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 .
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) filed on April 23, 2026 have/has been acknowledged and considered by the examiner. Initialed copies of supplied IDS(s) forms are included in this correspondence.
Drawings
The drawings were received on April 21, 2026. These drawings are accepted.
Response to Amendment
Regarding Applicant’s changes from “total” to “average”
Applicant’s amendment filed April 21, 2026 changing “total transmissivity” to “average transmissivity”; “total reflectivity” to “average reflectivity”; “total absorptivity” to “average absorptivity” introduces new matter. Applicant’s originally filed specification contains no statements or details on any average reflectivity, transmissivity, or absorptivity properties.
Regarding Applicant’s changes to claims 2, 6 and 7
Applicant’s amendments have resolved the outstanding USC 112(b) issues of claims 2, 6 and 7.
Regarding Applicant’s remarks regarding claims 8 and 9
Applicant’s remarks/amendments have not resolved the USC 112(b) issue(s) of claims 8 and 9. While Applicant points to Wang1 to resolve/explain the technical aspects of the issue, this is not the problem. Furthermore, Wang forms no part of Applicant’s specification. While Applicant discusses the effect of Wang’s resonance layer within a Fabry-Perot cavity, Applicant’s specification says nothing about forming a Fabry-Perot cavity. Wang is also not directed a graphene based control layer. In other words, Wang appears to fail to provide any evidence the claim(s) is/are indefinite.
Regardless of Wang, USC 112(b) concerns indefiniteness, and specifically infringement (MPEP 2173 - The primary purpose of this requirement of definiteness of claim language is to ensure that the scope of the claims is clear so the public is informed of the boundaries of what constitutes infringement of the patent).
Claim 8 contains two separate issues. The first issue outlined in the Office Action mailed January 28, 2026 is the function Applicant claims as attributable to the “resonance layer”. The function of amplification of the differences between the NIR reflectivity/absorption in one versus another voltage state is a statement of a function achieved by the invention. In this case, Applicant’s specification/claims fails to provide any structure to achieve the claimed function beyond an arbitrarily sized or shaped dielectric material - “resonance layer having a dielectric material”. In other words, Applicant recites a function/result achieved by the invention but fails to provide any structure/materials on how to infringe such function. Is this function a property/result of all possible dielectrics at all possible thicknesses, or shapes, or patterns? How does “and so on”2 perform the function? (MPEP 2073.05(g) - For example, when claims merely recite a description of a problem to be solved or a function or result achieved by the invention, the boundaries of the claim scope may be unclear. Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1255, 85 USPQ2d 1654, 1663 (Fed. Cir. 2008)).
In other words, how does one infringe the claim beyond having any dielectric material between the control layer and the filter layer?
The second issue is “amplify”. For example, Applicant’s specification3 discusses this feature with respect to Figure 8A where the NIR reflectivity at 0.1 eV (V) is 17% and the NIR reflectivity at 0.9 eV (V) is 58%, with a difference of 41%. Applicant’s specification states this 41% is amplified. But amplified relative to what/when? (MPEP 2173.05(b) - A claim may be rendered indefinite when a limitation of the claim is defined by reference to an object and the relationship between the limitation and the object is not sufficiently defined).
Regarding Applicant’s remarks as they pertain to the prior art
While Applicant’s amendment to include the plurality of graphene layers with the control layer overcome the art of Jain as applied under USC 102, Examiner rejected such features as obvious over Jain in view of Boreman.
Regarding Applicant’s remarks that “the present invention operates on the principle of interference resonance (Fabry-Perot cavity effect)”, Examiner points out that such principles of operation are not in fact disclosed. As such, Applicant’s remarks do not appear germane to the structural and functional requirements of claim 1.
Regarding Applicant’s remarks that “Jain’s inner glass functions purely as a passive structural support - it does not amplify the difference in NIR reflectivity or absorptivity between voltage states, nor does it decrease the absorptivity of visible light”, such remarks are not persuasive. This is related to the USC 112(b) issue. Applicant’s resonance layer is also a passive layer - i.e. it is not actively controlled in any way either claimed or disclosed. Applicant’s specification states it is nothing more than some arbitrarily sized and shaped SiO2, PMMA, ion gel, and so on4. (MPEP 2112.01.I - Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)).
