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 .
Status Of Claims
This Office Action is in response to an amendment received 8/12/2026 in which Applicant lists claim 3 as being cancelled, claims 4-10 as being withdrawn, claim 2 as being original, and claim 1 as being currently amended. It is interpreted by the examiner that claims 1-2, 4-10 are pending.
If applicant is aware of any relevant prior art, or other co-pending application not already of record, they are reminded of their duty under 37 CFR 1.56 to disclose the same.
Election/Restrictions
At least claim 1 is allowable. The restriction requirement among Groups I-IV, as set forth in the Office action mailed on 2/13/2026, has been reconsidered in view of the allowability of claims to the elected invention pursuant to MPEP § 821.04(a). The restriction requirement is hereby withdrawn as to any claim that requires all the limitations of an allowable claim. Specifically, the restriction requirement of 2/13/2026 is fully withdrawn. Claims 4-10, directed to non-elected Groups II-IV are no longer withdrawn from consideration because the claim(s) requires all the limitations of an allowable claim.
In view of the above noted withdrawal of the restriction requirement, applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Once a restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
Specification
The amendments to the specification dated 8/12/2026 are accepted. The objections to the specification cited in the office action mailed 5/12/2026 are hereby withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-11 of the remarks, filed 8/12/2026, with respect to independent claim 1 being amended to overcome the 112(a) rejections and art of record by incorporating the limitation(s) wherein the reflective portion consists of an alternating superposition of at least 71 layers A and of layers B, wherein the reflective portion has a total reflection performance RAM1.5 of at least 90% over wavelengths from 260 nm to 2,500 nm, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous 112(a) and prior art rejections are hereby withdrawn.
However, it is noted that the amendments to claim 1 have necessitated the rejoinder of claims 4-10, and therefore have necessitated the 112(b) and 112(d) rejections set forth below.
Claim Objections
Claims 7-10 are objected to because of the following informalities: the formulas in claims 7-10 are illegible. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The amendments to the claims dated 8/12/2026 are accepted. The rejections of the claims made under 35 USC 112(a) and cited in the office action mailed 5/12/2026 are hereby withdrawn.
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 8, 9 and 10 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 8 and 10 include the formula for the absorption performance value ꭕA, which includes the variable ASEA. However, ASEA has not been defined in claims 8 or 10, and therefore the formula for ꭕA is indefinite. It is noted that claims 8 and 10 define the variable ASRA instead of ASEA.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “said structure” on line 4. There is insufficient clear antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim since claim 9 refers to both “the structure of the reflection portion” on the first line, and “a base reflection structure” on the fourth line. Therefore, it is not clear which structure is being referred to by “said structure” on line 4 of claim 9. Additionally, it is noted that the figures do not show either a structure of a reflective portion, or a base reflection structure, so it cannot even be determined if these structures are the same structure. For the purpose of this examination, “said structure” on line 4 of claim 9 has been interpreted as “said base reflection structure”.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “a daytime radiative device according to claim 4” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Additionally, use of “a daytime radiative device” instead of “the daytime radiative cooling device” creates ambiguity as to whether the method of claim 10 is intended to specifically refer back to the structure of the daytime radiative cooling device of claims 1 and 4. Therefore, the metes-and-bounds of claim 10 are unclear. Claim 1 includes a “daytime radiative cooling device”, and therefore the limitation “a daytime radiative device according to claim 4” in claim 10 has been interpreted as “the daytime radiative cooling device according to claim 4”.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claims 9 and 10 only refer to claims 1 or 4 as an intended use for the method of using automated means to implement specific steps (i.e. the method of determining the structure of the reflective/emitting portion of a daytime radiative device according to claim 1 or 4 is merely an intended use of using automated means to implement steps of claim 9 or 10). The intended use in the preamble of claims 9 and 10 for the use of the recited method has not been given significant patentable weight under MPEP 2111.02, and therefore claims 9 and 10 do not further limit the subject matter of claims 1 and/or 4. Additionally, use of “a daytime radiative device” on the first line of claim 10 does not specifically refer back to the daytime radiative cooling device of claims 1 and 4, and therefore it is not clear if claim 10 is intended to depend from claim 10.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
It is noted that after consulting with 101 and quality assurance specialists, it was determined that 101 rejections would not be appropriate for claims 9 or 10 at this time since the scope of claims 9 and 10 cannot be determined. However, it is suggested that applicant may cancel claims 9 and 10, or amend claims 9 and 10 to specifically recite a step of providing the structure of claim 1, or the structure of claims 1 and 4, to overcome the 112(d) rejection(s) and prevent any future 101 rejections of the abstract automation steps of claims 9 and 10.
The recitations “for determining the structure of the reflective portion of a daytime radiative cooling device according to claim 1”, and “for determining the emitting portion of a daytime radiative device according to claim 4” has not been given significant patentable weight under MPEP Chapter 2111.02 – Effect of Preamble because the recitation occurs in the preamble where it merely recites the intended use of a method for determining a structure and fails to structurally limit the body of the claim.
MPEP 2112.02 (II) states that “statements in the preamble reciting the purpose of intended use of the claimed invention must be evaluated to determine whether the recited purpose or intended use results in a structural difference (or, in the case of process claims, manipulative difference) between the claimed invention and the prior art. If so, then the recitation serves to limit the claims.” Additionally, In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962), is a case where the “statement of intended use in an apparatus claim did not distinguish over the prior art apparatus”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2 and 4-6 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Claim 1 is allowable over the cited art of record for at least the reason that the prior art and cited art of record fails to teach or reasonably suggest a daytime radiative cooling device wherein the reflective portion consists of an alternating superposition of at least 71 layers A and of layers B, wherein the reflective portion has a total reflection performance RAM1.5 of at least 90% over wavelengths from 260 nm to 2,500 nm, said layers A consisting of at least one material A selected from among Nb205, TiO2 and Ta205, said layers B consisting of at least one material B selected from among SiO2 and A1203, as generally set forth in claim 1, the device including the totality of the particular limitations recited in claim 1.
Claims 2 and 4-6 depend from claim 1 and therefore are allowable for at least the same reasons as claim 1.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 DEREK S. CHAPEL whose telephone number is (571)272-8042. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30am-6pm.
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, Stephone B. Allen can be reached at 571-272-2434. 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.
/Derek S. Chapel/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 8/28/2026
Derek S. CHAPEL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights