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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9/14/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This Office action is in response to Applicant’s response of 9/14/2026. In that response, Applicant amended claims 1, 8, 17.
DETAILED ACTION
The instant application having Application No. 18/663,800 filed on 5/14/2024 is presented for examination by the Examiner.
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the Applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on non-statutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a non-statutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after-final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 8, 17 are provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 11, 18 of co-pending U.S. Patent Application 18/914,697 of Lee et al. (hereinafter “Lee”) in view of Lee et al. (KR 20220130443A, hereinafter, "Lee1").
An explanation along with the listing of claim 1 of the present application and claim 1 of Lee is given below.
Instant claims: 18/663,800
Patent App. No. 18/914,697
1. A laminate for radiative cooling, the laminate comprising:
a first light reflecting layer having a reflectance equal to or higher than 80% for near-infrared light with a wavelength in a range from 780 to 1,300 nm and a transmittance equal to or higher than 70% for visible light with a wavelength in a range from 400 to 780 nm; wherein
the first light reflecting layer comprises a first polymer layer and a second polymer layer that has a lower refractive index than the first polymer layer;
a second light reflecting layer on the first light reflecting layer, wherein a first metal protective layer, a metal layer, and a second metal protective layer are sequentially stacked in the second light reflecting layer; and
an infrared radiating layer on the second light reflecting layer, wherein the laminate is configured such that incident light enters through the second light reflecting layer.
1. A colored laminate for radiative cooling, the colored laminate comprising:
a colored layer comprising a first thermoplastic resin;
a first light reflecting layer on the colored layer and having a reflectance equal to or higher than 80% for light having a wavelength in a range from 780 to 1,300nm and a transmittance equal to or higher than 70% for visible light having a wavelength in a range from 400 to 780nm, wherein the first light reflecting layer comprises a stack in which first layers including a first polymer and second layers including a second polymer having a lower refractive index than a refractive index of the first layers are alternately stacked on top of each other;
a second light reflecting layer on the first light reflecting layer, the second light reflecting layer comprising a first metal protective layer, a metal layer, and a second metal protective layer sequentially stacked on the first light reflecting layer;
an adhesive layer on the second light reflecting layer; and
an infrared-ray radiating layer on the adhesive layer.
Claim 1 of Lee discloses all the limitations of claim 1 of the present application except for disclosing that the laminate is configured such that incident light enters through the second light reflecting layer.
Lee1 discloses (paragraphs herein refer to the English translation and figures refer to the original) a laminate 200 for radiative cooling (Fig. 2, [0001], [0065]), the laminate comprising: a first light reflecting layer 220 having a reflectance for near-infrared light with a wavelength in a range from 780 to 1,300 nm and a transmittance for visible light with a wavelength in a range from 400 to 780 nm (Fig. 6, [0120], [0122]); and an infrared radiating layer 230 (Fig. 2, [0082]). Lee1 also discloses that the laminate may be used as a transparent radiation cooling element that transmits visible incident sunlight and reflects UV or IR components of sunlight (Fig. 1, [0058]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Lee so that the laminate is such that it receives sunlight (in which case the laminate is such that the incident light enters through the second light reflecting layer), as taught by Lee1, for cooling the interior of a space (e.g., a room or a vehicle) by reflecting the incident UV or IR radiation of the sunlight.
An explanation along with the listing of claim 8 of the present application and claim 11 of Lee is given below.
Instant claims: 18/663,800
Patent App. No. 18/914,697
8. A radiative cooling material comprising:
a laminate comprising:
a first light reflecting layer having a reflectance equal to or higher than 80% for near-infrared light with a wavelength in a range from 780 to 1,300 nm and a transmittance equal to or higher than 70% for visible light with a wavelength in a range from 400 to 780 nm; wherein
the first light reflecting layer comprises a first polymer layer and a second polymer layer that has a lower refractive index than the first polymer layer;
a second light reflecting layer on the first light reflecting layer, wherein a first metal protective layer, a metal layer, and a second metal protective layer are sequentially stacked in the second light reflecting layer;
an infrared radiating layer on the second light reflecting layer; and
an adhesive layer between the second light reflecting layer and the infrared radiating layer, wherein the laminate is configured such that incident light enters through the second light reflecting layer.
11. A radiative cooling material comprising: a colored laminate comprising:
a colored layer comprising a first thermoplastic resin;
a first light reflecting layer on the colored layer and having a reflectance equal to or higher than 80% for light having a wavelength in a range from 780 to 1,300nm and a transmittance equal to or higher than 70% for visible light having a wavelength in a range from 400 to 780nm, wherein
the first light reflecting layer comprises a stack in which first layers including a first polymer and second layers including a second polymer having a lower refractive index than a refractive index of the first layers are alternately stacked on top of each other;
a second light reflecting layer on the first light reflecting layer,
the second light reflecting layer comprising a first metal protective layer, a metal layer, and a second metal protective layer sequentially stacked on the first light reflecting layer;
an adhesive layer on the second light reflecting layer; and
an infrared-ray radiating layer on the adhesive layer, the infrared-ray radiating layer comprising a second thermoplastic resin having different optical properties from optical properties of the first thermoplastic resin.
Claim 11 of Lee discloses all the limitations of claim 8 of the present application except for disclosing that the laminate is configured such that incident light enters through the second light reflecting layer.
Lee1 discloses (paragraphs herein refer to the English translation and figures refer to the original) a laminate 200 for radiative cooling (Fig. 2, [0001], [0065]), the laminate comprising: a first light reflecting layer 220 having a reflectance for near-infrared light with a wavelength in a range from 780 to 1,300 nm and a transmittance for visible light with a wavelength in a range from 400 to 780 nm (Fig. 6, [0120], [0122]); and an infrared radiating layer 230 (Fig. 2, [0082]). Lee1 also discloses that the laminate may be used as a transparent radiation cooling element that transmits visible incident sunlight and reflects UV or IR components of sunlight (Fig. 1, [0058]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Lee so that the laminate is such that it receives sunlight (in which case the laminate is such that the incident light enters through the second light reflecting layer), as taught by Lee1, for cooling the interior of a space (e.g., a room or a vehicle) by reflecting the incident UV or IR radiation of the sunlight.
An explanation along with the listing of claim 17 of the present application and claim 18 of Lee is given below.
Instant claims: 18/663,800
Patent App. No. 18/914,697
17. A mobility comprising:
a radiative cooling material comprising a laminate, the laminate comprising:
a first light reflecting layer having a reflectance equal to or higher than 80% for near-infrared light with a wavelength in a range from 780 to 1,300 nm and a transmittance equal to or higher than 70% for visible light with a wavelength in a range from 400 to 780 nm;
a second light reflecting layer on the first light reflecting layer, wherein a first metal protective layer, a metal layer, and a second metal protective layer are sequentially stacked in the second light reflecting layer; and
an infrared radiating layer on the second light reflecting layer, wherein the laminate is configured such that incident light enters through the second light reflecting layer.
18. A mobility comprising: a mobility body; and a radiative cooling material disposed on the mobility body, the radiative cooling material comprising a colored laminate comprising: a colored layer comprising a first thermoplastic resin; a first light reflecting layer on the colored layer and having a reflectance equal to or higher than 80% for light having a wavelength in a range from 780 to 1,300nm and a transmittance equal to or higher than 70% for visible light having a wavelength in a range from 400 to 780nm, wherein the first light reflecting layer comprises a stack in which first layers including a first polymer and second layers including a second polymer having a lower refractive index than a refractive index of the first layers are alternately stacked on top of each other;
a second light reflecting layer on the first light reflecting layer, the second light reflecting layer comprising a first metal protective layer, a metal layer, and a second metal protective layer sequentially stacked on the first light reflecting layer; an
adhesive layer on the second light reflecting layer; and
an infrared-ray radiating layer on the adhesive layer.
Claim 18 of Lee discloses all the limitations of claim 17 of the present application except for disclosing that the laminate is configured such that incident light enters through the second light reflecting layer.
Lee1 discloses (paragraphs herein refer to the English translation and figures refer to the original) a laminate 200 for radiative cooling (Fig. 2, [0001], [0065]), the laminate comprising: a first light reflecting layer 220 having a reflectance for near-infrared light with a wavelength in a range from 780 to 1,300 nm and a transmittance for visible light with a wavelength in a range from 400 to 780 nm (Fig. 6, [0120], [0122]); and an infrared radiating layer 230 (Fig. 2, [0082]). Lee1 also discloses that the laminate may be used as a transparent radiation cooling element that transmits visible incident sunlight and reflects UV or IR components of sunlight (Fig. 1, [0058]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Lee so that the laminate is such that it receives sunlight (in which case the laminate is such that the incident light enters through the second light reflecting layer), as taught by Lee1, for cooling the interior of a space (e.g., a room or a vehicle) by reflecting the incident UV or IR radiation of the sunlight.
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.
Claims 1, 4-9, 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee1 in view of Watanabe et al. (US 2016/0003989, hereinafter, “Watanabe”) and Yang et al. (US 2023/0081992, hereinafter, “Yang”).
Regarding claim 1, Lee1 discloses (paragraphs herein refer to the English translation and figures refer to the original) a laminate 200 for radiative cooling (Fig. 2, [0001], [0065]), the laminate comprising:
a first light reflecting layer 220 having a reflectance for near-infrared light with a wavelength in a range from 780 to 1,300 nm and a transmittance for visible light with a wavelength in a range from 400 to 780 nm (Fig. 6, [0120], [0122]); and
an infrared radiating layer 230 (Fig. 2, [0082]).
Lee1 does not disclose a reflectance equal to or higher than 80% for infrared light in the claimed wavelength range and a transmittance equal to or higher than 70% for visible light in the claimed wavelength range.
However, Lee1 discloses the first light reflecting layer having transmittance in the range between 400 and 780 nm (visible) between around 70% and 50% with peaks around 80% and reflectance in the range between 780 and 1300 nm (near infrared) around 90% (Fig. 6, [0122]).
The parameters of the transmittance and the reflectivity of the incident light are result-effective variables, i.e., they are recognized to achieve a recognized result, for example, reflecting sunlight in the near infrared region and emitting radiant heat while allowing external viewing ([0001], [0006] in Lee1).
Lee1 discloses the claimed invention except for R>80% in near infrared and T>70% in visible.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Lee1 so that T and R lie within the claimed ranges, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In the current instance, T and R are art recognized result-effective variables in that they help realize the effective cooling of the interior and viewing of the exterior, as taught by Lee.
Thus, one would have been motivated to optimize T and R because they are an art-recognized result-effective variable and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP §2144.05(II)(B) “after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a personal of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process”.
Moreover, Lee1 does not disclose a second light reflecting layer on the first light reflecting layer, wherein a first metal protective layer, a metal layer, and a second metal protective layer are sequentially stacked in the second light reflecting layer.
Watanabe discloses an infrared laminate film 100 comprising a first metal oxide (aka protective) layer 21, a metal layer 25 and a second metal oxide (aka protective) layer 22 arranged in this order on a base layer 10 (Fig. 2, [0019]).
Lee1 and Watanabe disclose radiative cooling laminates.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Lee1 so that the radiative cooling laminate of Lee1 includes a laminate metal oxide/metal/metal oxide laminate formed on the first light reflecting layer, as taught by Watanabe, for achieving additional heat insulating properties ([0001] in Watanabe).
Finally, Lee1/Watanabe does not disclose wherein the first light reflecting layer comprises a first polymer layer and a second polymer layer that has a lower refractive index than the first polymer layer.
Yang discloses a reflective multilayer optical film 200 (Fig. 1, [0017]). In one embodiment, the reflective film 200 comprises a reflective stack 20 of alternating polymer films 21, 22 ([0022], [0023]). The materials of the two polymer films are different, and they have different refractive indices, one lower than the other [0023]).
Both Lee1 and Yang disclose reflective multilayer optical films.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Lee1/ Watanabe so that the first light reflecting layer comprises a stack of alternating polymer films with unequal refractive indices, as taught by Yang, for selecting desired reflection at a specific wavelength ([0023] in Yang).
It is noted that in the Lee1/Watanabe/Yang laminate, the laminate is configured such that incident light (for example, sunlight) enters through the second light reflecting layer (Fig. 2, [0082] in Lee1, the laminate metal oxide/metal/metal oxide laminate is formed on the first light reflecting layer, as discussed above).
Regarding claim 4, Lee1/Watanabe/Yang discloses the laminate of claim 1.
Lee1/Watanabe/Yang does not disclose wherein each of the first metal protective layer and the second metal protective layer independently has an average thickness in a range from 15 to 200 nm; and the metal layer has an average thickness in a range from 1 to 100 nm.
However, Lee1/Watanabe/Yang discloses each of the first metal protective layer and the second metal protective layer independently has an average thickness in a range from 3 to 80 nm and the metal layer has an average thickness in a range from 3 to 50 nm ([0039] in Watanabe).
Here, the claimed ranges for the thickness of the first and second metal protective layer and the metal layer overlap with the ranges disclosed by Lee1/Watanabe/Yang. 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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990), MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Lee1/Watanabe/Yang so that the thickness of the first and second metal protective layer and the metal layer lie within the claimed ranges, for the purpose of allowing the infrared reflective layer to transmit visible rays while selectively reflecting near-infrared rays, see [0039] of Watanabe.
