DYNAMICALLY CONTROLLED EMISSIVITY AND METHODS THEREOF

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 . Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9/09/2026 has been entered. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but 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. 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, 3, 5-7, 9, 13, 14 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harnett (US Publication Number 2007/0080062 A1) in view of Hanumantha (“Rational design and dynamics of self-propelled colloidal bead chains: from rotators to flagella”). Harnett, teaches as in claim 1, an optical device (Fig. 9, ¶0005 “micro-electro-mechanical systems (MEMS)), comprising a substrate (Fig. 9 “Substrate”), a plurality of particles1 (Fig. 9 “Particles”) disposed in a layer (Fig. 9 “Microchannel”) on the substrate (Fig. 9 “Substrate”), (Fig. 9 “Particles”) a cover (Fig. 9 “Lid”) disposed over the plurality of particles and an electromagnetically actuated field in proximity to the layer of the plurality of particles (¶0012 “the metal structure provides a magnetic field or an electroosmotic field under an applied electrical current”), Harrnett fails to teach wherein each of the plurality of particles comprises at least two surface characteristics, wherein the at least two surface characteristics each have distinct physical properties from one another. In a related art, Hanumantha teaches an optical device wherein each of the plurality of particles comprises at least two surface characteristics wherein the at least two surface characteristics each have distinct physical properties from one another2 (See Fig. 1, Page 4, first paragraph “aligning Janus particles into linear chains using a high frequency external AC electric field”), a concentration of the plurality of particles in the fluid is a volume fraction from about 0.002 to about 1.0 (Page 4, first paragraph “Suspensions consisting of 0.02 vol% half-side Pt coated polystyrene (PS) particles in deionized water”); and wherein the electromagnetically actuated field assembles (Page 4, first paragraph “AC electric field”) the plurality of particles into one or more chains and changes an angular orientation of particles within the chains without changing a concentration of the plurality of particles in the fluid3 (See Fig.1). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the optical device, as taught by Harnett, with the particles comprises at least two surface characteristics, as taught by Hanumantha, for the purpose of providing bead chains that exhibit rotational motion, possibly coupled with translational motion (Page 1, first paragraph). Harnett, teaches as in claim 3, wherein the substrate comprises a transparent material (¶0047 “substrates such as glass may be used”). Harnett, teaches as in claim 5, wherein the plurality of particles is suspended in a transparent fluid (¶ 0033 “water”). Harnett, teaches as in claim 6, wherein the fluid comprises carbon tetrachloride, chloroform, water, isopropyl alcohol, or a combination thereof (¶0033 “water”). Harnett, teaches as in claim 7, wherein the plurality of particles further comprise silica (¶0060 “silica particles”). Harnett, teaches as in claim 9, wherein the diameter of the plurality of particles is from Harnett, teaches as in claim 13, wherein the cover further comprises an infrared transparent material (¶0069 “silicon”). Harnett, teaches as in claim 14, wherein the electromagnetically actuated field is generated by a magnet (¶0079 “the external magnetic field is created by an electromagnet, or a small permanent magnet”). Harrnett fails to teach, as claimed in claim 21, wherein a concentration of the plurality of particles in the fluid is a volume fraction from about 0.1 to about 1.5. In a related art, Hanumantha teaches wherein a concentration of the plurality of particles in the fluid is a volume fraction from about 0.1 to about 1.5 (Page 4, first paragraph “Suspensions consisting of 0.02 vol% half-side Pt coated polystyrene (PS) particles in deionized water”). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the optical device, as taught by Harnett and Hanumantha, with the particles, as taught by Hanumantha, for the purpose of providing bead chains that exhibit rotational motion, possibly coupled with translational motion (Page 1, first paragraph). Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harnett (US Publication Number 2007/0080062 A1) in view of Hanumantha (“Rational design and dynamics of self-propelled colloidal bead chains: from rotators to flagella”) and in further view of Huff (US Patent Publication Number 2018/0095067 A1). Harnett and Hanumantha fail to teach, as in claim 4, wherein the substrate further comprises a reservoir. In a related art, Huff teaches an optical device wherein the substrate further comprises a reservoir (¶0697 “a glass substrate with patterned transfer microchannels and reservoirs”). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the optical device, as taught by Harnett and Hanumantha, with the substrate with a reservoir, as taught by Huff, for the purpose of providing a way of enhancing the microchannel fill rates (¶0711). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 2 and 10-12 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art fails to simultaneously teach all the limitations of claim 2 which includes wherein the substrate reflects in an infrared range. The prior art fails to simultaneously teach all the limitations of claim 10 which includes wherein the plurality of particles further comprises a ferromagnetic coating on a portion of the surface of each of the plurality of particles. Regarding claim 11 has dependency on claim 10. The prior art fails to simultaneously teach all the limitations of claim 12, which includes further comprising a detector configured to measure radiation emitted through the cover, wherein the detector comprises a charge-coupled device (CCD) camera detector, a photospectrometer, a pryoelectric detector, or a combination thereof. Claims 15-20 are allowed. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art fails to simultaneously teach all the limitations of claim 15 which includes a detector in proximity to the cover to measure emissivity. Regarding claim 16 depends from independent claim 15. The prior art fails to simultaneously teach all the limitations of claim 17 which includes measuring emissivity reflected by the device with a pyroelectric detector. Regarding claims 18-20 depends from independent claim 15. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOURNEY F SUMLAR whose telephone number is (571)270-0656. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4pm. 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, Ricky Mack can be reached at 571-272-2333. 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. JOURNEY F. SUMLAR Examiner Art Unit 2872 24 September 2026 /SHARRIEF I BROOME/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 1 ¶0101 teaches new particles are added to the cluster in an asymmetric fashion rather than in a uniform coating, since asymmetric particles such as "Janus" spheres. 2 Inherit features of a Janus Particle 3 Fig.1 shows the change in angular orientation changes with heat.