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 .
The amendment filed 12/29/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ouderkirk (USPN 6,565,982 B1), for generally the reasons recited in the prior office action and restated below with respect to the amended claims, wherein the Examiner notes that the claimed invention does not require any particular emissivity or degree of far-infrared rays to be emitted in the wavelength range of 8,000 to 13,000 nm (e.g., in the atmospheric window) with respect to the “far-infrared ray emissive layer” nor any particular degree of reflective properties or reflectivity in the near-infrared spectrum with respect to the “near-infrared ray reflective layer…comprising a metal” such that even negligible amounts would read upon the claims, and given that one having ordinary skill in the art would have clearly understood that a material may be both reflective and transparent, or both reflective and emissive, etc., at a given wavelength of the spectrum, and that polymers in general are known to be emissive in the atmospheric window due to vibrations of specific functional groups or bonds thereof (as evidenced by Aili, Selection of polymers with functional groups for daytime radiative cooling, Entire document, particularly pages 1-3), the Examiner maintains her position that the claimed invention would have been obvious over the teachings of Ouderkirk as discussed in detail below.
As discussed in the prior office action, Ouderkirk teaches a transparent multilayer device that reflects light in the infrared region while transmitting light in the visible region comprising a multilayered polymer film and a transparent conductor, wherein the device may be applied to the surface of a glass or plastic substrate, such as an exterior window in a building, or to a windshield or window in an automobile, truck, or aircraft, and that by “limiting the light transmitted to visible wavelengths and keeping out light in the infrared region, the transparent multilayer device of the present invention aids in reducing required cooling in summer and heating in winter” (Entire document, particularly Abstract, Col. 25, lines 27-43). Ouderkirk teaches that the multilayered polymer film comprises a multilayer stack that includes tens, hundreds or thousands of layers, each of which can be made of a number of different materials, wherein the characteristics which determine the choice of materials for a particular stack depend upon the desired optical performance of the stack (Col. 3, line 34-Col. 4, line 49); wherein the preferred stack comprises alternating layers of low/high index films, wherein each low/high index pair has a combined optical thickness of ½ the center wavelength of the band the pair is designed to reflect, preferably each being ¼ wavelength thick layers (Col. 4, lines 50-66; Col. 9, lines 56-59). Ouderkirk teaches that preferably, the multilayered polymer film comprises layers of a crystalline, semi-crystalline, or liquid crystalline polymer, such as polyethylene naphthalate (PEN), having a positive stress optical coefficient, and layers of a selected second polymer; or alternately, layers of a birefringent polymer, especially a crystalline, semi-crystalline, or liquid crystalline material, such as polyethylene terephthalate (PET), and a second selected polymer in which the layers have an average thickness of not more than 0.5 microns; with particularly preferred combinations of alternating layers in the case of mirrors/reflective films including PET/ECDEL™ and PEN/ECDEL™, wherein ECDEL™ is a thermoplastic polyester available from Eastman Chemical Co. (Cols. 5-8); more particularly, the Examiner notes that ECDEL™ polyesters are copolyester ether elastomers (as evidenced by the ECDEL™ product brochure from Eastman Chemical Co., page 4) based on a combination of cyclohexane dicarboxylic acid (CHDA) and cyclohexane dimethanol (CHDM) with polytetramethylene ether glycol (PTMG) (as evidenced by Young, US2024/0287305A1, Paragraph 0115; or Strand, US2021/0155750A1, Paragraph 0075, specifically ECDEL™ 9966; or Tokarev, US2021/0154049A1, Paragraph 0048, also ECDEL™ 9966; each of which is assigned to Eastman Chemical Co.), reading upon the instantly claimed non-aromatic poly(ether-ester) copolymer of instant claims 1, 5-8, 15, and 18.
Ouderkirk teaches that the multilayered polymer films “are combined with a transparent conductor to provide a transparent multilayer device having broader reflectivity than either the multilayered polymer film or the transparent conductor alone”, wherein in particular, the multilayered polymer film provides good near infrared reflection from about 750 nm to about 2500 nm but its reflectivity decreases above about 2500 nm; while on the other hand, the transparent conductor provides good far infrared reflection above about 2500 nm while its reflectivity in the near infrared region is not as good throughout the 750 nm to 2500 nm region as that of the multilayered polymer film, which can be designed or “tuned” to provide the desired infrared refection while still transmitting sufficient visible light to be transparent, with preferred metals for the transparent conductor including silver, gold, copper, and aluminum, although nickel, chromium, and tin may be used (as in instant claim 12), with silver being particularly preferred given its ability to reflect light of longer wavelengths (Col. 22, line 36-Col. 23, line 8); and hence, the Examiner notes that although the reflective metal layer taught by Ouderkirk is characterized as providing good far infrared reflection, it still provides some degree of near-infrared ray reflectivity thereby reading upon the claimed “near-infrared ray reflective layer” including the wavelength range as recited in instant claim 13, and similarly, the multilayered polymer film or optical stack reads upon the claimed “far-infrared ray emissive layer” and would provide some degree of emissivity in the far-infrared range including the wavelength range as recited in amended claims 1, 3, and 15.
