DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the amendment filed on May 11st, 2026. Claims 1-13, 15-16, 18, and 20-23 are pending, with claims 21-23 being new.
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 amendment to the specification file on May 11st, 2026 is accepted and overcomes the prior objections to the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-10 & 21 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 but does not require the housing to contain any particular materials. Hence, the claim is so broad as to cover any housing material capable of emitting infrared rays in the specific spectrum claimed, including housings formed or coated with materials unknown to applicant. Accordingly, the disclosure is not commensurate with the scope of the claim, and the 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. Suggested correction: specify the IR emitting materials in or on the housing, for example by claiming that it includes the nanoparticles claimed in claims 11 & 18.
Regarding claims 2-6, these claims further specify the emissivity or absorptivity of the housing, but do not limit the material emitting the IR light, hence the claimed scope still includes housings including materials that are unknown to the applicant but are potentially capable of such emissions/absorptivity.
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 claim 21, the claim further specifies that the housing includes a plastic component having nanoparticles suspended therein, the nanoparticles configured to emit the infrared rays, but does not limit the type of nanoparticles to those known to the applicant.
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) 1-7, 18, 20-21, and 23 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: an outdoor power tool housing having an exterior surface exposed to a surrounding environment (multiple figures, elements 12 & 28); an interior volume defined in the outdoor power tool housing; and 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 outdoor power tool housing is formed on a lawnmower (“lawnmower” abstract).
Regarding claim 10, Aldridge et al. in view of Lee et al. discloses the electric device of claim 6, wherein the exterior surface of the outdoor power tool housing is formed on a trimmer (blade, element 22).
Regarding claim 21, Aldridge et al. in view of Lee et al. discloses the electric device of claim 1, wherein the outdoor power tool housing includes a plastic component having nanoparticles suspended therein, the nanoparticles configured to emit the infrared rays (Lee et al., “paint solution mixed with nano or microparticles of which a particle size and a composition are determined in consideration of infrared emissivity and reflectance to incident sunlight in a wavelength range corresponding to a sky window and a binder mechanically connecting the surfaces of the nano or microparticles in a solvent.” Abstract, wherein the binder is plastic, see “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 18, Aldridge et al. discloses an electric device comprising: a battery pack housing having an exterior surface exposed to a surrounding environment (“a case that houses the at least one battery cell.” P 26); an interior volume defined in the battery pack housing (“a case that houses the at least one battery cell.” P 26); and an electronic component disposed in the interior volume and configured to generate heat (“at least one battery cell.” P 26).
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 SiO2, CaSO4, c-BN, ZrO2, MgHPO4, Ta2O5, AlN, LiF, MgF2, HfO2, and BaSO4 nanoparticles.
Lee et al. discloses a coating comprising at least one of SiO2, CaSO4, c-BN, ZrO2, MgHPO4,Ta2O5, AlN, LiF, MgF2, HfO2, and BaSO4 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 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 20, Aldridge et al. in view of Lee et al. discloses the electric device of claim 18, wherein the battery pack has a coupling portion for connecting an interface portion to a device (“The blade motor driver 34 can be in electrical communication with each of the battery 30 and the blade motor 32.” P 28).
Aldridge et al. does not specify whether the coupling portion is part of the battery pack housing or another part of the battery pack. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to form the coupling portion as part of the battery pack housing so that the coupling could be made without needing to open up the battery pack housing, potentially requiring the user to expose themselves to dangerous battery acid and to expose the innards of the battery to contaminants. If the coupling portion is a part of the housing, it would have been obvious for the portion of the exterior surface including the nanoparticles to be formed on the coupling portion because the entire housing should be covered in the nanoparticles for maximum effect.
Regarding claim 23, Aldridge et al. in view of Lee et al. discloses the electric device of claim 18, wherein the battery pack housing includes a plastic component having the nanonparticles suspended therein (Lee et al., “paint solution mixed with nano or microparticles of which a particle size and a composition are determined in consideration of infrared emissivity and reflectance to incident sunlight in a wavelength range corresponding to a sky window and a binder mechanically connecting the surfaces of the nano or microparticles in a solvent.” Abstract, wherein the binder is plastic, see “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).
Claim(s) 1-6, 8, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2023/0112387 (Kachi et al.) in view of US 2022/0163271 (Lee et al.).
Regarding claim 1, Kachi et al. discloses an electric device comprising: an outdoor power tool housing having an exterior surface exposed to a surrounding environment (multiple figures, element 24); an interior volume defined in the outdoor power tool housing (“As shown in FIG. 6, the control unit 34, a motor 46, an oil tank 48, and an oil pump 50 are arranged in a front portion of the inside of the body housing 24.” P 45); and an electronic component disposed in the interior volume and configured to generate heat (multiple figures, control unit 34 & battery pack B).
Kachi 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 Kachi 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, Kachi 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, Kachi 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, Kachi 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, Kachi 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, Kachi 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 8, Kachi et al. in view of Lee et al. discloses the electric device of claim 6, wherein the exterior surface of the outdoor power tool housing is formed on a portable chainsaw (“The disclosure herein discloses a chainsaw.” abstract).
Regarding claim 21, Kachi et al. in view of Lee et al. discloses the electric device of claim 1, wherein the outdoor power tool housing includes a plastic component having nanoparticles suspended therein, the nanoparticles configured to emit the infrared rays (Lee et al., “paint solution mixed with nano or microparticles of which a particle size and a composition are determined in consideration of infrared emissivity and reflectance to incident sunlight in a wavelength range corresponding to a sky window and a binder mechanically connecting the surfaces of the nano or microparticles in a solvent.” Abstract, wherein the binder is plastic, see “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).
Claim(s) 1-6, 9, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2023/0313805 (Ejiri et al.) in view of US 2022/0163271 (Lee et al.).
Regarding claim 1, Ejiri et al. discloses an electric device comprising: an outdoor power tool housing having an exterior surface exposed to a surrounding environment (multiple figures, element 2); an interior volume defined in the outdoor power tool housing (“an internal space of the housing 2,” P 23); and an electronic component disposed in the interior volume and configured to generate heat (“The blower includes: a switch section configured to switch ON or OFF of the motor; and a control section configured to control rotation of the motor by controlling driving using the inverter circuit, and the control section is arranged at a position inside the housing,” P 7).
Ejiri 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 Ejiri 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, Ejiri et al. in view of Lee et al. disclose 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, Ejiri et al. in view of Lee et al. disclose 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, Ejiri et al. in view of Lee et al. disclose 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, Ejiri et al. in view of Lee et al. disclose 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, Ejiri et al. in view of Lee et al. disclose 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 9, Ejiri et al. in view of Lee et al. disclose the electric device of claim 6, wherein the exterior surface of the outdoor power tool housing is formed on a handheld blower (multiple figures, element 1).
Regarding claim 21, Ejiri et al. in view of Lee et al. disclose the electric device of claim 1, wherein the outdoor power tool housing includes a plastic component having nanoparticles suspended therein, the nanoparticles configured to emit the infrared rays (Lee et al., “paint solution mixed with nano or microparticles of which a particle size and a composition are determined in consideration of infrared emissivity and reflectance to incident sunlight in a wavelength range corresponding to a sky window and a binder mechanically connecting the surfaces of the nano or microparticles in a solvent.” Abstract, wherein the binder is plastic, see “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).
Claim(s) 11-13, 15-16, 18, 20, and 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0084591 (Kishima et al.) in view of US 2022/0163271 (Lee et al.).
Regarding claim 11, Kishima et al. disclose an electric device comprising: a battery charger housing having an exterior surface exposed to a surrounding environment (multiple figures, element 1); an interior volume defined in the battery charger housing (interior space shown in figure 3A & 5A); and an electronic component disposed in the interior volume and configured to generate heat (“a charging circuit unit disposed in the housing.” abstract).
Kishima 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, wherein the portion of the exterior surface includes at least one of SiO2 and Si3B4 nanoparticles.
Lee et al. discloses a coating comprising at least one of SiO2 and Si3B4 nanoparticles 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 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 battery charger of Kishima et al. 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, Kishima 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, Kishima et al. in view of Lee et al. disclose the electric device of claim 11, 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 15, Kishima et al. in view of Lee et al. disclose the electric device of claim 13, wherein the portion of the exterior surface is formed on a top portion and/or a bottom portion of the battery charger housing (battery charger of Kishima et al. is formed of a top portion and a bottom portion, elements 2 & 3, and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to coated either or both of these with the coating of Lee to increase cooling).
Regarding claim 16, Kishima et al. in view of Lee et al. disclose the electric device of claim 13, wherein the battery charger housing has a support structure configured to electrically connect with a battery (“As illustrated in FIG. 1, the battery connecting part 21 has a communication port 21a, a terminal connecting part 21A, and a pair of engaging parts 21B.” P 32), and wherein the portion of the exterior surface formed on the support structure (obvious to form on any and all structures of the casing in increase cooling).
Regarding claim 22, Kishima et al. in view of Lee et al. disclose the electric device of claim 11, wherein the battery charger housing includes a plastic component having the nanoparticles suspended therein (Lee et al., “paint solution mixed with nano or microparticles of which a particle size and a composition are determined in consideration of infrared emissivity and reflectance to incident sunlight in a wavelength range corresponding to a sky window and a binder mechanically connecting the surfaces of the nano or microparticles in a solvent.” Abstract, wherein the binder is plastic, see “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 18, Kishima et al. disclose an electric device comprising: a battery pack housing having an exterior surface exposed to a surrounding environment (multiple figures element 101); an interior volume defined in the battery pack housing (“a secondary battery 102 accommodated in the battery pack casing 101.” P 24); and an electronic component disposed in the interior volume and configured to generate heat (“a secondary battery 102 accommodated in the battery pack casing 101.” P 24).
Kishima 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, wherein the portion of the exterior surface includes at least one of SiO2, CaSO4, c-BN, ZrO2, MgHPO4, Ta2O5, AlN, LiF, MgF2, HfO2, and BaSO4 nanoparticles.
Lee et al. discloses a coating comprising at least one of SiO2, CaSO4, c-BN, ZrO2, MgHPO4, Ta2O5, AlN, LiF, MgF2, HfO2, and BaSO4 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 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 Kishma 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 20, Kishima et al. in view of Lee et al. disclose the electric device of claim 18, wherein the battery pack housing has a coupling portion for connecting an interface portion to a device (“The slide grooves 101b are provided for mechanically connecting the battery pack 100 to the battery charger 1.” P 27), and wherein the portion of the exterior surface formed on the coupling portion (obvious to apply coating of Lee to any and all portions of the battery pack housing to increase heat removal).
Regarding claim 23, Kishima et al. in view of Lee et al. disclose the electric device of claim 18, wherein the battery pack housing includes a plastic component having the nanoparticles suspended therein Lee et al., “paint solution mixed with nano or microparticles of which a particle size and a composition are determined in consideration of infrared emissivity and reflectance to incident sunlight in a wavelength range corresponding to a sky window and a binder mechanically connecting the surfaces of the nano or microparticles in a solvent.” Abstract, wherein the binder is plastic, see “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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 11th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejections of claims 1-7, 10, and 21 over Aldridge in view of Lee et al., applicant argues that Lee does not disclose applying the paint coating layer 110 to a lawnmower as shown in Aldridge.
Examiner has not taken the position that Lee et al. discloses applying the coating layer specifically to a lawnmower. Lee discloses applying the coating layer to an external surface in need of cooling, and in particular an exterior surface of an electronic device for cooling, and it would have been obvious to apply it to the lawnmower of Aldridge because the exterior of a lawnmower is such a surface, as the lawnmower is an electronic device that generates heat.
Regarding the rejections of claims 1-7, 10, and 21 over Aldridge in view of Lee et al., applicant argues that Aldridge does not disclose the material of which the lawnmower is made, and therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would not find a teaching in Lee and/or Aldridge to paint the lawnmower with the paint coating layer 110 as taught by Lee.
Lee states it can be coated on any rigid or flexible surface, so any rigid housing material should be compatible with the coating of Lee, absent evidence to the contrary. As the housing of Aldridge is clearly rigid, the material is prima facie compatible. It is also noted Lee specifically discloses using the coating on automotive materials and aviation equipment, which are generally formed of the same materials as lawnmower housings, such as aluminum, steel, and durable plastics.
Regarding the rejections of claims 18, 20, and 23 over Aldridge in view of Lee et al., applicant argues that Aldridge and Lee do not disclose a battery pack housing and therefore fail to teach or suggest a battery pack housing having an exterior surface including the claimed nanoparticles, as recited in amended claim 18.
In fact, Aldridge does disclose a battery pack housing, as clearly outlined in Aldridge (“a case that houses the at least one battery cell.” P 26).
Regarding new claims 21-23, applicant argues that Lee discloses that the nanoparticles are applied to an outer surface of a material that requires cooling, and not suspended within the material.
Lee et al. discloses that the nanoparticles are suspended in a polymeric coating which is applied to an outer surface of a material, just as applicant does.
Applicant’s remaining arguments are moot because the relevant rejections are overcome by amendment.
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 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
Prosecution Insights