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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-8, 10-12 and 14-17; species (a): an aerogel; and subspecies (ii): an aerogel powder in the reply filed on 12/19/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the present claims are directed to a single inventive concept deserving full consideration on the merits. This is not found persuasive because of the following reasons:
(a) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification;
(b) the inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries);
(c) the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 2, 3, 6 and 17 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.
As to claim 2, the correct chemical symbol of potassium chloride is KCl, not KCI.
As to claim 6, it is unclear what is mean by 0.5 to 2.0 of the maximum theoretical density. Does Applicant want to convey 0.5 to 2.0%? Further, which density refers to a maximum theoretical density?
As to claim 17, it is unclear what is meant by CTAB?
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.
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.
Claims 1-6, 8, 10, 11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0123558 to Leroy et al. (hereinafter “Leroy”) in view of US 2015/0338175 to Raman et al. (hereinafter “Raman”).
As to claims 1, 8, and 14, Leroy discloses a porous IR transparent material formed from an optically selective and thermally insulating aerogel (paragraphs 59 and 60). The aerogel can be made of initial material concentration selected to maximize solar reflectivity, and infrared transmission between 8-13 microns (paragraph 59). Leroy further mentions that the material can be polyethylene, KCl or NaCl (paragraph 60). This is a clear indication that the aerogel includes polyethylene aerogel, KCl aerogel or NaCl aerogel.
Alternatively, the aerogel is a polyethylene aerogel in combination with a dopant comprising ZnS, ZnSe, NaCl, Ge, KBr, CsI, BaF2 and each of which being transparent to IR radiation having a wavelength in a range of 8 to 13 microns (paragraph 69).
Leroy discloses an apparatus comprising an aerogel material, a support frame having an opening for holding and exposing a sky-facing surface of the aerogel material (figure 4; and paragraph 87).
PNG
media_image1.png
347
622
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Leroy does not explicitly disclose an encapsulant provided on the sky-facing surface of the aerogel material.
Raman, however, discloses a radiative cooling apparatus 210 comprising: a support structure 212 including a frame covered by a layer of aluminized polymer layer. The frame support has a circular aperture 216 where a radiative cooler is filled within the aperture. A polyethylene film is sealed to the top of the circular aperture on the frame and serves as an IR-transparent wind shield (paragraph 61, and figures 2 and 3).
PNG
media_image2.png
379
481
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
419
552
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to seal a sky-facing surface of the aerogel material disclosed in Leroy with a polyethylene film disclosed in Raman, motivated by the desire to improve a durability and anti-soiling property without compromising sunlight reflectivity and IR transmission between 8-13 microns of the aerogel layer.
As to claim 2, Leroy discloses that the aerogel can be made of initial material concentration selected to maximize solar reflectivity, and infrared transmission between 8-13 microns (paragraph 59). Leroy further mentions that the material can be polyethylene, KCl or NaCl (paragraph 60). This is a clear indication that the aerogel includes polyethylene aerogel, KCl aerogel or NaCl aerogel. KCl or NaCl reads on the claimed substance that is transparent to IR radiation having a wavelength in a range of 8 to 13 microns.
Alternatively, the aerogel is a polyethylene aerogel in combination with a dopant comprising ZnS, ZnSe, NaCl, Ge, KBr, CsI, BaF2 and each of which being transparent to IR radiation having a wavelength in a range of 8 to 13 microns (paragraph 69).
As to claim 3, Leroy discloses that the aerogel can be made of initial material concentration selected to maximize solar reflectivity, and infrared transmission between 8-13 microns (paragraph 59). Leroy further mentions that the material can be polyethylene, KCl or NaCl (paragraph 60).
Leroy does not explicitly disclose that the porous IR transparent material is comprised of a combination of KCl and NaCl.
However, this does not render the claim unobvious because it would be advantageous to create the IR transparent material using a combination of NaCl and KCl, considering their ready availability and cost-effectiveness.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the IR transparent material of Leroy using a combination of NaCl and KCl as presently claimed, motivated by the desire to reduce the cost of the material.
As to claim 4, Leroy discloses the polyethylene aerogel having pores with an average pore diameter of less than 500 nm (paragraph 65).
As to claim 5, Leroy discloses that the polyethylene aerogel is effective at scattering optical light having a wavelength of 0.3 to 2.5 microns (paragraph 78). Hence, the polyethylene aerogel is effective at scattering optical light having a wavelength from 0.3 µm to less than 1.0 µm.
As to claim 6, turning to the Applicant’s disclosure, the aerogel material has a density of 30 kg/m3, which is in a range of 1.4-1.5% of the maximum theoretical density (paragraph 34 the Applicant’s published application).
Leroy discloses that the polyethylene aerogel has a density of 12-82 kg/m3 (table 2). In particular, the polyethylene aerogel has a density of 27 kg/m3 (table 2). Therefore, the examiner takes the position that the polyethylene aerogel would have a relative density that encompasses the claimed range.
In the case, where the claimed ranges overlap or touch the range disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,191 USPQ90 (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).
The claim is not rendered unobvious because discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Difference in the relative density will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating that the relative density is critical or provides unexpected results.
Therefore, in the absence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the IR transparent material having a relative density in the range instantly claimed, motivated by the desire to optimize cooling performance under direct sunlight. This is in line with In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 which holds discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
As to claim 10, Leroy discloses that an apparatus comprises an aerogel material, a support frame having an opening for exposing a sky-facing surface of the aerogel material (figure 4; and paragraph 87). The support frame is functional as an optomechanical frame because it serves as a support structure that ensures the optical performance of the IR transparent aerogel material while providing the necessary mechanical stability for accurate experimental results.
As to claim 11, Leroy discloses that the polyethylene aerogel material has a thickness of 4-9 mm (table 2). Raman discloses that the polyethylene cover has a thickness of 12.5 microns (paragraph 46). The combined thickness of the polyethylene aerogel material and the polyethylene cover is approximately in a range of 4-9 mm which overlaps the claimed range.
In the case, where the claimed ranges overlap or touch the range disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,191 USPQ90 (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).
The claim is not rendered unobvious because discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Difference in the thickness of the IR transparent material/polyethylene cover will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating that the thickness of the IR transparent material/polyethylene cover is critical or provides unexpected results.
Therefore, in the absence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the thickness of the IR transparent material/polyethylene cover in the range instantly claimed, motivated by the desire to optimize cooling performance under direct sunlight. This is in line with In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 which holds discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Claims 7 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leroy in view of Raman, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of US 2007/0289974 to Blair et al. (hereinafter “Blair”).
Neither Leroy nor Raman discloses or suggests the IR transparent aerogel comprising (i) a porosity of 98 to 99.5%. or (ii) an aerogel powder.
Blair, however, discloses a polymeric aerogel having a porosity greater than 97% (paragraph 19). The polymeric aerogel is a polyolefin aerogel (paragraph 22). The polymeric aerogel is in the form of a monolithic aerogel or an aerogel powder (paragraph 17).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the IR transparent polyethylene aerogel of Leroy having a porosity disclosed in Blair, motivated by the desire to optimize thermal conductivity properties.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the polyethylene aerogel disclosed in Leroy in the form of an aerogel powder because the aerogel monolith and aerogel powder have been shown in the art to be recognized equivalent forms of the aerogel material and the selection of these known equivalents to be used as forms of the aerogel material will be within the level of the ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leroy in view of Raman, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of US 2007/0264485 to Stepanian et al. (hereinafter “Stepanian”).
Neither Leroy nor Raman discloses or suggests the IR transparent aerogel comprising a coating for inhibiting water vaper transmission to the IR transparent material.
Stepanian, however, discloses an aerogel material being encapsulated within a polymeric film which is a moisture barrier film layer (paragraph 42). The aerogel material is a polymeric aerogel (paragraph 9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to encapsulate the polyethylene aerogel disclosed in Leroy with a moisture barrier film layer disclosed in Stepanian, motivated by the desire to enhance weather barrier properties.
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leroy in view of Raman, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of US 2024/00182771 to Kim et al. (hereinafter “Kim”).
Neither Leroy nor Raman discloses or suggests the IR transparent aerogel comprising an anti-caking agent.
Kim, however, discloses a radiative cooling device comprising a plurality of porous nanoparticles and a binder wherein the porous nanoparticles reflect incident sunlight and absorb and radiate mid-infrared wavelength in the range of 2.5 to 25 microns (abstract). The porous nanoparticles include SiO2, TiO2, Al2O3, Si3N4, CaCO3, BaSO4, Y2O3, BeO, MnO, AlN, SiC, polydimethylsiloxane, and polyethylene (paragraph 79).
PNG
media_image4.png
362
527
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The porous nanoparticles are obtained using a cationic surfactant including cetyltrimethylammonium bromide (CTAB) (paragraphs 22 and 23).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the porous nanoparticles disclosed in Kim in the IR transparent aerogel disclosed in Leroy, motivated by the desire to enhance radiative cooling performance by improving sunlight reflection and IR emissivity.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hai Vo whose telephone number is (571)272-1485. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 am - 6:00 pm with every other Friday off.
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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at 571-272-1490. 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.
/Hai Vo/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1788