Ouderkirk specifically teaches examples comprising layers of PET or PEN (reading upon the claimed first layer comprising an aromatic polyester as in instant claims 1, 3, 9, 15, and 19) with alternating layers of ECDEL™ (reading upon the claimed “far-infrared ray emissive layer…wherein a first layer comprising an aromatic polyester and a second layer comprising a non-aromatic poly(ether-ester)copolymer are alternately stacked in the far-infrared emissive layer” as in instant claims 1, 3, and 15) having individual layer thicknesses and film thicknesses within the claimed ranges (as recited in instant claims 11, 14, and 20); with working Example 1 comprising a coextruded film of 601 layers of PET:ECDEL™ 9966 with the PET on the skin layers; Example 2 comprising a coextruded film of 151 layers of PET:ECDEL™ 9966 with the PET on the skin layers; Example 3 comprising a coextruded film of 225 layers of PEN:ECDEL™ 9966 with the PEN on the skin layers; Example 8 comprising a coextruded film of 601 layers of PET:ECDEL™ 9966 with PET as skin layers; Example 10 comprising a coextruded film of 151 layers of PET:ECDEL™ 9966 with two PET skin layers that were thicker than the internal layers and accounted for about 8% of the film thickness, which was coated with a silver sputtered layer to a transmission level of 53% at 550nm; Example 11 comprising a coextruded film of 151 layers of PET:ECDEL™ 9966 with skin layers coextruded on the outside of the optical stack with a total thickness of about 14% of the coextruded layers, and then laminated to a SCOTCHTINT® silver coated film available from 3M Company as SCOTCHTINT® IN50BR, using an acrylic pressure-sensitive adhesive (PSA), with one sample adhered to clear glass and subsequently applied to SCOTCHTINT® IN50BR Film using the acrylic PSA to form a multilayer IR film/SCOTCHTINT® Film laminate providing a transmitted color of light blue (Examples); and Example 12 comprising a coextruded film of 151 layers of PET:ECDEL™ 9966 with skin layers coextruded on the outside of the optical stack with a total thickness of about 14% of the coextruded layers, laminated to a SCOTCHTINT® nickel coated film available from 3M Company as SCOTCHTINT® Film RE50NEARL using acrylic PSA (Examples; wherein it is known in the art that SCOTCHTINT® brand metallized films may comprise a metal coating on a tinted polyester substrate, as evidenced by Solyntjes, USPN 5,991,072, assigned to 3M Innovation Properties Company, see Col. 4, lines 51-60, Examples).
Ouderkirk also teaches that “[w]hen the transparent multilayer devices of the…invention are applied to a window in a house or automobile to reflect solar heat, such as during the summer, preferably the transparent conductor is next to the interior surface of the window and the multilayered polymer film faces the house or automobile interior,” and that the “outer surface of the multilayered polymer film may be covered by an abrasion resistant coating, as is well known in the art, while a colored film to reduce reflection of visible light may be applied to the outer surface of the transparent conductor by means of a laminating adhesive” (Col. 25, lines 44-55). Ouderkirk further teaches that “[w]here it is desired to reflect radiant heat from the room back into the room during colder weather, the transparent conductor is preferably positioned facing the room or automobile interior, and is preferably covered by a protective polyolefin film, such as, for example, a polypropylene film, to maintain the reflectance in the far infrared region” and that if “the transparent multilayer devices of the…invention are used on the exterior of such windows, durability of the device is a concern” and “[a]ccordingly, a protective UV-stabilized polyester or acrylic film layer may be laminated directly to the transparent conductor to avoid exposing the metal layer to the environment” (Col. 25, line 58-Col. 26, line 3).
