DETAILED ACTION
An Office Action was mailed 06/10/2026. Applicant filed a Response, amended claims 1 and 7, and cancelled claim 6 on 07/30/2026.
Claims 1-5, 7-9 and 11-21 are pending. Claims 1-5 and 7-9 are rejected. Claims 11-21 are withdrawn from consideration.
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 .
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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 7, as amended, requires that the binder further comprises potassium chloride (KCl), cesium bromide (CsBr), barium fluoride (BaF2), calcium fluoride (CaF2), magnesium fluoride (MgF2), strontium fluoride (SrF2), sodium chloride (NaCl), or sodium fluoride (NaF) (emphasis added). Claim 7 is dependent upon claim 1, which as amended, requires that the binder is potassium bromide.
Claim 1 as originally filed claimed “a binder,” i.e., a single binder. Claim 7 as originally filed recited the claimed binders only in the alternative, i.e., no mixtures were claimed. See also claims 11, 13 and 19 which claim single binders.
The specification discloses the binder as follows:
¶ [0001]: “One of the unique and inventive features of the present invention is the use of potassium bromide (KBr) in the spray coating. Instead of using PDMS, KBr is used as the binder to hold the glass bubbles.”
¶ [0010]: “On other embodiments, the binder is solar transparent. Non-limiting examples of solar transparent binders include KBr, potassium chloride (KCI), cesium bromide (CsBr), barium fluoride (BaF2), calcium fluoride (CaF2), magnesium fluoride (MgF2), strontium fluoride (SrF2), sodium chloride (NaCI), and sodium fluoride (NaF).”
¶ [0013]: “The method may comprise adding a binder and ceramic microspheres to a solvent, and mixing the binder, ceramic microspheres, and the solvent (emphasis added).”
¶ [0014]: “The method may comprise providing a coating solution comprising a binder and ceramic microspheres in a solvent, and applying said coating solution on the substrate (emphasis added).”
Each of these paragraphs disclose a single binder in that no mixtures are taught (e.g., one or more, at least one, and/or, etc.). See also paragraphs [0015], [0024], [0027], [0028], [0030], [0035-0037]. Further, Example 1 uses a KBr binder at ¶ [0043], Example 2 uses a potassium chloride binder at ¶ [0045], and Example 3 uses a cesium bromide binder at ¶ [0047].
Therefore, the specification as originally filed does not provide basis for the binder mixtures of amended claim 7.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3-4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al, CN 109401162A (Wu) in view of Budd et al, US 6,245,700 B1 (Budd).
The Examiner has provided a machine translation of Wu. The citation
of the prior art in this rejection refers to the machine translation.
Regarding claims 1 and 3, Wu teaches a corrosion-resistant, retroreflective coating material for road traffic signs, motor vehicles and asphalt pavements (Wu; page 1, line 55-page 2, line 8). The reflective material comprises potassium bromide (i.e., a potassium bromide “binder”), glass microbeads, and at least the solvents acetone and deuterated acetone (Wu; page 2, lines 12-17 and 47).
The glass microbeads have excellent reflective color, weather resistance, anti-aging performance, retro reflectivity, and good heat insulation effect (Wu; page 2, lines 58-60).
The instant specification at paragraph [0025] discloses: “… the microspheres can be ceramic microspheres, also referred to herein as glass bubbles. As known to one with ordinary skill in the art, glass is considered as a ceramic material.”
Therefore, Wu teaches “ceramic” microbeads. However, Wu does not explicitly teach wherein the microbeads are microspheres as claimed (claim 1).
Wu also does not explicitly teach SiO2 bubbles, TiO2 bubbles, Al2O3 bubbles, or Y2O3 bubbles as claimed (claim 3).
With respect to the difference, Budd teaches microspheres which include titania plus alumina (i.e., TiO2 and Al2O3), zirconia and/or silica (i.e., SiO2) in a total content of at least about 75% by weight, based on the total weight of the microspheres (Budd; col. 2, lines 6-9). Preferably the microspheres are glass ceramic microspheres (Budd; col. 2, lines 19-20). The terms “beads” and “microspheres” are used interchangeably, wherein the beads should be solid and spherical. Solid beads are typically more durable than hollow beads, particularly when exposed to freeze-thaw cycles (Budd; col. 3, lines 14-22).
The instant specification at paragraph [0025] discloses: “… the microspheres can be ceramic microspheres, also referred to herein as glass bubbles. As known to one with ordinary skill in the art, glass is considered as a ceramic material.”
Therefore, the microspheres of Budd are TiO2-, Al2O3-, and SiO2-containing, reading on the claimed SiO2 bubbles, TiO2 bubbles and Al2O3 bubbles.
The beads are transparent, have good mechanical properties, higher refractive indices, lower melting temperatures, improved quenching behavior, and can be used in pavement markings and other retroreflective assemblies (Budd; col. 1, line 66-col. 2, line5; col. 2, line 38-44; col. 8, line 63- col. 9, line 1).
Budd is analogous art as it teaches coatings (markings) that comprise ceramic microspheres made from TiO2, Al2O3, and/or SiO2.
In light of the motivation provided by Budd to use microspheres made from TiO2, Al2O3 and/or SiO2, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the microspheres of Budd as the microbeads in the reflective material of Wu in order to obtain a retroreflective material for pavement markings and/or road signs which is durable over freeze-thaw cycles, and has good mechanical properties, high refractive indices, lower melting temperatures and improved quenching behavior, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 4, Wu in view of Budd are relied upon as teaching the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Wu does not teach wherein the microbeads have a diameter ranging from about 1 to about 40 microns as claimed.
With respect to the difference, Budd teaches that the beads can be made in various sizes, although about 50-500 microns is typically desired. A fraction of beads down to 2 or 3 microns in diameter is sometimes formed as a by-product of manufacturing larger beads (Budd; col. 3, lines 43-49). The particle size of the final beads can be controlled with the particle size of the molten droplets used to form the fused beads (Budd; col. 8, lines 4-23).
It has long been an axiom of United States patent law that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of result-effective variables by routine experimentation. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages."); In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980) ("[D]iscovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art."); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955) ("[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation."). "Only if the 'results of optimizing a variable' are 'unexpectedly good' can a patent be obtained for the claimed critical range." In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (quoting In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620 (CCPA 1977)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the diameter of the microspheres of Wu in view of Budd but adjusting the size of the molten droplets during production, including over the presently claimed, in order to obtain microspheres for pavement markings with optimum retroreflective properties, corrosion resistance, mechanical properties, and durability over varying weather conditions.
Further, based on the teachings of Budd that during production of larger microbeads, a fraction of beads down to 2 or 3 microns in diameter is sometimes formed as a by-product, it is clear that the compositions of Wu which comprise the microspheres of Budd would include at least a fraction of microspheres having diameters down to 2-3 microns.
Microspheres having diameters of 2-3 microns falls within the claimed microsphere diameter range of from about 1 to about 40 microns.
Regarding claim 8, Wu in view of Budd are relied upon as teaching the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. To make the reflective material, Wu teaches preparing an aqueous fluoroacrylate copolymer emulsion; preparing an aqueous resin solution; mixing; and ultimately adding glass microbeads to the aqueous mixture (Wu; page 3, lines 25-46). Wu, therefore, teaches a water solvent as claimed.
Claims 1 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li, CN 104910723A (Li) in view of Heon et al, KR 102225800B1 (Heon).
The Examiner has provided a machine translation of Li with the Office Action mailed 06/10/2026. The Examiner has provided a machine translation of Heon (attached). The citation of the prior art in this rejection refers to the machine translations.
Regarding claims 1 and 8, Li discloses a thermal and insulating coating comprising calcium fluoride, hollow glass microspheres, and water (a solvent, including the water of claim 8) (Li; page 2, lines 15-19, and Examples 1-6 at page 2, line 55-page 3, line 42).
The instant specification at paragraph [0025] discloses: “… the microspheres can be ceramic microspheres, also referred to herein as glass bubbles. As known to one with ordinary skill in the art, glass is considered as a ceramic material.”
Li therefore teaches ceramic microspheres as claimed.
Insulation coatings are important for building materials in that they control over-cooling or over-heating by various factors that change temperature of the object, and save energy and reduce consumption (Li; page 2, lines 55-60).
Li does not explicitly teach a potassium bromide binder as claimed.
With respect to the difference, Heon teaches a radiation cooling device including a reflective layer for reflecting sunlight having wavelengths in the UV, visible and near-infrared regions; a radiation cooling layer formed on the reflective layer for absorbing sunlight having a wavelength in the mid-infrared region and radiating as heat; and a coating layer formed on the mid-infrared absorbing layer to reflect sunlight in a visible region (Heon; [0023], [0031-32] and [0128]).
The coating layer reflects light in the visible region, and may be made of a material having a high reflective index with respect to light in the visible region in order to efficiently reflect the light in the visible region (Heon; [00146]). The coating layer may be made of a material that is transparent to visible and mid-infrared rays (Heon; [0150]). Such materials include CaF2 (calcium fluoride) and KBr (potassium bromide) (Heon; [0151]).
The mid-infrared absorbing layer may comprise silica, alumina or titanium dioxide fine particles and/or a polymer material, wherein the particles have a size of 10nm to 20µm (Heon; [0134-0135], [0140] and [0143]).
Heon teaches that if a material has a reflectance of 100% in the UV-visible-near-infrared bands, it reflects 100% of the energy of the incident sunlight and does not absorb it at all. Therefore, the inflow of heat energy by sunlight can be blocked (i.e., insulation occurs) (Heon; [0006-0008]). If an object is coated with a material that suppresses the radiation of mid-infrared rays or reflects the radiated light, heat loss due to mid-infrared radiation is reduced (i.e., insulation occurs) (Heon; [0012]).
Heon is analogous art as it teaches reflective coatings comprising TiO2, Al2O3 or SiO2 particles, and which may comprise potassium bromide (KBr) or calcium fluoride (CaF2).
In light of the disclosure of Heon of the equivalence and interchangeability of using calcium fluoride as disclosed in Heon, with potassium bromide as presently claimed as a material having a high reflective index with respect to light in the visible region, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use potassium bromide in the insulation coatings of Li in order to provide a coating layer that effectively reflects light in the visible region, thereby helping improve insulation, and arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 7, Li in view of Heon are relied upon as teaching the limitation of claim 1 as discussed above.
Li teaches thermal insulation coatings comprising calcium fluoride (i.e., a binder of claim 7) (Li; page 2, lines 15-19).
Li in view of Heon teach thermal insulation coatings comprising a potassium fluoride binder as discussed above.
Further, Heon teaches the equivalence between using calcium fluoride, potassium bromide, and mixtures thereof (i.e., “at least one”) as coating materials having a high reflective index with respect to light in the visible region in order to efficiently reflect visible light in the visible region (Heon; [0146] and [0151]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a combination of potassium bromide and calcium fluoride as claimed in the compositions of Li in view of Heon, in order to obtain an insulation material which effectively reflects visible light and improves insulation, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
The combination of known substances for the same purpose has been held to have been prima facie obvious. "It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from there having been individually taught in the prior art." In re Kerhoevn, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 9, Li in view of Heon are relied upon as teaching the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Li teaches that the composition comprise 5-15 parts by weight glass hollow microspheres, and 3-9 parts by weight calcium fluoride (Li; page 2, lines 15-19).
Li in view of Heon does not explicitly teach a weight ratio of ceramic microspheres: binder of 3:7 (or 1:2.33) as claimed.
While Li in view Heon do not explicitly disclose a weight ratio of ceramic microspheres: binder as presently claimed, it has long been an axiom of United States patent law that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of result-effective variables by routine experimentation. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages."); In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980) ("[D]iscovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art."); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955) ("[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation."). "Only if the 'results of optimizing a variable' are 'unexpectedly good' can a patent be obtained for the claimed critical range." In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (quoting In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620 (CCPA 1977)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the weight ratio, including over the presently claimed, in order to obtain an insulating composition with optimized insulating and reflective properties, absent a showing otherwise.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li, CN 104910723A (Li) in view of Heon et al, KR 102225800B1 (Heon) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nie, “Porous Morphology-Driven Optical Properties Control for Radiative Thermal Management” (Nie).
Regarding claims 2-3, Li in view of Heon are relied upon as teaching the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above, wherein the compositions comprise hollow glass microspheres. The compositions further comprise an acrylic emulsion and a styrene-acrylic emulsion (Li; page 2, lines 15-19).
Heon teaches a coating layer that reflects light in the visible region, and may be made of a material having a high reflective index with respect to light in the visible region in order to efficiently reflect the light in the visible region (Heon; [00146]). The coating layer may be made of a material that is transparent to visible and mid-infrared rays (Heon; [0150]). Such materials include CaF2 (calcium fluoride) and KBr (potassium bromide) (Heon; [0151]).
The mid-infrared absorbing layer may comprise silica, alumina or titanium dioxide fine particles and/or a polymer material, wherein the particles have a size of 10nm to 20µm (Heon; [0134-0135], [0140] and [0143]).
Heon teaches that if a material has a reflectance of 100% in the UV-visible-near-infrared bands, it reflects 100% of the energy of the incident sunlight and does not absorb it at all. Therefore, the inflow of heat energy by sunlight can be blocked (i.e., insulation, radiative cooling and solar reflectivity occurs) (Heon; [0006-0008]). If an object is coated with a material that suppresses the radiation of mid-infrared rays or reflects the radiated light, heat loss due to mid-infrared radiation is reduced (i.e., insulation occurs) (Heon; [0012]).
Li in view of Heon do not explicitly teach:
wherein the composition has a high solar reflectivity ranging from 0.9-1 (claim 2); or
wherein the ceramic microspheres are SiO2 bubbles, TiO2 bubbles, Al2O3 bubbles, or Y2O3 bubbles (claim 3).
With respect to the differences, Nie teaches hollow glass microspheres for radiative cooling (Nie; page 9). Nie teaches that hollow glass microspheres can be used in a PDMS matrix (i.e., a resin matrix) to make highly flexible and lightweight hybrid films. The method is cost-effective, inexpensive and scalable. Over 0.95 solar reflectivity can be achieved without any metal reflectors, leading to significant surface cooling (Nie; page 15).
0.95 solar reflectivity falls within the claimed range of 0.9-1 (claim 2).
The hollow glass microspheres are made of SiO2 (Nie; page 10, right column).
The instant specification at paragraph [0025] discloses: “The term ‘microsphere’ can be used interchangeably with ‘bubbles’. In some embodiments, the microspheres are solid. In other embodiments, the microspheres are hollow.”
Nie, therefore, teaches the SiO2 “bubbles” of claim 3.
In light of the motivation provided by Nie to use hollow SiO2 glass microspheres in reflective, cooling coatings comprising a resinous matrix, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the hollow SiO2 glass microspheres of Nie in the insulation coating compositions of Li in view of Heon, in order to obtain a highly flexible and lightweight film that can achieve over 0.95 solar reflectivity without any metal reflectors, leading to significant surface cooling, and hence thermal insulation, via a method that is cost-effective, inexpensive, and scalable, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li, CN 104910723A (Li) in view of Heon et al, KR 102225800B1 (Heon) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang et al, CN 112341914A (Wang).
The Examiner has provided a machine translation of Wang with the Office Action mailed 06/10/2026. The citation of the prior art in this rejection refers to the machine translations.
Regarding claim 4, Li in view of Heon are relied upon as teaching the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. The thermal insulation coatings comprise hollow glass microspheres (Li; page 2, lines 15-19).
Li in view of Heon do not explicitly teach wherein the ceramic microspheres have a diameter ranging from about 1 µm to about 40 µm.
With respect to the difference, Wang teaches a thermal insulation coating comprising a light-reflecting agent (Wang; page 2, lines 18-23). The coatings automatically perform heat radiation and cooling, and can achieve light transmittance above 80% (Wang; page 4, line 47-page 5, lines 12).
