DETAILED ACTION
As of the response to restriction requirement filed on March 13, 2026, claims 1 – 20 are pending. Claims 1 – 10 are withdrawn from consideration.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group II, claims 11 – 20 in the reply filed on March 13, 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 11 – 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buskens et al. US 2022/0306526 A1 (hereinafter “D1”) in view of Hu et al. WO 2020/236767 A1 (hereinafter “D2”).
Regarding claims 11, 15, 16, 18, 20:
D1 is directed to thermochromic materials and methods of forming thermochromic materials (Abstract). The thermochromic material may comprise vanadium (IV) oxide [VO2; Mott insulator] (Abstract; [0002], [0009]) in mixture with a separate solid component comprising inter alia SiO2, Al2O3, TiO2 and mixtures thereof [meeting claim 16] ([0009], [0041]).
In an embodiment, D1 discloses a method of depositing a coating onto a substrate comprising:
providing a substrate, e.g. a silica-based glass and/or Pilkington Optiwhite [also meeting claim 16] ([0011], [0050]);
dip-coating the substrate into a bath filled with a thermochromic coating material [slurry], wherein the coating material comprises a mixture of e.g. ([0058] – [0060], [0063]): a thermochromic material such as vanadyl oxalate in 2-propanol, a separate solid component such as silica colloidal sol optionally with tungsten hexachloride that are aged for 24 hours ([0063], [0041]); and
rapidly [as a pulse] thermally treating the applied coating material at a temperature greater than 300°C, e.g. 300°C – 500°C [~ 573 K – 773 K] over 500 to 1000 seconds ([0056], [0007], [0035], [0045]), in order to sinter or anneal [reduce porosity, increase density, form composite coating] the coating material ([0037]).
D1 discloses that the vanadyl oxalate solution may be a solid and exist as a colloidal suspension of particles [nanoparticles] in a liquid medium ([0011] “the material comprises a solid component”, [0012], [0015]). In other embodiments, the substrate may be a window glass ([0031]). The resultant thermochromic materials have a switching temperature [phase transition temperature] due to a fully reversible metal-to-semiconductor phase1 transition ([0002]). Below the switching temperature, the materials have increased transmission in the 800 to 2400nm [first] wavelength range of the electromagnetic (EM) spectrum) compared to above the switching temperature [interacts with first wavelength range in a non-transmissive mode, i.e. reflection and/or absorption] ([0006]).
D1 does not expressly teach that the high temperature heating pulse comprises exposure to a temperature of at least 1500 K (1227 °C) for a duration of less than 60 seconds.
D2 is directed to fast high-temperature sintering systems and methods (Abstract; [0003]). D2 discloses that their method may apply to sinter glass coating layers, compositions and systems involving VO2, SiO2 and TiO2 ([0029], [0105]; Table 3). Their method comprises: providing a coated substrate or a workpiece; and sintering the a coating on the coated substrate or sintering the workpiece at sintering temperatures up to 1500°C [1773 K] using a joule-heating source such as a radiative heating strip within 3 to 5 seconds as an ultrahigh sintering technique (UHS) ([0123] – [0124], [0144]; Fig. 21).
D2 discloses that the disclosed sintering process helps to avoid/mitigate elemental losses from sintering as well as provide coatings and products with high crystallinity and density ([0125], [0134]). Furthermore, D2 discloses that UHS processes offer highly controllable temperature profiles for sintering and thus excellent property tunability for synthesizing ceramics ([0143], [0147]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of D1 by exposing the coated substrates to a temperature of at least 1500 K (1227 °C) for a duration of less than 60 seconds because D2 teaches that the sintering technique taught by D2 allows for better control of resultant properties and minimal loss of elements within the coating due to thermal processing.
Regarding claim 12, 13, 14:
D1 discloses embodiments of products produced by their method where visible light meaningfully transmits regardless of temperature within a variation of less than 10% (Table 2, Table 3; [0063] – [0065]), wherein visible light refers to light between 400 to 700 nm [second wavelength range].
Regarding claim 17:
D1 discloses sample films formed by their method where the thickness may be e.g. 35.5 nm or 27.4 nm (Table 5; [0067]). More generally, the coating layers may be between 10 to 200 nm ([0011]). In the general case, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66(Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 19:
D1 does not expressly teach wherein the high temperature heating pulse further comprises: prior to the duration, heating to the temperature at a heating rate of at least 102 K/s; and after the duration, cooling from the duration at a cooling rate of a least 102K/s.
D2 discloses that UHS involves heating rates between 2000 – 10000 °C/min [K/min] (2x 103 to 1 x 104) and cooling rates of up to 10000 °C/min ([0076]); within and/or overlapping with the claimed ranges.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of D1 by exposing the coated substrates to a temperature of at least 1500 K (1227 °C) for a duration of less than 60 seconds and within the claimed heating and cooling rates because D2 teaches that the sintering technique taught by D2 allows for better control of resultant properties and minimal loss of elements within the coating due to thermal processing.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSE I HERNANDEZ-KENNEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5979. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30-3:30.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached on (571) 272-1295. 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.
/JOSE I HERNANDEZ-KENNEY/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1717
1 While insulators are not the same as semiconductors, the Examiner notes that the phase transition is a property of solid VO2 itself. As VO2 is identified as a mott insulator by the instant specification, the Examiner interprets, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, that metal-to-semiconductor also references metal-to-insulator phase changes.
Prosecution Insights