Jain has the same structure as Applicant - an arbitrarily sized/shaped/ dielectric material between a control layer and filter layer, and therefore it must have the same properties (MPEP 2112.01.I).
Applicant’s arguments appear to corroborate the USC 112(b) issues of claims 8 and 9 since Applicant cannot in fact draw a clear line about what does and does not infringe such features.
Specification
The amendment filed April 21, 2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
a) Each instance where “total” was changed to “average”.
b) Para. [0100] changing the average absorptivity of the near-infrared light is about 9%...average absorptivity of the near-infrared light is about 56%.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-11, 13-16 are 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.
As to claim 1, the claim recites “average transmissivity of the visible light of the window is maintained and average reflectivity of the near-infrared light of the window is controlled when the applied voltage is changed” which constitutes prohibited new matter. Applicant’s originally filed specification does not appear to provide support the claimed function for the average transmissivity/reflectivity.
Claims 2, 4-11, 13-16 are rejected as dependent upon claim 1.
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 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 8, the claim recites “the resonance layer amplifies a difference between…and a difference between…” which is a function that does not appear to follow from the recited structure (MPEP 2173.05(g)) as well as a relative/subjective term (MPEP 2173.05(b)).
Regarding the function, Applicant’s specification states the resonance layer is a uniform thickness dielectric material of “SiO2, PMMA, ion gel, and so on”. The metes and bounds are unclear as to how such uniform thickness layer performs the claimed function of amplification absent any details on the thickness, interaction with the control layer, etc. In other words, Applicant recites a function/result achieved by the invention but fails to provide how such function results from arbitrarily sized/shaped material of any possible dielectric. (MPEP 2073.05(g) - For example, when claims merely recite a description of a problem to be solved or a function or result achieved by the invention, the boundaries of the claim scope may be unclear. Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1255, 85 USPQ2d 1654, 1663 (Fed. Cir. 2008)). Is this function a property/result of all possible dielectrics at all possible thicknesses, or shapes, or patterns? How does “and so on” perform the function?
Regarding the relative term of “amplifies”, amplifies relative to what? The resonance layer being present vs. not present? For example, Applicant’s specification5 discusses this feature with respect to Figure 8A where the NIR reflectivity at 0.1 eV (V) is 17% and the NIR reflectivity at 0.9 eV (V) is 58%, with a difference of 41%. Applicant’s specification states this 41% is amplified. But amplified relative to what? (MPEP 2173.05(b) - A claim may be rendered indefinite when a limitation of the claim is defined by reference to an object and the relationship between the limitation and the object is not sufficiently defined).
For purposes of compact prosecution, so long as the prior art is a uniform thickness dielectric, such properties are presumed implicit (MPEP 2112.01).
Claim 9 is rejected as dependent upon claim 8.
As to claim 9, the claim recites “resonance layer decreases the total absorptivity of the visible light when the first and second voltage are applied” which is a function that does not appear to follow from the recited structure (MPEP 2173.05(g)) as well as a relative/subjective term (MPEP 2173.05(b)).
Regarding the function, Applicant’s specification points that the resonance layer is a uniform thickness dielectric material of “SiO2, PMMA, ion gel, and so on”. The metes and bounds are unclear as to how such uniform thickness layer performs the claimed function of decreasing the total absorptivity. In other words, Applicant recites a function/result achieved by the invention but fails to provide any structure/materials on how to infringe such function. (MPEP 2073.05(g) - For example, when claims merely recite a description of a problem to be solved or a function or result achieved by the invention, the boundaries of the claim scope may be unclear. Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1255, 85 USPQ2d 1654, 1663 (Fed. Cir. 2008)). Is this function a property/result of all possible dielectrics at all possible thicknesses, or shapes, or patterns? How does “and so on” perform the function?
Regarding the relative term of “decreases”, decreases relative to what? The resonance layer being present vs. not present?
For purposes of compact prosecution, so long as the prior art is a uniform thickness dielectric, such properties are presumed implicit (MPEP 2112.01).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2, 6-11, 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jain et al. (US 2009/0296188 - Jain; of record) in view of Boreman et al. (US 2013/0038937 - Boreman; of record).
As to claim 1, Jain teaches an active radiation control window (Jain Figs. 2, 4, 6; Figs. 11a,b) comprising
a control layer comprising a plurality of layers (Jain Fig. 2 - 21, 23, 22) configured to control transmissivity or absorptivity of a near-infrared light according to an applied voltage (Jain Fig. 2; Fig. 11a - programmable blazed diffraction grating; para. [0021]-[0023]);
a filter layer (Jain Figs. 11a, b - reflection pane; para. [0017], [0054]) disposed under the control layer (Jain Figs. 11a, b), the filter layer comprises a plurality of dielectric layers (Jain Fig. 8 - 2, 3; para. [0070], [0072]; Table 1) and is configured to transmit a visible light and to reflect the near-infrared light (Jain Figs. 11a, b - reflection pane; para. [0017], [0054] - as discussed and shown, reflection pane transmits Vis and reflects near IR)
a resonance layer (Jain Fig. 11a - inner glass) disposed between the control layer and the filter layer (Jain Fig. 11a - grating, inner glass, reflection pane), and having a dielectric material (Jain Fig. 4 - 46; para. [0062]; Fig. 11a - glass; para. [0032]);
wherein average transmissivity of the visible light is maintained and average reflectivity of the near-infrared light is controlled when the applied voltage is changed (Jain Figs. 11a, b - as shown, when the voltage is changed, the NIR light is reflected out; for both voltage states, the transmissivity of the Vis is maintained).
Jain doesn’t specify the plurality of layers (e.g. the electrodes 21, 22) are graphene. In the same field of endeavor Boreman teaches tunable diffraction gratings with graphene electrodes (Boreman Fig. 2A - 12; para. [0031]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to provide stacked graphene since as taught by Boreman, such material is well known in the art as an electrode (Boreman para. [0031]).
As to claim 2, Jain in view of Boreman teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above in claim 1, and Jain further teaches the control layer controls
the transmissivity of the near-infrared light when a first voltage is applied to be higher than that when a second voltage different from the first voltage is applied (Jain Figs. 4, 11a, 11b; para. [0021]-[0023]);
the absorptivity of the near-infrared light when the first voltage is applied to be lower than that when the second voltage is applied (Jain Figs. 4, 11a, 11b; para. [0021]-[0023]); or
a difference the transmissivity and the absorptivity of the visible light according to application of the first and second voltages is less than a difference of the transmissivity and the absorptivity of the near-infrared light according to application of the first and second voltages (Jain Figs. 4, 11a, 11b; para. [0021]-[0023]).
As to claim 6, Jain in view of Boreman teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above in claim 1, and Jain further teaches the filter layer comprises a plurality of dielectric layers stacked with each other (Jain Fig. 8 - 2, 3).
As to claim 7, Jain in view of Boreman teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above in claim 6, and Jain further teaches the dielectric layers comprise a first dielectric material layer having a first refractive index (Jain Fig. 8 - 2, 3; para. [0070], [0072]; Table 1) and a second dielectric material layer having a second refractive index lower than the first refractive index (Jain Fig. 8 - 2, 3; para. [0070], [0072]; Table 1), the first dielectric material layer and the second dielectric material layer are alternately stacked (Jain Fig. 8 - 2, 3; para. [0070], [0072]; Table 1).
As to claim 8 (as understood), Jain in view of Boreman teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above in claim 1, and Jain further teaches amplifies:
a difference between the average reflectivity of the near-infrared light when a first voltage is applied and the average reflectivity of the near-infrared light when a second voltage is applied (Jain Fig. 4 - 46; Figs. 11a,b - inner glass; para. [0062] - inner glass being a uniform dielectric, thus such amplification is presumed implicit);
and a difference between the average absorptivity of the near-infrared light when the second voltage is applied and the average absorptivity of the near-infrared light when the first voltage is applied (Jain Fig. 4 - 46; Figs. 11a,b - inner glass; para. [0062] - inner glass being a uniform dielectric, thus such amplification is presumed implicit).
As to claim 9 (as understood), Jain in view of Boreman teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above in claim 8, and Jain further teaches the resonance layer decreases the total absorptivity of the visible light when the first and second voltages are applied (Jain Figs. 11a,b - inner glass being a uniform dielectric, thus such decrease is presumed implicit).
As to claim 10, Jain in view of Boreman teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above in claim 1, and Jain further teaches the resonance layer has a uniform thickness (Jain Figs. Fig. 4 - 46; 11a, b - inner glass).
As to claim 11, Jain in view of Boreman teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above in claim 1, and Jain further teaches a protective layer formed on the control layer with a light transmissive material (Jain Fig. 6 - 44, 21; para. [0059]; Fig. 11a - UV blocking layer, outer glass).
As to claim 13, Jain in view of Boreman teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above in claim 11, and Jain further teaches an insulating layer (Jain Fig. 6 - 61; para. [0064]) disposed between the protective layer and the control layer (Jain Fig. 6 - 61, 44, 23) and configured to electrically insulate the protection layer from the control layer (Jain Fig. 6 - 61, 21; para. [0064]).
As to claim 14, Jain in view of Boreman teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above in claim 1, and Jain further teaches an electrode layer (Jain Fig. 6 - 22; para. [0063]) disposed over the resonance layer (Jain Fig. 6 - 22, 46), and configured to provide a power to apply an electric field to the resonance layer (Jain Fig. 6 - 22; para. [0063], [0064]).
Claim 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jain and Boreman as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kokeguchi et al. (US 2013/0107355 - Kokeguchi; of record).
As to claim 4, Jain and Boreman teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above in claim 1, and Jain further teaches the filter layer is comprises alternating layers including a dielectric (Jain para. [0085], [0090]) but doesn’t specify the alternating layers include a metal layer. In the same field of endeavor Kokeguchi teaches Vis/NIR filters having alternating layers of metal and dielectric (Kokeguchi Abstract; para. [0015]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide such metal/dielectric multilayer filters since, as taught by Kokeguchi, such filters are well known in the art for reflecting NIR and transmitting Vis (Kokeguchi para. [0013], [0018]).
As to claim 5, Jain in view of Boreman, Kokeguchi teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above in claim 4, and Jain further teaches the dielectric layer comprises a light transmissive material for the visible light and the near-infrared light (Jain Figs. 11a, b; para. [0088]).
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jain and Boreman as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of McLaughlin et al. (US 4,749,261 - McLaughlin; of record).
As to claim 15, Jain and Boreman teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above in claim 1, but doesn’t specify an adhesive layer disposed on the control layer. In the same field of endeavor McLaughlin teaches IR control windows with control layers (McLaughlin Fig. 7 - 168, 160) and adhesive layer on the control layer (McLaughlin Fig. 7 - 158; col. 13:10-15). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to provide an adhesive layer since, as taught by McLaughlin, adhesive layers are well known in the art for the purpose of attaching layers (McLaughlin Fig. 7 - 158; col. 13:10-15).
As to claim 16, Jain in view of Boreman teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above in claim 1, but doesn’t specify an adhesive layer disposed under a substrate on which the filter layer is formed. In the same field of endeavor, McLaughlin teaches IR control windows with filter layer (McLaughlin Fig. 7 - 168, 160) with an adhesive layer (McLaughlin Fig. 7 -158; col. 13:10-15) formed under a substrate (McLaughlin Fig. 7 - 166, 154, 156, 152) on which a filter layer is formed (McLaughlin Fig. 7 - 152, 154, 166; col. 12:65-68; col. 13:1-20). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to provide an adhesive layer since, as taught by McLaughlin, adhesive layers are well known in the art for the purpose of attaching layers (McLaughlin Fig. 7 - 158; col. 13:10-15).
Claims 1-2, 4-11, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN 111983827 - Wang; of record; text reference made to the attached machine translation) in view of Apfel (US 3,682,528).
As to claim 1, Wang teaches an active radiation control window (Wang Fig. 1; Fig. 2; Figs. 5a-c; Fig. 6), comprising
a control layer (Wang Fig. 1 - 2; para. [0043]) comprising a plurality of graphene layers (Wang Fig. 6; para. [0018], [0053], [0054]) and configured to control transmissivity or absorptivity of a near-infrared (NIR) light according to an applied voltage (Wang Fig. 3c)
a filter layer disposed under the control layer (Wang Fig. 1 - 4; Fig. 3a; para. [0054] - aluminum layer being Vis/IR filter with notch at about 850nm (0.85um)) and is configured to transmit a visible light an reflect the NIR light (Wang Fig. 3a; para. [0054]);
a resonance layer disposed between the control layer and the filter layer and having a dielectric material (Wang Fig. 1 - 3; para. [0043]);
wherein average transmissivity of the visible light of the window is maintained and average reflectivity of the near-infrared light of the window is controlled when the applied voltage is changed (Wang Figs. 5a-c; Fig. 6).
Wang doesn’t specify the filter is a plurality of dielectric layer type filter. In the same field of endeavor Apfel teaches radiation control windows with filter layers having a plurality of dielectric layers (Apfel Fig. 1 - 22, 18, 19, 16; col. 2:65-68; col. 3:1-8; col. 3:59-68; col. 4:1-10; col. 4:20-26; Fig. 3 - 27, 32, 37; col. 5:39-45).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to provide such Vis/IR dielectric layer since, as taught by Apfel, such NIR filters are well known in the art for transmitting visible and reflecting NIR light (Apfel col. 1:5-8; Fig. 2; Fig. 4).
PNG
media_image1.png
484
810
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 2, Wang in view of Apfel teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Wang further teaches the transmissivity of the NIR light when a first voltage is applied to be higher than when a second voltage different from the first voltage is applied (Wang Figs. 5a-c; Fig. 6);
the absorptivity of the NIR light when the first voltage is applied to be lower than that when the second voltage is applied (Wang Figs. 5b, 5c; para. [0002], [0006]); or
a difference of the transmissivity and the absorptivity of the visible light according to application of the first and second voltages is less than a difference of the transmissivity and the absorptivity of the NIR light according to application of the first and second voltages (Wang Figs. 5a-c; Fig. 6).
As to claim 4, Wang in view of Apfel teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Apfel further teaches the filter layer comprises a dielectric layer and a metal layer disposed alternately (Apfel Fig. 1 - 22, 21, 18, 19, 17, 16; col. 2:65-68; col. 3:1-8; col. 3:59-68; col. 4:1-10; Fig. 3 - 37, 36, 34, 33, 32, 31, 29, 28, 27).
As to claim 5, Wang in view of Apfel teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 4, the dielectric layer comprises a light transmissive material for the visible and the NIR light (Apfel col. 4:1-10).
As to claim 6, Wang in view of Apfel teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Apfel further teaches the filter layer comprises a plurality of dielectric layers stacked with each other (Apfel Fig. 1 - 22, 18, 19, 16; col. 2:65-68; col. 3:1-8; col. 3:59-68; col. 4:1-10; col. 4:20-26; Fig. 3 - 27, 32, 37; col. 5:39-45).
As to claim 7, Wang in view of Apfel teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 6, and Apfel further teaches the dielectric layers comprise a first dielectric layer having a first refractive index and a second dielectric material having a second refractive index lower than the first refractive index (Apfel col. 4:1-10; col. 3:2-8), the first dielectric material layer and the second dielectric material layer are alternately stacked (Apfel Figs. 1, 3).
As to claim 8 (as understood), Wang in view of Apfel teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Wang teaches a the resonance layer amplifies
a difference between the average reflectivity of the near-infrared light when a first voltage is applied and the average reflectivity of the near-infrared light when a second voltage is applied (Wang Figs. 5a-c; Fig. 6; para. [0006]); and
and a difference between the average absorptivity of the near-infrared light when the second voltage is applied and the average absorptivity of the near-infrared light when the first voltage is applied (Wang Figs. 5a-c; Fig. 6; para. [0006]).
As to claim 9 (as understood), Wang in view of Apfel teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 8, and Wang teaches the resonance layer decreases the average absorptivity of the visible light when the first and second voltages are applied (Wang Figs. 5a-c; Fig. 6; para. [0006]).
As to claim 10, Wang in view of Apfel teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Wang further teaches the resonance layer has a uniform thickness (Wang Fig. 1 - 3).
As to claim 11, Wang in view of Apfel teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Wang further teaches a protective layer formed on the control layer with a light transmissive material (Wang Fig. 1 - 1; para. [0015]).
As to claim 14, Wang in view of Apfel teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Wang further teaches an electrode layer (Wang Fig. 1 - 5; para. [0038]) disposed over the resonance layer (Wang Fig. 1 - 3, 5) and disposed at a side of the control layer (Wang Fig. 1 - 2, 5), and configured to provide a power to apply an electric field to the resonance layer (Wang Fig. 1 - 5; para. [0038]).
Claims 13, 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang and Apfel as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of McLaughlin et al. (US 4,749,261 - McLaughlin; of record).
As to claim 13, Wang in view of Apfel teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 11, but doesn’t specify an insulating layer disposed between the protective layer and the control layer, and configured to electrically insulate the protective layer from the control layer.
In the same field of endeavor McLaughlin teaches IR control windows (McLaughlin Figs. 2, 3; Fig. 7) with a control layer (McLaughlin Fig. 3 - 78, 126, 73; col. 12:6-18) and a protective layer (McLaughlin Fig. 3 - 70, 74; col. 11:34-36; col. 11:45-50) and an insulating layer (McLaughlin Fig. 3 - 76, 72; col. 11:35-40; col. 11:45-50) disposed between the protective layer and the control layer (McLaughlin Fig. 3 - 74, 76, 78, 126, 73, 72, 70), and configured to electrically insulate the protective layer from the control layer (McLaughlin col. 11:35-40, col. 11:45-50 - plastic insulation layer).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to provide the insulating layer since, as taught by McLaughlin, such plastic layers are well known in the art for the purpose of providing safety features to prevent the protective layer (glass) from not freely flying when shattered (McLaughlin col. 11:45-55).
As to claim 15, Wang in view of Apfel teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, but doesn’t specify an adhesive layer disposed on the control layer. In the same field of endeavor McLaughlin teaches IR control windows with control layers (McLaughlin Fig. 7 - 168, 160) and adhesive layer on the control layer (McLaughlin Fig. 7 - 158; col. 13:10-15). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to provide an adhesive layer since, as taught by McLaughlin, adhesive layers are well known in the art for the purpose of attaching layers (McLaughlin Fig. 7 - 158; col. 13:10-15).
As to claim 16, Wang in view of Apfel teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, but doesn’t specify an adhesive layer disposed under a substrate on which the filter layer is formed. In the same field of endeavor, McLaughlin teaches IR control windows with filter layer (McLaughlin Fig. 7 - 168, 160) with an adhesive layer (McLaughlin Fig. 7 -158; col. 13:10-15) formed under a substrate (McLaughlin Fig. 7 - 166, 154, 156, 152) on which a filter layer is formed (McLaughlin Fig. 7 - 152, 154, 166; col. 12:65-68; col. 13:1-20). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to provide an adhesive layer since, as taught by McLaughlin, adhesive layers are well known in the art for the purpose of attaching layers (McLaughlin Fig. 7 - 158; col. 13:10-15).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Wang et al. (CN 109375390) is cited as an additional example of graphene based radiation control windows.
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 ZACHARY W WILKES whose telephone number is (571)270-7540. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 (Pacific).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ricky Mack can be reached at 571-272-2333. 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.
/ZACHARY W WILKES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 May 18, 2026
1 See IDS filed April 23, 2026; NPL citation #1
2 Originally filed Spec. para. [0090]
3 Originally filed Spec. para. [0098]
4 Originally filed Spec. para. [0090]
5 Originally filed Spec. para. [0098]
Prosecution Insights