Hence, with respect to the instantly claimed invention, Ouderkirk clearly teaches a “laminate for color radiative cooling” and/or a “radiative cooling material comprising a laminate” as instantly claimed, wherein the laminate comprises a colored layer comprising a thermoplastic resin, a multilayer stack reading upon the claimed “far-infrared ray emissive layer” as in instant claims 1, 3, and 15 comprising a first layer or plurality of first layers of aromatic polyester, particularly PEN or PET as in instant claims 9 and 19, and a second layer or plurality of second layers of non-aromatic poly(ether-ester) copolymer, particularly as in instant claims 5-8 and 19, alternately stacked as instantly claimed, and a near-infrared ray reflective layer comprising a metal on the far-infrared emissive layer, particularly silver as in instant claim 12, with thicknesses as in instant claims 11, 14, and 20 with respect to the metal layer, stacked film and individual layers thereof, and a total number of layers of the multilayer stack as in instant claim 10, particularly in light of the examples, such that the only difference between the teachings of Ouderkirk and the claimed invention as recited in instant claims 1, 3, 5-13, 15, and 18-19, is that Ouderkirk does not specifically limit the invention to the claimed layer order wherein the multilayered stack is on the colored thermoplastic resin layer, and the metal layer is on the multilayer stack as in instant claims 1, 3, and 15, nor that the colored layer is colored in a chromatic color as in instant claim 3. However, Ouderkirk does teach that “[f]or most clear optical materials, including most polymers, absorption increases toward the blue end of the visible spectrum” and thus, “it is preferred to design or ‘tune’ the multilayer stack such that the ‘blue’ layers are on the incident side of the multilayer stack” (Col. 4, lines 32-41), with examples providing a light blue color as discussed above; and “that narrow band polarizers operating over a narrow wavelength range can also be designed using the principles described” therein, and that these “can be made to produce polarizers in the red, green, blue, cyan, magenta, or yellow bands, for example” (e.g. chromatic colors, Col. 22, lines 11-15). Ouderkirk also teaches an embodiment wherein the device comprises, in order, an abrasion resistant layer, the multilayered stack, and the metal layer thereon as discussed above, as well as embodiments wherein separate thermoplastic skin layers are provided on the multilayered stack as in the examples as discussed above, and/or also teaches that it “may be desirable to add to one or more of the layers, one or more inorganic or organic adjuvants such as an antioxidant, extrusion aid, heat stabilizer, ultraviolet ray absorber, nucleator, surface projection forming agent, and the like in normal quantities so long as the addition does not substantially interfere with the performance of the…invention” wherein such inorganic adjuvants may also provide some degree of tint or “color” to the one or more layers, and hence, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a chromatic tinted or colored layer in the invention taught by Ouderkirk on an opposite side of the multilayer stack from the metal layer, as in the instantly claimed invention, to provide a desired perceived color of the laminate for desired aesthetic purposes and/or to provide desired adjuvant properties such that absent any clear showing of criticality and/or unexpected results, the claimed invention as recited in instant claims 1, 3, 5-13, 15, and 18-19 would have been obvious over the teachings of Ouderkirk.
With respect to instant claims 2, 4, 14, 16-17, and 20, in addition to the above, it is noted that Ouderkirk teaches that suitable resin materials for the multilayered polymer film in general include polyalkylene polymers, such as polyethylene and poly(4-methyl)pentene; fluorinated polymers such as polychlorotrifluoroethylene; acrylic resins such as polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA); silicone resins (rending obvious the claimed polydimethylsiloxane); and cellulose derivatives (Col. 8, lines 3-52), such that the use of any of these materials for a separate colored or tinted skin layer would have been obvious to one skilled in the art given that it is prima facie obviousness to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success; and more specifically, Ouderkirk discusses the use of UV-stabilized polyester or acrylic resin film layer as a protective film in one embodiment (Col. 25, line 67 – Col. 26, line 3), such that the use of an abrasion resistant protective layer of an acrylic resin such as PMMA, e.g. a suitable acrylic material for the film that is also known to provide abrasion resistance, in a thickness to provide desired protective properties and/or similar to the thicknesses utilized in the examples for the skin layers (falling within the claimed colored layer thickness range as in instant claims 14 and 20), would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, thereby rendering instant claims 2 and 16 as well as instant claims 14 and 20 obvious over the teachings of Ouderkirk given that it is prima facie obviousness to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Further, with respect to instant claims 4 and 17, Ouderkirk clearly teaches chromatic colors as discussed in detail above, and that the multilayered film and device can be tailored to provide desired optical properties such that the use of a chromatic color would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, especially given that color is an obvious design choice in the art, thereby rendering obvious the claimed chromatic color limitation of instant claim 17; and given that Ouderkirk clearly teaches that the multilayer device is transparent in the visible spectrum, 380-750nm, with preferably at least about 20% to about 80% of the light in the visible region of the spectrum transmitted through the device, while at least about 30% of the light in the infrared region is reflected, most preferably more than about 95% of the light in the infrared region is reflected (Col. 26, lines 4-16), a tinted layer or colored protective layer having a transmittance of equal to or higher than 90% as instantly claimed for light with a wavelength range from 400 to 780 nm would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention based upon the teachings of Ouderkirk. Hence, absent any clear showing of criticality and/or unexpected results, the claimed invention as recited in instant claims 4 and 17 would have been obvious over the teachings of Ouderkirk.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ouderkirk (USPN 6,565,982 B1), as applied above, and in further view of Uto (US2014/0127485A1) or Hebrink (USPN 6,830,713) or Hebrink (USPN 6,352,761, hereinafter referred to as Hebrink ‘761). The teachings of Ouderkirk are discussed in detail above and incorporated herein by reference, and although the Examiner is of the position that it would have been obvious to incorporate a colored layer into the device taught by Ouderkirk as discussed in detail above, it is further noted that Uto, which is similarly directed to a laminate film that can provide heat ray-shielding properties as in Ouderkirk, wherein the laminate film comprises a multilayer stack similar to Ouderkirk and the laminate film can be laminated to automotive window glass as in Ouderkirk (Abstract, Paragraph 0186), teaches that to overcome a shift in color when the light incident angle with respect to the film surface increases and/or to provide a “corrected average transmittance”, the optical laminate can include at least one layer with a colored component dispersed in a thermoplastic resin such that by “controlling the transmittance with the use of a colored component or the like in the region where the bandwidth varies depending on the angle to the film surface, a film which shows a stable color tone regardless of a change in the angle of reflected light” can be obtained (Entire document, particularly Paragraphs 0054-0090), thereby providing a clear teaching and/or suggestion that a colored layer may be incorporated into a similar film to provide desired optical properties. It is also noted that Hebrink similarly teaches a multilayer optical film comprising a similar alternating stack of polymer layers with examples including the combination of PEN/ECDEL and PET/ECDEL in the case of mirrors or colored films (Col. 13, line 58-Col. 14, line 4), as in Ouderkirk, wherein Hebrink also teaches that the “appearance of the optical film or other optical device may also be altered by coloring the device such as by laminating a dyed film to the optical device, applying a pigmented coating to the surface of the optical device, or including a pigment in one or more of the materials used to make the optical device,” with suitable colors including chromatic colors, and that the films may also be provided with metal coatings (Col. 43, lines 6-65), as in Ouderkirk; while Hebrink ‘761 more broadly teaches a multilayer optical film comprising a similar alternating stack of polyester layers but wherein the stack specifically utilizes copolyesters that incorporate comonomer units such as ether glycol units and cycloaliphatic units to enhance properties of the films (Abstract, Col. 4, line 39-Col. 6, line 32, and Cols. 8-9) which may also include various other optical or additional layers as desired (Col. 15); and like Hebrink above, Hebrink ‘761 teaches that the films and optical devices of the invention may include dyes or pigments to alter their appearance or to customize them for specific applications, such as by including pigment in one or more of the thermoplastic materials used to make the film or by laminating a colored film to the surface of the multilayered stack, which may also be provided with a metal coating, as in Ouderkirk, if desired (Hebrink ‘761: Col. 17, lines 8-51).
Hence, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further add a colored thermoplastic layer as a skin layer of or as a separate layer applied to either surface of the multilayered stack as in Uto or Hebrink or Hebrink ‘761 into the device taught by Ouderkirk to provide the desired appearance, color or optical properties for a particular end use, thereby further rendering the claimed invention as recited in instant claims 1-20 obvious over Ouderkirk in view of Uto or Hebrink or Hebrink ‘761 given that it is prima facie obviousness to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive with respect to the obviousness rejections over Ouderkirk as the primary reference. The Applicant argues that Ouderkirk allegedly “provides no direct disclosure or suggestion regarding any significant difference in effects resulting from the order of lamination” and allegedly “provides no direct disclosure or suggestion regarding the emissivity of the laminate or each layer, particularly the emissivity with respect to a wavelength of 8 to 13 µm corresponding to the atmospheric window” (see page 7 of the response). The Applicant also argues that as explicitly admitted in the first sentence of the rejection, Ouderkirk teaches a transparent multilayer device that reflects light in the infrared region, and that the Examiner also explicitly notes that the reflective metal layer of Ouderkirk is characterized as providing good far infrared reflection, while the instantly claimed invention recites a far-infrared ray emissive layer being configured to emit a far-infrared ray with a wavelength in a range from 8,000 to 13,000 nm, arguing that it allegedly would not be obvious to modify a reference teaching a transparent multilayer device that reflects light in the infrared region to include a layer that emits a far-infrared ray with a wavelength in a range from 8,000 to 13,000 nm (see first paragraph of page 8). The Applicant then states that “one of ordinary skill [allegedly] would not derive the features of the presently claimed invention, such [as] the far-infrared ray emissive layer of ‘emitting far-infrared rays having a wavelength of 8,000 to 13,000 nm’ and the lamination order of each layer required therefor, from the teachings of Ouderkirk or Ouderkirk in combination with the three additional references” (see second paragraph of page 8). However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and again notes that the claimed invention does not require any particular emissivity or degree of far-infrared rays to be emitted in the wavelength range of 8,000 to 13,000 nm (e.g., in the atmospheric window) with respect to the “far-infrared ray emissive layer” nor any particular degree of reflective properties or reflectivity in the near-infrared spectrum with respect to the “near-infrared ray reflective layer…comprising a metal” such that even negligible amounts would read upon the claims.
The Examiner also notes that one having ordinary skill in the art would have clearly understood that a material may be both reflective and transparent, or both reflective and emissive, etc., at a given wavelength of the spectrum, and that polymers in general are known to be emissive in the atmospheric window due to vibrations of specific functional groups or bonds thereof as evidenced by Aili (Selection of polymers with functional groups for daytime radiative cooling, Entire document), such that contrary to Applicant’s arguments, the mere incorporation of the multilayer polyester stack taught by Ouderkirk would actually imply some degree of emissive properties, especially since Ouderkirk teaches the same alternating polyester layers as utilized in the instant invention and specifically recited in the claims. In fact, it is well established in the art that a solar reflective multilayer laminate (e.g., similar to Ouderkirk) may be highly reflective over the solar spectrum, particularly wavelengths as in Ouderkirk, and yet the polymer layer(s) thereof provide(s) high emittance in the atmospheric window as evidenced by Yang (A dual-layer structure with record-high solar reflectance for daytime radiative cooling, Entire document), or more particularly, Gentle (A Subambient Open Roof Surface under the Mid-Summer Sun, Entire document) which specifically discusses the use of a reflective multilayer stack of birefringent polymer pairs of high and low index polymers, similar to Ouderkirk and particularly comprising a stack of alternating PET/ ECDEL™ layer pairs as taught by Ouderkirk and reading upon the instantly claimed emissive layer for radiative cooling, as discussed in detail above, wherein said stack not only provides very high solar reflectance, including reflectance in the near and far infrared as in Ouderkirk, but also very high thermal emittance in the atmospheric window region from about 8 µm to 14 µm (Entire document, particularly pp. 1-2, Fig. 1). Hence, Applicant’s arguments that it allegedly would not be obvious to modify a reference teaching a transparent multilayer device that reflects light in the infrared region to include a layer that emits a far-infrared ray with a wavelength in a range from 8,000 to 13,000 nm are not persuasive, particularly given that Ouderkirk already implicitly teaches such a layer (or multilayer polymer stack as discussed above) and thus no modification would be required.
With respect to Applicant’s arguments that Ouderkirk allegedly “provides no direct disclosure or suggestion regarding any significant difference in effects resulting from the order of lamination”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that Ouderkirk clearly discusses the order of the layers based upon the intended end use of the laminate, and given that the Applicant provides no showing of criticality and/or unexpected results with respect to the claimed layer ordering, particularly the positioning of the colored layer in the laminate given that Ouderkirk already clearly teaches the metal layer being adjacent the polymer stack, the Examiner maintains her position that the claimed invention would have been obvious over the above teachings of Ouderkirk taken alone or in further view of Uto or Hebrink or Hebrink ‘761 given that it is prima facie obviousness to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MONIQUE R JACKSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1508. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays-Thursdays from 10:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Callie Shosho can be reached at 571-272-1123. 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.
/MONIQUE R JACKSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights