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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) filed on March 6, 2024; March 26, 2025 have/has been acknowledged and considered by the examiner. Initialed copies of supplied IDS(s) forms are included in this correspondence.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Applicant’s specification recites “voltage of 0.9eV” and “voltage of 0.1eV” which is inconsistent with what those of ordinary skill in the art understand regarding the SI units of such potentials and energy. The unit eV is for electronvolt1 and is a measure of the energy whereas V is for voltage and is the unit for electrical potential2. Examiner suggests clarifying the inconsistencies with the language “voltage” and the unit “eV” throughout the specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-16 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 1, the claim recites “total transmissivity of the visible light is maintained and total reflectivity of the near-infrared is controlled when the applied voltage is changed” which is unclear what is meant by “total transmissivity”, “total reflectivity”.
As a first issue, such features appear without context as to whether the transmissivity/reflectivity is relative to a layer, or the window itself (MPEP 2173.05(b)). Figures 8A-C appear to be the R, T, A curves for the window itself, including the resonance layer (300), however the R, T, A values are not “maintained” when switching between 0.1eV and 0.9eV for the visible spectra. Is the claimed property relative to the control layer as in Figures 2A-C?
Additionally, it is unclear what Applicant intends by “total”. Is this the sum of transmission/reflection values across the VIS/NIR spectra? Does “total” mean the average across the VIS/NIR spectra. Applicant’s specification refers to total when discussing Figures 7A-8C, however the stated values do not appear to correspond with the graphs themselves. For example, Applicant’s specification3 states the total reflectivity of the window in the 0.1eV state as shown in Fig. 8A is 58%. But this value doesn’t appear to be depicted in the 0.1eV plot. The plot passes through 58% near 2.5um, but this is only a single point, and all others points are not this value. Additionally, an average of the 0.1eV plot would not be 58% as those of ordinary skill in the art can quickly calculate - i.e. almost all values for the NIR spectra (~700nm - 2.5um) lie below 58%, and the few values above 58% are not enough to compensate for so many values below being below 58%. Applicant’s specification gives no values for the total transmissivity for Figure 8B.
The metes and bounds are unclear since what is meant by “total transmissivity”, “total reflectivity” is unclear. For purposes of compact prosecution, so long as the prior art changes the NIR reflectivity, the limitation will be met.
Claims 2-16 are rejected as dependent upon claim 1.
As to claim 2, the claim recites “uniformly maintained” which is a relative/subjective term (MPEP 2173.05(b)). Specifically, what constitutes uniformly maintained is unclear. In view of the specification, there does not appear to be an objective way to determine what constitutes such uniform maintenance. Is this for any one wavelength in the visible? For the entire visible range (e.g. ~400-700nm)? Is this the average transmissivity? The transmission function? For purposes of compact prosecution, so long as the art transmits visible for both first and second voltages, the claim limitation will be considered met.
Claim 3 is rejected as dependent upon claim 1.
As to claim 6, the claim recites “at least one dielectric layers stacked with each other” which is unclear as it appears to confused singular (one) with plural. Examiner will understand as a plurality of dielectric layers stacked with each other.
Claim 7 is rejected as dependent upon claim 6.
As to claim 7, the claim recites “each of the dielectric layers comprises a dielectric material having a relatively high refractive index and a dielectric material having a relatively low refractive index alternately” which are relative terms (MPEP 2173.05(b)). Specifically, relative to what? Examiner will understand the claim so long as the indices are different, such limitations are met.
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.
Regarding the relative term of “amplifies”, amplifies 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 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.
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).
As to claim 12, the claim recites “the transparent electrode increases the total transmissivity of the visible light due to an anti-reflection effect” 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 “increases the total transmissivity…due to an anti-reflection effect” does not appear to follow from the structure of “transparent electrode”. The metes and bounds are unclear because such property/function of anti-reflection is not implicit to a transparent electrode. Is there some particular material or structure that allows for the property/function?
Regarding the relative term of “increases”, increases relative to what? The electrode being present or not?
For purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner will understand the claim such that art having a transparent electrode, such properties/functions are presumed implicit (MPEP 2112.01).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 6-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Jain et al. (US 2009/0296188 - Jain).
As to claim 1, Jain teaches an active radiation control window (Jain Figs. 2, 4, 6; Figs. 11a,b) comprising
a control layer 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), and 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 total transmissivity of the visible light is maintained and total 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).
As to claim 2, Jain 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
the transmissivity and the absorptivity of the visible light to be uniformly maintained when the first and second voltages are applied (Jain Figs. 4, 11a, 11b; para. [0021]-[0023]).
As to claim 6, Jain teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above in claim 1, and Jain further teaches the filter layer comprises at least one dielectric layers stacked with each other (Jain para. [0085], [0090]).
As to claim 7, Jain teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above in claim 6, and Jain further teaches each of the first dielectric layers comprises a dielectric material having a relatively high refractive index and a dielectric material having a relative low refractive index alternately (Jain para. [0085], [0091]).
As to claim 8 (as understood), Jain teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above in claim 1, and Jain further teaches amplifies:
a difference between the total reflectivity of the near-infrared light when a first voltage is applied and the total 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 total absorptivity of the near-infrared light when the second voltage is applied and the total 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, Jain 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 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 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 12 (as understood), Jain teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above in claim 11, and Jain further teaches the protective layer comprises a transparent electrode (Jain Fig. 6 - 21; para. [0064]), and the transparent electrode increases the total transmissivity of the visible light due to an anti-reflection effect (Jain Fig. 6 - 21; para. [0064]; as details, electrodes are transparent ITO, thus such AR effect is implicit as detailed above).
As to claim 13, Jain 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 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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jain as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Boreman et al. (US 2013/0038937 - Boreman).
As to claim 3, Jain teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above in claim 1, and while Jain teaches the control layer includes stacked electrodes (Jain Fig. 2 - 21, 22) Jain doesn’t specify the electrodes 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]).
Claim 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jain as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kokeguchi et al. (US 2013/0107355 - Kokeguchi).
As to claim 4, Jain 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 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 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of McLaughlin et al. (US 4,749,261 - McLaughlin).
As to claim 15, Jain 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 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).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Satoh et al. (US 10,649,298; 2019/0049808); Hakemi et al. (US 11,681,176); Kadono et al. (US 9,846,317; 2015/0168747); Milliron et al. (US 9,207,513); Boreman et al. (US 9,182,526); Kokeguchi et al. (US 9,001,418); Clevenger et al. (US 10,319,870); Shim et al. (US 8,576,473); Jain et al. (US 7,940,457); Faris et al. (US 6,072,549); Yoshida (US 2024/0361660); Pruneri et al. (US 2016/0261086); Watanabe et al. (US 2016/0145736); Fernando et al. (US 2008/0158448); Wang et al. (CN 111983827) are cited as additional examples of radiation control windows.
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 January 16, 2026
1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronvolt
2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volt
3 Originally filed specification para. [0097]-[00100]