather, Wang Fig. 3 shows microstructures having tapered profiles.
Rivas teaches the angled microstructures are each defined by a longitudinal axis angled at a non-normal angle with respect to a normal of the surface (Figs. 9A and 9B).
Rivas modifies Wang by suggesting the angled microstructure are each defined by a longitudinal axis angled at a non-normal angle with respect to a normal of the surface.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Rivas because nano-machining increases surface area and increases absorption and emissivity up to 1,000 times or more, allowing for improved heat, EMI and power management for energy storage in batteries, supercapacitors, solar cells, and in infrared, biomedical, chemical, process and environmental sensors (Rivas, Col. 2, lines 31-35). Additionally, as noted in Figs. 9A and 9B of Rivas, “the angle of laser machining is one of the parameters that needs to be explored in the optimization for different applications”. Consequently, Rivas suggests that laser machining at different angles to produce angled microstructures is routine experimentation within the art, see MPEP 2144.05 II.
Regarding claim 12, Wang teaches a device with a functionalized surface exhibiting broadband directional emissivity independent of polarization (antireflective coating or surface, Section 2.2 first paragraph), the device comprising:
a material including a surface (surface, Section 2.2 first paragraph, Fig. 3); and
a plurality of microstructures formed on the surface, and wherein the surface with the angled microstructures exhibits broadband directional emissivity independent of polarization (micro- and nanostructure arrays employed as antireflective coatings/surfaces with broadband, omnidirectional, and polarization-insensitive antireflective performance, Section 2.2 first paragraph).
It is not clear that Wang teaches wherein the plurality of microstructures are each defined by a longitudinal axis angled at a non-normal angle with respect to a normal of the surface. Rather, Wang Fig. 3 shows microstructures having tapered profiles.
Rivas teaches the angled microstructures are each defined by a longitudinal axis angled at a non-normal angle with respect to a normal of the surface (Figs. 9A and 9B).
Rivas modifies Wang by suggesting the angled microstructure are each defined by a longitudinal axis angled at a non-normal angle with respect to a normal of the surface.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Rivas because nano-machining increases surface area and increases absorption and emissivity up to 1,000 times or more, allowing for improved heat, EMI and power management for energy storage in batteries, supercapacitors, solar cells, and in infrared, biomedical, chemical, process and environmental sensors (Rivas, Col. 2, lines 31-35). Additionally, as noted in Figs. 9A and 9B of Rivas, “the angle of laser machining is one of the parameters that needs to be explored in the optimization for different applications”. Consequently, Rivas suggests that laser machining at different angles to produce angled microstructures is routine experimentation within the art, see MPEP 2144.05 II.
Regarding claim 7, Wang teaches wherein the surface is a metallic surface, a ceramic surface, a semi-conductor surface or a dielectric surface (Section 2.2 second paragraph teaches various materials have been used for antireflective surfaces including metals, metal oxides, silicon, silicon oxide, III-V semiconductors, and carbon materials).
Regarding claim 19, Wang teaches wherein the material comprises a metallic material, a ceramic material, a semi-conductor material, a dielectric material or a combination thereof (Section 2.2 second paragraph teaches various materials have been used for antireflective surfaces including metals, metal oxides, silicon, silicon oxide, III-V semiconductors, and carbon materials).
Regarding claim 6, Wang does not explicitly teach wherein the longitudinal axes of the angled microstructures are angled at substantially the same angle with respect to the normal of the surface.
Rivas teaches wherein the longitudinal axes of the angled microstructures are angled at substantially the same angle with respect to the normal of the surface (see Figs. 9A and 9B).
Rivas modifies Wang by suggesting the longitudinal axes of the angled microstructures are angled at substantially the same angle with respect to the normal of the surface.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Rivas because nano-machining increases surface area and increases absorption and emissivity up to 1,000 times or more, allowing for improved heat, EMI and power management for energy storage in batteries, supercapacitors, solar cells, and in infrared, biomedical, chemical, process and environmental sensors (Rivas, Col. 2, lines 31-35). Additionally, as noted in Figs. 9A and 9B of Rivas, “the angle of laser machining is one of the parameters that needs to be explored in the optimization for different applications”. Consequently, Rivas suggests that laser machining at different angles to produce angled microstructures is routine experimentation within the art, see MPEP 2144.05 II.
Regarding claim 17, Wang does not explicitly teach wherein the longitudinal axes of the plurality of microfeatures are angled at substantially the same angle with respect to the normal of the surface.
