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 .
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: the specification does not mention the specific emissivities claimed in claims 2-5 and 13-16.
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: the specification does not mention the specific absorptivity claimed in claims 6-10.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-13 & 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, for having a broader scope than can be enabled.
Claim 1 recites a housing that emits infrared rays in a specific wavelength range and an electronic component which is broadly claimed as anything that generates heat. The claim does not require the housing or electronic component to have any particular form or contain any particular materials. Hence, the claim is so broad as to cover any form of housing capable of emitting infrared rays in the specific spectrum coupled with any electronics capable of generating heat, including electronic components and housings having a form or material that is unknown to the applicant. Accordingly, the disclosure is not commensurate with the scope of the claim, and specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make the entire scope of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 2-6, these claims further specify the emissivity or absorptivity of the housing, but do not limit the form or material of the housing, hence the claimed scope still includes housings including materials or forms that are unknown to the applicant but are potentially capable of such emissions/absorptivity. They also do not limit the electronic component to a known form of electronic component.
Regarding claims 7-10, these claims specify the form of the electronic component, but the housing still has a scope that is not fully supported.
Regarding claims 11-13 & 18, the claims include the materials used to emit the infrared rays, hence the claimed housing has a scope that is commensurate with the disclosure. However, the electronic component is still unspecified and therefore has a great scope than can be enabled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 6-10, 14-17, and 19-20 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.
Claims 7-10, 14-17, and 19-20 all recite electronic components the housing is formed on, such as a battery, power tool, etc. It is unclear it the components recited are meant to be the “electronic component” of the parent claims or an additional component. Examiner will assume the latter. If this is correct, it is suggested applicant clarify this by amending to language such as “wherein the electronic component is a (battery pack, battery charger, etc.)”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 –
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2015/0331461 (Delano et al.).
Regarding claim 1, Delano et al. discloses an electric device comprising: a housing having an exterior surface exposed to a surrounding environment; an interior volume defined in the housing; an electronic component disposed in the interior volume and configured to generate heat; and wherein at least a portion of the exterior surface emits infrared rays in a wavelength range of 8 to 13 micrometers to release heat into the surrounding environment (“In one or more implementations, an apparatus includes a housing, one or more electrical components disposed within the housing, and a spectrally selective radiation emission device. The one or more electrical components are configured to generate heat during operation. The spectrally selective radiation emission device is disposed on the housing and configured to emit radiation when heated by the one or more electrical components” abstract, wherein “Thus, the spectrally selective radiation emission device 126 may act to cool the computing device using far infrared wavelengths 408 for emission (e.g., approximately 10 k nm) yet resist heating caused by near infrared wavelengths 406 from the sunlight 402.” P 40 and “may include configuration of the spectrally selective radiation emission device 126 to permit or restrict short-wavelength infrared from 1.4-3 micrometers, mid-wavelength infrared from about 3-8 micrometers, long-wavelength infrared from about 8-15 micrometers,” P 41).
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.
Claim(s) 2-8 and 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Delano et al. as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US 2022/0163271 (Lee et al.).
Regarding claim 2, Delano et al. discloses the claimed invention except it is silent as to whether the portion of the exterior surface has an emissivity of at least 70 percent in the wavelength range.
Lee et al. discloses an exterior surface that has an emissivity of at al least 70 percent in the wavelength range (fig. 18 shows the emissivity of a radioactive coating as a function of wavelength, depending on binder ratios, in every instance the emissivity in the wavelength range is in the approximate range of 85-95%). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was to choose a material with an emissivity of at least 70 percent in the wavelength range because high emissivity in the range is necessary for the invention to function, and there is no evidence that the specific value of 70 percent is critical.
Regarding claim 3, Delano et al. in view of Lee et al. discloses the electric device of claim 2, wherein the emissivity is between 80 and 90 percent in the wavelength range (Lee et al., fig. 18, many of the options are in the 80 to 90% range).
Regarding claim 4, Delano et al. in view of Lee et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the emissivity being 88 percent in the wavelength range. This value is within the range shown in Lee et al., and it would have been obvious to a choose this the value of 88 percent as a matter of routine optimization or experimentation, as the value of 88 percent is not disclosed to be critical.
Regarding claim 5, Delano et al. in view of Lee et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the emissivity being 89 percent in the wavelength range. This value is within the range shown in Lee et al., and it would have been obvious to a choose this the value of 88 percent as a matter of routine optimization or experimentation, as the value of 88 percent is not disclosed to be critical.
Regarding claim 6, Delano et al. in view of Lee et al. discloses the electric device of claim 3, wherein the portion of the exterior surface has an absorptivity of at least 3.5 percent for light having a wavelength range of 0.3 to 2.5 micrometers (Lee et al. table 2, showing absorptivity in the solar range of 0.3 to 2.5 micrometers of 3.2-3.87%).
Regarding claim 7, Delano et al. in view of Lee et al. discloses the electric device of claim 6, wherein the exterior surface of the housing is formed on a battery pack (“This may include electronic devices such as … power supplies, and so forth.” P 26).
Regarding claim 8, Delano et al. in view of Lee et al. discloses the electric device of claim 6, wherein the exterior surface of the housing is formed on a battery charger (“This may include electronic devices such … electrical charging devices … and so forth.” P 26).
Regarding claim 11, Delano et al. discloses an electric device comprising: a housing having an exterior surface exposed to a surrounding environment; an interior volume defined in the housing; and an electronic component disposed in the interior volume and configured to generate heat, wherein at least a portion of the exterior surface emits infrared rays in a wavelength range of 8 to 13 micrometers (“In one or more implementations, an apparatus includes a housing, one or more electrical components disposed within the housing, and a spectrally selective radiation emission device. The one or more electrical components are configured to generate heat during operation. The spectrally selective radiation emission device is disposed on the housing and configured to emit radiation when heated by the one or more electrical components” abstract, wherein “Thus, the spectrally selective radiation emission device 126 may act to cool the computing device using far infrared wavelengths 408 for emission (e.g., approximately 10 k nm) yet resist heating caused by near infrared wavelengths 406 from the sunlight 402.” P 40 and “may include configuration of the spectrally selective radiation emission device 126 to permit or restrict short-wavelength infrared from 1.4-3 micrometers, mid-wavelength infrared from about 3-8 micrometers, long-wavelength infrared from about 8-15 micrometers,” P 41).
Delano et al. does not disclose at least one of Al2O2, SiO2, and Si3N4 nanoparticles. Lee et al. discloses a coating for a radiative cooling comprising at least one of Al2O2, SiO2, and Si3N4 nanoparticles (“A radiative cooling device according to an embodiment of the present invention may include a paint coating layer … with nano or microparticles of which a particle size and a composition are determined in consideration of infrared emissivity … in a wavelength range corresponding to a sky window … The nano or microparticles may include at least one nano or microparticle material of SiO2, Al2O3, CaCO3, CaSO4, c-BN, ZrO2, MgHPO4, Ta2O5, AlN, LiF, MgF2, HfO2, and BaSO4 and a mixed material mixed with the at least one nano or microparticle material.” P 25-26).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to substitute the oxide nanoparticle based radiative cooling paint of Lee et al. for the aluminum based radiative cooling paint of Delano et al. because they are functional equivalents, and Delano et al. specifically states that the choice of paint is generally unimportant (“For example, a spectrally selective coating may be applied to a flexible substrate, such as a polyester urethane material having embedded aluminum spheres under four microns in diameter, multiwall carbon nanotube with nickel oxide nano-composite coatings, and so on. A variety of other examples are also contemplated without departing from the spirit and scope thereof.” P 45).
Regarding claim 12, Delano et al. in view of Lee et al. disclose the electric device of claim 11, wherein the portion of the exterior surface includes dipentaerythritol penta-hexa-acrylate (Lee et al., “The binder may include at least one binder material of dipentaerythritol hexaacrylate (DPHA), polytetrafluoroethylene (DPHA), poly urethane acrylate (PUA), ethylene tetra fluoro ethylene (ETFE), polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), acrylic polymers, polyester polymers, and polyurethane polymers.” P 31).
Regarding claim 13, Delano et al. in view of Lee et al. disclose the electric device of claim 12, wherein the portion of the exterior surface includes an emissivity of at least 70 percent in the wavelength range (Lee et al., fig. 18 shows the emissivity of a radioactive coating as a function of wavelength, depending on binder ratios, in every instance the emissivity in the wavelength range is in the approximate range of 85-95%).
Regarding claim 14, Delano et al. in view of Lee et al. disclose the electric device of claim 13, wherein the exterior surface of the housing is formed on a battery pack (“This may include electronic devices such as … power supplies, and so forth.” P 26).
Regarding claim 15 Delano et al. in view of Lee et al. disclose the electric device of claim 13, wherein the exterior surface of the housing is formed on a battery charger (“This may include electronic devices such … electrical charging devices … and so forth.” P 26).
Claim(s) 1-7, 9-14, and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2023/0284558 (Aldridge et al.) in view of US 2022/0163271 (Lee et al.).