Regarding claim 5, Lee1/Watanabe/Yang discloses the laminate of claim 1, wherein
each of the first metal protective layer and the second metal protective layer independently comprises at least one material selected from the group consisting of indium-doped tin oxide, aluminum-doped zinc oxide, fluorine-doped tin oxide, titanium dioxide, neodymium oxide, and silicon dioxide ([0002] in Watanabe).
Regarding claim 6, Lee1/Watanabe/Yang discloses the laminate of claim 1, wherein
the metal layer comprises at least one metal selected from the group consisting of silver, aluminum, gold, aluminum oxide, chromium, and copper ([0002] in Watanabe).
Regarding claim 7, Lee1/Watanabe/Yang discloses the laminate of claim 1, wherein
the infrared radiating layer has an average thickness in a range from 10 to 1,000 μm (thickness being 50 μm, [0085] in Lee1).
Regarding claim 8, Lee1 discloses a radiative cooling material comprising:
a laminate 200 for radiative cooling (Fig. 2, [0001], [0065]), the laminate comprising:
a first light reflecting layer 220 having a reflectance for near-infrared light with a wavelength in a range from 780 to 1,300 nm and a transmittance for visible light with a wavelength in a range from 400 to 780 nm (Fig. 6, [0120], [0122]); and
an infrared radiating layer 230 (Fig. 2, [0082]).
Lee1 does not disclose a reflectance equal to or higher than 80% for infrared light in the claimed wavelength range and a transmittance equal to or higher than 70% for visible light in the claimed wavelength range.
However, Lee1 discloses the first light reflecting layer having transmittance in the range between 400 and 780 nm (visible) between around 70% and 50% with peaks around 80% and reflectance in the range between 780 and 1300 nm (near infrared) around 90% (Fig. 6, [0122]).
The parameters of the transmittance and the reflectivity of the incident light are result-effective variables, i.e., they are recognized to achieve a recognized result, for example, reflecting sunlight in the near infrared region and emitting radiant heat while allowing external viewing ([0001], [0006] in Lee1).
Lee1 discloses the claimed invention except for R>80% in near infrared and T>70% in visible.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Lee1 so that T and R lie within the claimed ranges, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In the current instance, T and R are art recognized result-effective variables in that they help realize the effective cooling of the interior and viewing of the exterior, as taught by Lee1.
Thus, one would have been motivated to optimize T and R because they are an art-recognized result-effective variable and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP §2144.05(II)(B) “after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a personal of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process”.
Moreover, Lee1 does not disclose a second light reflecting layer on the first light reflecting layer, wherein a first metal protective layer, a metal layer, and a second metal protective layer are sequentially stacked in the second light reflecting layer.
Watanabe discloses an infrared laminate film 100 comprising a first metal oxide (aka protective) layer 21, a metal layer 25 and a second metal oxide (aka protective) layer 22 arranged in this order on a base layer 10 (Fig. 2, [0019]).
Lee1 and Watanabe disclose radiative cooling laminates.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Lee1 so that the radiative cooling laminate of Lee1 includes a laminate metal oxide/metal/metal oxide formed on the first light reflecting layer, as taught by Watanabe, for achieving additional heat insulating properties ([0001] in Watanabe).
Lee1/Watanabe does not disclose an adhesive layer between the second light reflecting layer and the infrared radiating layer.
Lee1/Watanabe discloses an adhesive layer between various components, such as, the infrared reflective layer and the glass where it is attached ([0058] in Watanabe).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Lee1/Watanabe so that the second reflecting layer is attached to the infrared radiating layer with an adhesive layer, as taught by Watanabe, for achieving durability such as weather resistance ([0058] in Watanabe).
Finally, Lee1/Watanabe does not disclose wherein the first light reflecting layer comprises a first polymer layer and a second polymer layer that has a lower refractive index than the first polymer layer.
Yang discloses a reflective multilayer optical film 200 (Fig. 1, [0017]). In one embodiment, the reflective film 200 comprises a reflective stack 20 of alternating polymer films 21, 22 ([0022], [0023]). The materials of the two polymer films are different, and they have different refractive indices, one lower than the other [0023]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Lee1/ Watanabe so that the first light reflecting layer comprises a stack of alternating polymer films with unequal refractive indices, as taught by Yang, for selecting desired reflection at a specific wavelength ([0023] in Yang).
It is noted that in the Lee1/Watanabe/Yang laminate, the laminate is configured such that incident light (for example, sunlight) enters through the second light reflecting layer (Fig. 2, [0082] in Lee1, the laminate metal oxide/metal/metal oxide laminate is formed on the first light reflecting layer, as discussed above).
Regarding claim 9, Lee1/Watanabe/Yang discloses the radiative cooling material of claim 8.
Lee1/Watanabe/Yang does not disclose wherein the radiative cooling material is a radiative cooling film for a vehicle roof.
Lee1/Watanabe/Yang discloses that the infrared reflective film may be used on a window glass ([0001] in Watanabe).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Lee1/Watanabe/Yang so that the radiative cooling material is attached to a window glass, for example, on a vehicle roof, as taught by Watanabe, for achieving improved heat insulating property ([0001] in Watanabe).
Regarding claim 13, Lee1/Watanabe/Yang discloses the radiative cooling material of claim 8.
Lee1/Watanabe/Yang does not disclose wherein each of the first metal protective layer and the second metal protective layer independently has an average thickness in a range from 15 to 200 nm; and the metal layer has an average thickness in a range from 1 to 100 nm.
However, Lee1/Watanabe/Yang discloses each of the first metal protective layer and the second metal protective layer independently has an average thickness in a range from 3 to 80 nm and the metal layer has an average thickness in a range from 3 to 50 nm ([0039] in Watanabe).
Here, the claimed ranges for the thickness of the first and second metal protective layer and the metal layer overlap with the ranges disclosed by Lee1/Watanabe/Yang. 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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990), MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Lee1/Watanabe/Yang so that the thickness of the first and second metal protective layer and the metal layer lie within the claimed ranges, for the purpose of allowing the infrared reflective layer to transmit visible rays while selectively reflecting near-infrared rays,, see [0039] of Watanabe.
Regarding claim 14, Lee1/Watanabe/Yang discloses the radiative cooling material of claim 8,
wherein each of the first metal protective layer and the second metal protective layer independently comprises at least one material selected from the group consisting of indium-doped tin oxide, aluminum-doped zinc oxide, fluorine-doped tin oxide, titanium dioxide, neodymium oxide, and silicon dioxide ([0002] in Watanabe).
Regarding claim 15, Lee1/Watanabe/Yang discloses the radiative cooling material of claim 14, wherein
the metal layer comprises at least one metal selected from the group consisting of silver, aluminum, gold, aluminum oxide, chromium, and copper ([0002] in Watanabe).
Regarding claim 16, Lee1/Watanabe/Yang discloses the radiative cooling material of claim 8, wherein
the infrared radiating layer has an average thickness in a range from 10 to 1,000 μm (thickness being 50 μm, [0085] in Lee1).
Claims 3, 10, 12, 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee1, Watanabe, Yang in view of Nakamura et al. (US 2021/0011209, hereinafter, “Nakamura”).
Regarding claim 3, Lee1/Watanabe/Yang discloses the laminate of claim 1.
Lee1/Watanabe/Yang does not disclose wherein the second light reflecting layer has an average thickness in a range from 30 to 300 nm.
However, Lee1/Watanabe/Yang discloses each of the first metal protective layer and the second metal protective layer independently has an average thickness in a range from 3 to 80 nm and the metal layer has an average thickness in a range from 3 to 50 nm ([0039] in Watanabe), thus a range would be from 9 to 210 nm.
Here, the claimed range for the thickness of the second light reflecting layer overlaps with the range disclosed by Lee1/Watanabe/Yang. 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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990), MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Lee1/Watanabe/Yang so that the thickness of the second light reflecting layer lies within the claimed range, for the purpose of allowing the infrared reflective layer to transmit visible rays while selectively reflecting near-infrared rays,, see [0039] of Watanabe.
Lee1/Watanabe/Yang discloses that the thickness of the first layer of the first light reflecting layer may be 63, 70, 71 nm and the thickness of the second layer of the first light reflecting layer may be 174 nm ([0091] in Lee1).
Nakamura discloses a laminate for radiative cooling (Abstract). In one embodiment, the laminate comprises a multi-layer infrared reflective film 5 comprising multiple alternating polymer layers of different refractive index, and having a thickness of less or equal to 120 μm and equal or greater than 80 μm (Fig. 2, [0023], [0054], [0060]).
Both Lee1 and Nakamura disclose radiative cooling laminates.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Lee1/Watanabe/Yang so that the first light reflecting layer (comprising multiple polymer layers) has a thickness in the range of 80 to 120 μm, as taught by Nakamura, for better rigidity ([0054] in Nakamura).
Lee1/Watanabe/Yang/Nakamura does not disclose wherein the first light reflecting layer has an average thickness in a range from 50 to 300 μm.
Here, the claimed ranges for the thickness of the first light reflecting layer overlaps with the range disclosed by Nakamura. 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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990), MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Lee1/Watanabe/Yang/Nakamura so that the thickness of the first light reflecting layer lies within the claimed range, for the purpose of better performance, e.g., better rigidity,, see [0054] of Nakamura.
Regarding claim 10, Lee1/Watanabe/Yang discloses the radiative cooling material of claim 9.
Lee1/Watanabe/Yang does not disclose wherein the first light reflecting layer of the laminate is disposed on an exterior of the vehicle roof.
Lee1/Watanabe/Yang discloses that the infrared reflective film may be used on a window glass ([0001] in Watanabe).
Nakamura discloses a laminate for radiative cooling that is placed on a window of a door glass of a vehicle (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Lee1/Watanabe/Yang so that the radiative cooling material is attached to an exterior of a vehicle (e.g., a glass roof), as taught by Nakamura, for achieving improved heat insulating property ([0001] in Watanabe).
Regarding claim 12, Lee1/Watanabe/Wang discloses the radiative cooling material of claim 8.
Lee1/Watanabe/Wang does not disclose wherein the second light reflecting layer has an average thickness in a range from 30 to 300 nm.
However, Lee1/Watanabe/Wang discloses each of the first metal protective layer and the second metal protective layer independently has an average thickness in a range from 3 to 80 nm and the metal layer has an average thickness in a range from 3 to 50 nm ([0039] in Watanabe), thus a range would be from 9 to 210 nm.
Here, the claimed range for the thickness of the second light reflecting layer overlaps with the range disclosed by Lee1/Watanabe/Wang. 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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990), MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Lee1/Watanabe/Wang so that the thickness of the second light reflecting layer lies within the claimed range, for the purpose of allowing the infrared reflective layer to transmit visible rays while selectively reflecting near-infrared rays, see [0039] of Watanabe.
Moreover, Lee1/Watanabe/Wang discloses that the thickness of the first layer of the first light reflecting layer may be 63, 70, 71 nm and the thickness of the second layer of the first light reflecting layer may be 174 nm ([0091] in Lee1).
Nakamura discloses a laminate for radiative cooling (Abstract). In one embodiment, the laminate comprises a multi-layer infrared reflective film 5 comprising multiple alternating polymer layers of different refractive index, and having a thickness of less or equal to 120 μm and equal or greater than 80 μm (Fig. 2, [0023], [0054], [0060]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Lee1/Watanabe/Wang so that the first light reflecting layer (comprising multiple polymer layers) has a thickness in the range of 80 to 120 μm, as taught by Nakamura, for better rigidity ([0054] in Nakamura).
Lee1/Watanabe/Wang/Nakamura does not disclose wherein the first light reflecting layer has an average thickness in a range from 50 to 300 μm.
Here, the claimed ranges for the thickness of the first light reflecting layer overlaps with the range disclosed by Nakamura. 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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990), MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Lee1/Watanabe/Wang/Nakamura so that the thickness of the first light reflecting layer lies within the claimed range, for the purpose of better performance, e.g., better rigidity, see [0054] of Nikamura.
Regarding claim 17, Lee1 discloses
a radiative cooling material comprising a laminate 200 for radiative cooling (Fig. 2, [0001], [0065]), the laminate comprising:
a first light reflecting layer 220 having a reflectance for near-infrared light with a wavelength in a range from 780 to 1,300 nm and a transmittance for visible light with a wavelength in a range from 400 to 780 nm (Fig. 6, [0120], [0122]); and
an infrared radiating layer 230 (Fig. 2, [0082]).
Lee1 does not disclose a reflectance equal to or higher than 80% for infrared light in the claimed wavelength range and a transmittance equal to or higher than 70% for visible light in the claimed wavelength range.
However, Lee1 discloses the first light reflecting layer having transmittance in the range between 400 and 780 nm (visible) between around 60% and 50% with peaks around 80% and reflectance in the range between 780 and 1300 nm (near infrared) around 90% (Fig. 6, [0122]).
The parameters of the transmittance and the reflectivity of the incident light are result-effective variables, i.e., they are recognized to achieve a recognized result, for example, reflecting sunlight in the near infrared region and emitting radiant heat while allowing external viewing ([0001], [0006] in Lee1).
Lee1 discloses the claimed invention except for R>80% in near infrared and T>70% in visible. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Lee1 so that T and R lie within the claimed ranges, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
In the current instance, T and R are art recognized result-effective variables in that they help realize the effective cooling of the interior and viewing of the exterior, as taught by Lee1.
Thus, one would have been motivated to optimize T and R because they are an art-recognized result-effective variable and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP §2144.05(II)(B) “after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a personal of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process”.
Moreover, Lee1 does not disclose a second light reflecting layer on the first light reflecting layer, wherein a first metal protective layer, a metal layer, and a second metal protective layer are sequentially stacked in the second light reflecting layer.
Watanabe discloses an infrared laminate film 100 comprising a first metal oxide (aka protective) layer 21, a metal layer 25 and a second metal oxide (aka protective) layer 22 arranged in this order on a base layer 10 (Fig. 2, [0019]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Lee1 so that the radiative cooling laminate of Lee1 includes a laminate metal oxide/metal/metal oxide formed on the first light reflecting layer, as taught by Watanabe, for achieving additional heat insulating properties ([0001] in Watanabe).
Lee1/Watanabe does not disclose wherein the first light reflecting layer comprises a first polymer layer and a second polymer layer that has a lower refractive index than the first polymer layer.
Yang discloses a reflective multilayer optical film 200 (Fig. 1, [0017]). In one embodiment, the reflective film 200 comprises a reflective stack 20 of alternating polymer films 21, 22 ([0022], [0023]). The materials of the two polymer films are different, and they have different refractive indices, one lower than the other [0023]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Lee1/ Watanabe so that the first light reflecting layer comprises a stack of alternating polymer films with unequal refractive indices, as taught by Yang, for selecting desired reflection at a specific wavelength ([0023] in Yang).
Finally, Lee1/Watanabe/Yang does not disclose the radiative cooling material being provided for a mobility, e.g., for a vehicle.
Nakamura discloses a laminate for radiative cooling for a door glass of a vehicle (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Lee1/Watanabe/Yang so that the radiative cooling material is provided for a mobility, as taught by Nakamura, for achieving additional heat insulating properties ([0001] in Watanabe).
It is noted that in the Lee1/Watanabe/Yang laminate, the laminate is configured such that incident light (for example, sunlight) enters through the second light reflecting layer (Fig. 2, [0082] in Lee1, the laminate metal oxide/metal/metal oxide laminate is formed on the first light reflecting layer, as discussed above).
Regarding claim 18, Lee1/Watanabe/Yang/Nakamura discloses the mobility of claim 17.
Lee1/Watanabe/Yang/Nakamura does not disclose wherein the second light reflecting layer has an average thickness in a range from 30 to 300 nm.
However, Lee1/Watanabe/Yang/Nakamura discloses each of the first metal protective layer and the second metal protective layer independently has an average thickness in a range from 3 to 80 nm and the metal layer has an average thickness in a range from 3 to 50 nm ([0039] in Watanabe), thus a range would be from 9 to 210 nm.
Here, the claimed range for the thickness of the second light reflecting layer overlaps with the range disclosed by Lee1/Watanabe/Yang/Nakamura. 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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990), MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Lee1/Watanabe/Yang/Nakamura so that the thickness of the second light reflecting layer lies within the claimed range, for the purpose of allowing the infrared reflective layer to transmit visible rays while selectively reflecting near-infrared rays,, see [0039] of Watanabe.
Lee1/Watanabe/Yang/Nakamura discloses that the thickness of the first layer of the first light reflecting layer may be 63, 70, 71 nm and the thickness of the second layer of the first light reflecting layer may be 174 nm ([0091] in Lee1).
Nakamura discloses a laminate for radiative cooling (Abstract). In one embodiment, the laminate comprises a multi-layer infrared reflective film 5 comprising multiple alternating polymer layers of different refractive index, and having a thickness of less or equal to 120 μm and equal or greater than 80 μm (Fig. 2, [0023], [0054], [0060]).
Both Lee1 and Nakamura disclose radiative cooling laminates.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Lee1/Watanabe/Yang/Nakamura so that the first light reflecting layer (comprising multiple polymer layers) has a thickness in the range of 80 to 120 μm, as taught by Nakamura, for better rigidity ([0054] in Nakamura).
Lee1/Watanabe/Yang/Nakamura does not disclose wherein the first light reflecting layer has an average thickness in a range from 50 to 300 μm.
Here, the claimed ranges for the thickness of the first light reflecting layer overlaps with the range disclosed by Nakamura. 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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990), MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Lee1/Watanabe/Yang/Nakamura so that the thickness of the first light reflecting layer lies within the claimed range, for the purpose of better performance, e.g., better rigidity,, see [0054] of Nakamura.
Regarding claim 19, Lee1/Watanabe/Yang/Nakamura discloses the mobility of claim 17.
Lee1/Watanabe/Yang/Nakamura does not disclose wherein each of the first metal protective layer and the second metal protective layer independently has an average thickness in a range from 15 to 200 nm; and the metal layer has an average thickness in a range from 1 to 100 nm.
However, Lee1/Watanabe/Yang/Nakamura discloses each of the first metal protective layer and the second metal protective layer independently has an average thickness in a range from 3 to 80 nm and the metal layer has an average thickness in a range from 3 to 50 nm ([0039] in Watanabe).
Here, the claimed ranges for the thickness of the first and second metal protective layer and the metal layer overlap with the ranges disclosed by Lee1/Watanabe/Yang/Nakamura. 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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990), MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Lee1/Watanabe/Yang/Nakamura so that the thickness of the first and second metal protective layer and the metal layer lie within the claimed ranges, for the purpose of allowing the infrared reflective layer to transmit visible rays while selectively reflecting near-infrared rays, see [0039] of Watanabe.
Regarding claim 20, Lee1/Watanabe/Yang/Nakamura discloses the mobility of claim 17, wherein
each of the first metal protective layer and the second metal protective layer independently comprises at least one material selected from the group consisting of indium-doped tin oxide, aluminum-doped zinc oxide, fluorine-doped tin oxide, titanium dioxide, neodymium oxide, and silicon dioxide ([0002] in Watanabe).
Regarding claim 21, Lee1/Watanabe/Yang/Nakamura discloses the mobility of claim 17, wherein
the metal layer comprises at least one metal selected from the group consisting of silver, aluminum, gold, aluminum oxide, chromium, and copper ([0002] in Watanabe).
Regarding claim 22, Lee1/Watanabe/Yang/Nakamura discloses the mobility of claim 17, wherein
the infrared radiating layer has an average thickness in a range from 10 to 1,000 μm (thickness being 50 μm, [0085] in Lee1).
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Regarding the double patenting rejection, Applicant stated “The pending '697 application was filed after the present application and, therefore, no terminal disclaimer is needed at this time. Applicant makes no assertion as to whether or not the claims are obvious variations of one another”, see p. 7 of the Remarks. The Office notes that the current double patenting rejection is provisional and will remain until it is the only rejection remaining.
Regarding independent claim 1 (similarly for independent claims 8, 17) Applicant stated, “Lee, Watanabe, and Yang fail to disclose the above- recited features of amended independent claim 1”, and “Applicant respectfully asserts that the proposed combination of Lee, Watanabe, and Yang fails to disclose that "the laminate is configured such that incident light enters through the second light reflecting layer". Therefore, Applicant respectfully asserts that Lee, Watanabe, and Yang fail to disclose the above-recited features of amended independent claim 1. see pages 8-9 of the Remarks.
First, it is noted that Lee in the previous Office Action corresponds to Lee1 in the present Office Action.
Applicant’s above argument has been fully considered but it is not persuasive. As discussed above, in the modified Lee1/Watanabe/Yang/Nakamura laminate, sunlight is incident on the laminate (Fig. 1 in Lee1) where the second light reflecting layer is formed on the first light reflecting layer and therefore the incident light enters through the second light reflecting layer.
Applicant also stated “However, Applicant respectfully asserts that, contrary to position set forth in the Action regarding combining Yang with Lee, there would have been no motivation to modify Lee by replacing only Lee's first reflective layer with Yang's first layer (21) and second layer (22), which are formed of polymers having different refractive indices. Applicant respectfully asserts that such a modification appears to be based on improper hindsight reconstruction. See MPEP § 2142 ("...impermissible hindsight must be avoided, and the legal conclusion must be reached on the basis of the facts gleaned from the prior art"). In particular, Lee discloses only inorganic materials-namely, a-Si:H, TiO2, ITO, Si02, and ZnS-as specific examples of the first transparent radiative cooling material. See, e.g., Lee at claim 7. Applicant respectfully asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to replace Lee's first reflective layer formed of such an inorganic material with Yang's polymeric second layers (20), which comprise a plurality of first layers (21) and second layers (22), nor would such a modification have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art”, see pages 8-9 of the Remarks.
In response to Applicant's argument that the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the Applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Here, Yang discloses the teaching of a laminate comprising alternate polymer layers having different refractive indices, the selection of various polymer layers offering the possibility of reflection of the laminate at different bandwidths of electromagnetic radiation ([0023] in Yang), thus providing a motivation for replacing the inorganic layers of Lee1 with polymer layers.
The rejection of claims 1, 8, 17 and their dependents is maintained.
Conclusion
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 LEONIDAS BOUTSIKARIS whose telephone number is (703)756-4529. The Examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fr. 9.00-5.00.
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 Allen, can be reached on 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.
/L.B./
Patent Examiner, AU 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