Rivas teaches wherein the longitudinal axes of the plurality of microfeatures are angled at substantially the same angle with respect to the normal of the surface (see Figs. 9A and 9B).
Rivas modifies Wang by suggesting the longitudinal axes of the plurality of microfeatures are angled at substantially the same angle with respect to the normal of the surface.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Rivas because nano-machining increases surface area and increases absorption and emissivity up to 1,000 times or more, allowing for improved heat, EMI and power management for energy storage in batteries, supercapacitors, solar cells, and in infrared, biomedical, chemical, process and environmental sensors (Rivas, Col. 2, lines 31-35). Additionally, as noted in Figs. 9A and 9B of Rivas, “the angle of laser machining is one of the parameters that needs to be explored in the optimization for different applications”. Consequently, Rivas suggests that laser machining at different angles to produce angled microstructures is routine experimentation within the art, see MPEP 2144.05 II.
Regarding claim 8, Wang teaches wherein the surface is concave, convex, or flat, or a combination thereof (Figs. 2 and Fig. 3 shows convex pointed microstructures with concave portions in between).
Regarding claim 20, Wang teaches wherein the surface is concave, convex, or flat, or a combination thereof (Figs. 2 and Fig. 3 shows convex pointed microstructures with concave portions in between).
Regarding claim 15, Wang teaches wherein each of the plurality of microstructures includes a microfeature having a mound, pyramid, peak, spike, or pillar shape (Fig. 3 shows a mound/spike shape. Fig. 2 shows spike/peak shape.).
Regarding claim 5, Wang teaches wherein the angled microstructures include micro-scale structures overlaid with nano-scale features (Fig. 2c shows nanorods on a microstructure array).
Regarding claim 16, Wang teaches wherein each of the plurality of microstructures includes a plurality of nanoscale features (Fig. 2c shows nanorods on a microstructure array).
Claims 14, 21, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (W. Wang, L. Qi, Light Management with Patterned Micro- and Nanostructure Arrays for Photocatalysis, Photovoltaics, and Optoelectronic and Optical Devices. Adv. Funct. Mater. 2019, 29, 1807275. https://doi.org/10.1002/adfm.201807275.), in view of Rivas (US 8279579 B1), further in view of Gupta, et. al. (US 20100143744 A1), hereinafter Gupta.
Regarding claim 14, Wang in view of Rivas does not explicitly teach wherein each of the plurality of microstructures has height of between 5.0 µm to 1,000 µm along the longitudinal axis and/or a structural diameter of between 5.0 µm to 1,000 µm.
Gupta teaches wherein each of the plurality of microstructures has height of between 5.0 µm to 1,000 µm along the longitudinal axis ([0063] teaches height around 25 µm, Fig. 30) and/or a structural diameter of between 5.0 µm to 1,000 µm ([0063] teaches base diameter of the pillars is over 10 µm).
Gupta modifies the combination by suggesting the microstructures have a height and base diameter within the claimed ranges.
Gupta renders the claimed invention obvious because “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 21, Wang teaches wherein the material comprises a metallic material (Section 2.2 second paragraph teaches various materials have been used for antireflective surfaces including metals, metal oxides, silicon, silicon oxide, III-V semiconductors, and carbon materials)
Wang does not explicitly teach wherein each of the plurality of microstructures has dimension of between 5.0 µm to 1,000 µm along the longitudinal axis.
Gupta teaches wherein each of the plurality of microstructures has dimension of between 5.0 µm to 1,000 µm along the longitudinal axis ([0063] teaches height around 25 µm, Fig. 30).
Gupta modifies the combination by suggesting the microstructures have a dimension within the claimed range.
Gupta renders the claimed invention obvious because “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 23, Wang teaches wherein the surface is a metallic surface (Section 2.2 second paragraph teaches various materials have been used for antireflective surfaces including metals, metal oxides, silicon, silicon oxide, III-V semiconductors, and carbon materials)
Wang does not explicitly teach wherein each of the plurality of microstructures has dimension of between 5.0 µm to 1,000 µm along the longitudinal axis.
Gupta teaches wherein each of the plurality of microstructures has dimension of between 5.0 µm to 1,000 µm along the longitudinal axis ([0063] teaches height around 25 µm, Fig. 30).
Gupta modifies the combination by suggesting the microstructures have a dimension within the claimed range.
Gupta renders the claimed invention obvious because “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Claims 13, 22, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (W. Wang, L. Qi, Light Management with Patterned Micro- and Nanostructure Arrays for Photocatalysis, Photovoltaics, and Optoelectronic and Optical Devices. Adv. Funct. Mater. 2019, 29, 1807275. https://doi.org/10.1002/adfm.201807275.), in view of Rivas (US 8279579 B1), further in view of Tsubaki, et. al. (A. Tsubaki, E. Peng, M. Anderson, W. Thomas, J. Shield, C. Zuhlke, D. Alexander. Oxide layer reduction and formation of an aluminum nitride surface layer during femtosecond laser surface processing of aluminum in nitrogen-rich gases. Proceedings Volume 10906, Laser-based Micro- and Nanoprocessing XIII, 109060N (2019). https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2508812 ,), hereinafter Tsubaki.
Regarding claim 13, Wang in view of Rivas does not explicitly teach wherein each of the plurality of microstructures includes an oxide layer having a thickness of between 0.1 µm and about 100 µm.
Tsubaki teaches wherein each of the plurality of microstructures includes an oxide layer having a thickness of between 0.1 µm and about 100 µm (see Conclusion which teaches an oxide layer of the FLSP structure having a thickness of 0.6 µm).
Tsubaki modifies the combination by suggesting each microstructure has an oxide layer within the claimed range.
Tsubaki renders the claimed invention obvious because “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 22, Wang in view of Rivas does not explicitly teach wherein each of the plurality of microstructures includes an oxide layer having a thickness of between 0.1 µm and about 100 µm.
Tsubaki teaches wherein each of the plurality of microstructures includes an oxide layer having a thickness of between 0.1 µm and about 100 µm (see Conclusion which teaches an oxide layer of the FLSP structure having a thickness of 0.6 µm).
Tsubaki modifies the combination by suggesting each microstructure has an oxide layer within the claimed range.
Tsubaki renders the claimed invention obvious because “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 24, Wang in view of Rivas does not explicitly teach wherein each of the plurality of microstructures includes an oxide layer having a thickness of between 0.1 µm and about 100 µm.
Tsubaki teaches wherein each of the plurality of microstructures includes an oxide layer having a thickness of between 0.1 µm and about 100 µm (see Conclusion which teaches an oxide layer of the FLSP structure having a thickness of 0.6 µm).
Tsubaki modifies the combination by suggesting each microstructure has an oxide layer within the claimed range.
Tsubaki renders the claimed invention obvious because “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (W. Wang, L. Qi, Light Management with Patterned Micro- and Nanostructure Arrays for Photocatalysis, Photovoltaics, and Optoelectronic and Optical Devices. Adv. Funct. Mater. 2019, 29, 1807275. https://doi.org/10.1002/adfm.201807275.), in view of Rivas (US 8279579 B1), further in view of Shen, et. al. (US 20170133525 A1), hereinafter Shen.
Regarding claim 9, Wang in view of Rivas does not explicitly teach wherein different areas on the surface have microstructures that are oriented at different angles relative to the surface normal.
Shen teaches wherein different areas on the surface have microstructures (femtosecond laser produces the structures on the substrate, [0019]) that are oriented at different angles relative to the surface normal (micro-hills as seen in Fig. 2a have sides with different angles relative to the surface normal).
Shen modifies the combination by suggesting different areas on the surface have laser-generated structures that are oriented at different angles relative to the surface normal.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Shen because the micro- and nanostructures formed by the femtosecond laser irradiation on the surface lead to optical absorption enhancement both at the visible and NIR region ([0019], Fig. 3)
Regarding claim 18, Wang in view of Leem does not explicitly teach wherein the plurality of microfeatures are angled at different angles with respect to the normal of the surface.
Shen teaches wherein the plurality of microfeatures are angled at different angles with respect to the normal of the surface (micro-hills as seen in Fig. 2a have sides with different angles relative to the surface normal).
Shen modifies the combination by suggesting the microfeatures are angled at different angles relative to the surface normal.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Shen because the micro- and nanostructures formed on the surface lead to optical absorption enhancement both a the visible and NIR region ([0019], Fig. 3)
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 LAURA E TANDY whose telephone number is (703)756-1720. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Robert Kim can be reached at 5712722293. 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.
LAURA E TANDY
Examiner
Art Unit 2881
/DAVID E SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 2881