Regarding claim 1, Aldridge et al. discloses an electric device comprising: a housing having an exterior surface exposed to a surrounding environment (multiple figures, element 12); an interior volume defined in the housing; an electronic component disposed in the interior volume and configured to generate heat (multiple figures, element 20).
Aldridge et al. does not disclose a portion of the exterior surface emits infrared rays in a wavelength range of 8 to 13 micrometers to release heat into the surrounding environment. Lee et al. discloses a coating that can be applied to a housing such that the exterior surface of the housing emits infrared rays in a wavelength range of 8 to 13 micrometers to release heat into the surrounding environment (“Further, it is possible to provide a rigid or flexible radiative cooling device by forming a paint coating layer on a rigid or flexible plate.” P 40, wherein “high emissivity for long-wavelength infrared rays in a range of 8 μm to 13 μm as a wavelength range of the sky window so as to have high absorptivity (emissivity) in the entire region of the wavelength range of the sky window” P 102).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the electronic device of Aldridge to include the coating of Lee at al. to increase radiative cooling of the electronic device, an advantage recognized by Lee et al. (“Still another object of the present invention is to provide a cooling function without energy consumption by being applied to an outer surface of a material requiring cooling, such as construction materials, glass, automotive materials, aviation equipment, energy-saving data centers, electronic devices, solar cells, etc. P 22).
Regarding claim 2, Aldridge et al. in view of Lee et al. discloses the electric device of claim 1, wherein the portion of the exterior surface has an emissivity of at least 70 percent in the wavelength range (Lee et al., fig. 18 shows the emissivity of a radioactive coating as a function of wavelength, depending on binder ratios, in every instance the emissivity in the wavelength range is in the approximate range of 85-95%).
Regarding claim 3, Aldridge et al. in view of Lee et al. discloses the electric device of claim 2, wherein the emissivity is between 80 and 90 percent in the wavelength range (Lee et al., fig. 18, many of the options are in the 80 to 90% range).
Regarding claim 4, Aldridge et al. in view of Lee et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the emissivity being 88 percent in the wavelength range. This value is within the range shown in Lee et al., and it would have been obvious to a choose this the value of 88 percent as a matter of routine optimization or experimentation, as the value of 88 percent is not disclosed to be critical.
Regarding claim 5, Aldridge et al. in view of Lee et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the emissivity being 89 percent in the wavelength range. This value is within the range shown in Lee et al., and it would have been obvious to a choose this the value of 88 percent as a matter of routine optimization or experimentation, as the value of 88 percent is not disclosed to be critical.
Regarding claim 6, Aldridge et al. in view of Lee et al. discloses the electric device of claim 3, wherein the portion of the exterior surface has an absorptivity of at least 3.5 percent for light having a wavelength range of 0.3 to 2.5 micrometers (Lee et al. table 2, showing absorptivity in the solar range of 0.3 to 2.5 micrometers of 3.2-3.87%).
Regarding claim 7, Aldridge et al. in view of Lee et al. discloses the electric device of claim 6, wherein the exterior surface of the housing is formed on a battery pack (element 30).
Regarding claim 9, Aldridge et al. in view of Lee et al. discloses the electric device of claim 6, wherein the exterior surface of the housing is formed on a power tool (“lawnmower” abstract).
Regarding claim 10, Aldridge et al. in view of Lee et al. discloses the electric device of claim 9, wherein the power tool is configured to cut plant matter (“lawnmower” abstract).
Regarding claim 11, Aldridge et al. discloses an electric device comprising: a housing having an exterior surface exposed to a surrounding environment (multiple figures, element 12); an interior volume defined in the housing; an electronic component disposed in the interior volume and configured to generate heat (multiple figures, element 20).
Aldridge does not disclose a portion of the exterior surface emits infrared rays in a wavelength range of 8 to 13 micrometers, wherein the portion of the exterior surface includes at least one of Al2O2, SiO2, and Si3N4 nanoparticles.
Lee et al. discloses a coating comprising at least one of Al2O2, SiO2, and Si3N4 nanoparticles that can be applied to a housing such that the exterior surface of the housing emits infrared rays in a wavelength range of 8 to 13 micrometers to release heat into the surrounding environment (“A radiative cooling device according to an embodiment of the present invention may include a paint coating layer … with nano or microparticles of which a particle size and a composition are determined in consideration of infrared emissivity … in a wavelength range corresponding to a sky window … The nano or microparticles may include at least one nano or microparticle material of SiO2, Al2O3, CaCO3, CaSO4, c-BN, ZrO2, MgHPO4, Ta2O5, AlN, LiF, MgF2, HfO2, and BaSO4 and a mixed material mixed with the at least one nano or microparticle material.” P 25-26).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the electronic device of Aldridge to include the coating of Lee at al. to increase radiative cooling of the electronic device, an advantage recognized by Lee et al. (“Still another object of the present invention is to provide a cooling function without energy consumption by being applied to an outer surface of a material requiring cooling, such as construction materials, glass, automotive materials, aviation equipment, energy-saving data centers, electronic devices, solar cells, etc. P 22).
Regarding claim 12, Albridge et al. in view of Lee et al. disclose the electric device of claim 11, wherein the portion of the exterior surface includes dipentaerythritol penta-hexa-acrylate (Lee et al., “The binder may include at least one binder material of dipentaerythritol hexaacrylate (DPHA), polytetrafluoroethylene (DPHA), poly urethane acrylate (PUA), ethylene tetra fluoro ethylene (ETFE), polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), acrylic polymers, polyester polymers, and polyurethane polymers.” P 31).
Regarding claim 13, Albridge et al. in view of Lee et al. disclose the electric device of claim 12, wherein the portion of the exterior surface includes an emissivity of at least 70 percent in the wavelength range (Lee et al., fig. 18 shows the emissivity of a radioactive coating as a function of wavelength, depending on binder ratios, in every instance the emissivity in the wavelength range is in the approximate range of 85-95%).
Regarding claim 14, Albridge et al. in view of Lee et al. disclose the electric device of claim 13, wherein the exterior surface of the housing is formed on a battery pack (element 30).
Regarding claim 16, Albridge et al. in view of Lee et al. disclose the electric device of claim 13, wherein the exterior surface of the housing is formed on a power tool (“lawmower” abstract).
Regarding claim 17, Albridge et al. in view of Lee et al. disclose the electric device of claim 16, wherein the power tool is configured to cut plant matter (“lawmower” abstract).
Regarding claim 18, Aldridge et al. discloses an electric device comprising: a housing having an exterior surface exposed to a surrounding environment (multiple figures, element 12); an interior volume defined in the housing; an electronic component disposed in the interior volume and configured to generate heat (multiple figures, element 20).
Aldridge does not disclose a portion of the exterior surface emits infrared rays in a wavelength range of 8 to 13 micrometers to release heat into the surrounding environment, wherein the portion of the exterior surface includes at least one of Al2O2, SiO2, CaSO4, c-BN, ZrO2, MgHPO4,Ta2O5,AlN,LiF,MgF2,HfO2, and BaSO4 nanoparticles mixed with a polymeric binder and a paint.
Lee et al. discloses a coating comprising at least one of Al2O2, SiO2, CaSO4, c-BN, ZrO2, MgHPO4,Ta2O5,AlN,LiF,MgF2,HfO2, and BaSO4 nanoparticles mixed with a polymeric binder and a paint that can be applied to a housing such that the exterior surface of the housing emits infrared rays in a wavelength range of 8 to 13 micrometers to release heat into the surrounding environment (“A radiative cooling device according to an embodiment of the present invention may include a paint coating layer … with nano or microparticles of which a particle size and a composition are determined in consideration of infrared emissivity … in a wavelength range corresponding to a sky window and a binder mechanically connecting the surfaces of the nano or microparticles in a solvent. The nano or microparticles may include at least one nano or microparticle material of SiO2, Al2O3, CaCO3, CaSO4, c-BN, ZrO2, MgHPO4, Ta2O5, AlN, LiF, MgF2, HfO2, and BaSO4 and a mixed material mixed with the at least one nano or microparticle material.” P 25-26).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the electronic device of Aldridge to include the coating of Lee at al. to increase radiative cooling of the electronic device, an advantage recognized by Lee et al. (“Still another object of the present invention is to provide a cooling function without energy consumption by being applied to an outer surface of a material requiring cooling, such as construction materials, glass, automotive materials, aviation equipment, energy-saving data centers, electronic devices, solar cells, etc. P 22).
Regarding claim 19, Albridge et al. in view of Lee et al. disclose the electric device of claim 18, wherein the exterior surface of the housing is formed on a battery pack (element 30).
Regarding claim 20, Albridge et al. in view of Lee et al. disclose the electric device of claim 18, wherein the exterior surface of the housing is formed on a power tool (“lawnmower” abstract).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZA W OSENBAUGH-STEWART whose telephone number is (571)270-5782. The examiner can normally be reached 10am - 6pm Pacific Time M-F.
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 571-272-2293. 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.
/ELIZA W OSENBAUGH-STEWART/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881