The light reflecting agent may be ceramic microbeads, ceramic bubbles, hollow glass beads or hollow glass microbeads (Wang; page 2, lines 35-36 and 41-42). The light-reflecting agent is preferably in hollow form (Wang; line 35).
In order to ensure the light reflection and heat insulation performance of the heat insulation coating, the particle size of the light reflecting agent is 40-130µm. As the particles of the light reflector get smaller, the components are arranged more closely, which improves the ductility of the thermal insulation coating after preparation (Wang; page 4, lines 25-28).
Particles sizes of 40-130µm overlap in scope with the claimed about 1µm to about 40µm of claim 4.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
In light of the motivation provided by Wang to adjust the particle size of the hollow glass light-reflecting agents to the low end of the 40-130µm range, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the particle size of the hollow glass microspheres of Li to about 40µm as claimed in order to obtain a more closely arranged composition, which improves the ductility of the thermal insulation coating after preparation, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 5, Li in view of Heon are relied upon as teaching the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. The thermal insulation coatings comprise hollow glass microspheres (Li; page 2, lines 15-19).
Li does not explicitly teach wherein the ceramic microspheres have a shell thickness ranging from about 0.05 µm to about 2 µm.
Wang teaches that the wall thickness of the light-reflecting agent is preferably 1-2µm. In this state, the light reflecting agent is relatively thin and the distribution of components is more uniform. Particles with a wall thickness of 1-2µm have better material properties than particles with a wall thickness of more than 2µm (Wang; page 4, lines 30-33).
A wall thickness 1-2µm falls within the shell thickness range of about 0.05µm to about 2µm as claimed.
In light of the motivation provided by Wang to adjust the wall thickness of the hollow glass light-reflecting agents to 1-2µm, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the shell thickness of the hollow glass microspheres of Li to about 1-2µm as claimed in order to obtain a light reflecting agent that is relatively thin, and has better material properties than particles with a wall thickness of more than 2µm, resulting in a more uniform distribution of components, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Double Patenting
The terminal disclaimer filed on 09/24/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of the full statutory term of any patent granted on pending application number 19/168,518, has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Therefore, the provisional nonstatutory double patenting over copending Application No. 19/168,518 has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
1) Applicant’s remarks and amendments filed 07/30/3026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection over Li, CN 104910732A (Li), have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1 and 6-8 has been withdrawn. Specifically, Li does not disclose or suggest potassium bromide binders as presently claimed.
However, upon further consideration and search due to Applicant’s claim amendments, new grounds of rejection are made under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Li in view of Heon, and over Li in view of Heon and further in view of Nie or Wang, for the reasons set forth above.
2) Applicant’s remarks and amendments filed 07/30/3026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection over Zheng et al, CN 101481583A (Zheng), have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-2, 4 and 8 has been withdrawn. Specifically, Zheng does not disclose or suggest potassium bromide binders as presently claimed.
3) Applicant’s remarks and amendments filed 07/30/3026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 over Wang et al, CN 112341914A (Wang) in view of Nie, “Porous Morphology-Driven Optical Properties Control for Radiative Thermal Management” (Nie), have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-6 and 9 has been withdrawn. Specifically, Wang, alone or in combination with Nie, does not disclose or suggest potassium bromide binders as presently claimed.
4) However, upon further consideration and search due to Applicant’s claim amendments, new grounds of rejection are made under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Wu in view of Budd, for the reasons set forth above.
5) Also note the new grounds of rejection under 35 USC 112(a) due to the claim amendments filed 07/30/2026.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Youngquist et al, US 10,815,129 B1, teaches a rigid radiation reflector made by dispersing a powdered material in a liquid (Abstract). In order to achieve 99% or better reflection of the sun’s power, a reflective material must have minimum absorption across this region, i.e., from around 0.2 microns to about 8-12 microns. Potassium bromide meets this requirement and has the broadest transmission spectrum (col. 4, lines 30-67).
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 CAROLINE D LIOTT whose telephone number is (703)756-1836. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5.
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, Coris Fung can be reached at (571)270-5713. 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.
/CDL/Examiner, Art Unit 1732 /PAMELA H WEISS/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1732
