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 .
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As to claim 1, the preamble of the claim is directed to a radiative cooling paint while the body of the claim recites a substrate being coated with the radiative cooling paint. It is unclear whether the radiative cooling paint or the coated substrate is being claimed.
As to claim 4, claim 1 recites that a radiative cooling paint is consisting of ceramic fine particles, a polymer resin and a solvent. The “consisting of” excludes any element or ingredient not specified in the claim (MPEP 2111.03). Hence, it is improper to further include an additional polymer fine particle in the radiative cooling paint. Appropriate correction is required.
As to claim 8, the claim appears to be wordy. It should be rewritten as follows: a weight ratio of the ceramic fine particles to the polymer resin is in a range from 0.15:1 to 3:1.
As to claim 10, claim 1 recites that a radiative cooling paint is consisting of ceramic fine particles, a polymer resin and a solvent. The “consisting of” excludes any element or ingredient not specified in the claim (MPEP 2111.03). Hence, it is improper to further include an additional additive in the radiative cooling paint. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0355567 to Hebrink et al. (hereinafter “Hebrink”).
Hebrink discloses a composite cooling film comprising a reflective microporous layer, an antisoiling layer on the reflective microporous layer (paragraph 57). The composite cooling film is disposed on the exterior of at least part of a building or a heat transfer system (paragraph 57). The exterior of at least part of the building or the heat transfer system reads on the claimed substrate.
The reflective microporous layer includes a solvent induced phase separated material (paragraph 47). The reflective microporous layer thus includes a solvent. The reflective microporous layer is consisting of a polymer, ceramic fine particles, and a solvent (paragraphs 57 and 58).
The reflective microporous layer has an average reflectance of at least 99.5% over a wavelength in the range from 400 to 700 nm (paragraph 62). The reflective microporous layer emits thermal radiation over a wavelength in the range from 8 to 13 microns (paragraph 43).
The reflective microporous layer has pores with an average pore size of 0.1 to 3 microns, and a porosity of 10 to 90% (paragraphs 44 and 45). The porosity overlaps the claimed range.
In the case, where the claimed ranges overlap or touch the range disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,191 USPQ90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990), In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
The claim is not rendered unobvious because discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Difference in the porosity will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating that the porosity is critical or provides unexpected results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the porosity of the reflective microporous layer from Hebrink having a porosity in the range instantly claimed, motivated by the desire to optimize sunlight reflectivity performance and infrared emissivity in the wavelength range of 8-13 µm.
As to claims 2 and 3, the ceramic fine particles nucleate pores during the stretching process; therefore, the pores are formed surrounding the ceramic fine particles (paragraph 58). The composites are formed by combination of the pores and the ceramic fine particles. The composites enhance reflection of incident sunlight and absorbent in the atmospheric window of 8-13 microns (paragraph 57). The composites would inherently reduce at least one of a thickness of the reflective microporous layer and a content of the ceramic fine particles as a volume of the pores increases as like material has like property.
As to claim 4, the ceramic fine particles comprise at least one of titania, silica, alumina, aluminum silicate, zirconia, calcium carbonate, barium sulfate (paragraph 58). The reflective microporous layer further includes an incompatible polymer particle such as a fluoropolymer particle (paragraph 58). The pores are formed around the incompatible polymer particle during the stretching process (paragraph 58). Hebrink further mentions that the reflective microporous layer comprises a fluoropolymer as a continuous phase wherein the fluoropolymer can be ECTFE, PVDF, or copolymer of tetra fluoroethylene, hexafluoropropylene and vinylidene fluoride (paragraph 59). Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the fluoropolymer present in the incompatible polymer particle can include ECTFE, PVDF, or a copolymer of tetra fluoroethylene, hexafluoropropylene and vinylidene fluoride, as these polymers are recognized as types of fluoropolymers.
As to claim 5, the reflective microporous layer has pores with an average pore size of 0.1 to 3 microns, and a porosity of 10 to 90% (paragraphs 44 and 45). The ceramic fine particle has an average particle size of 0.005 nm to 1 µm (paragraph 58). This overlaps the claimed range.
In the case, where the claimed ranges overlap or touch the range disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,191 USPQ90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990), In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
The claim is not rendered unobvious because discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Difference in the particle size will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating that the particle size is critical or provides unexpected results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the fine ceramic particles from Hebrink having a particle size in the range instantly claimed, motivated by the desire to optimize sunlight reflectivity performance and infrared emissivity in the wavelength range of 8-13 µm.
As to claim 6, the ceramic fine particles are selected for providing high solar reflectance and high absorbance in the wavelength range of 8-13 µm (paragraph 57). Therefore, the examiner takes the position that the ceramic fine particles would inherently be selected considering a reflective index and extinction coefficient for incident sunlight and an extinction coefficient for long-wavelength infrared light.
As to claim 7, the polymer resin comprises a fluoropolymer resin (paragraph 58).
As to claim 8, the reflective microporous layer is consisting of at least 49 wt% of ceramic fine particles and at most 51 wt% of a polymer resin (paragraph 58). The weight ratio of the ceramic fine particles to the polymer resin overlaps the claimed range.
In the case, where the claimed ranges overlap or touch the range disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,191 USPQ90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990), In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
The claim is not rendered unobvious because discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Difference in the weight ratio of the ceramic fine particles to the polymer resin will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating that the weight ratio of the ceramic fine particles to the polymer resin is critical or provides unexpected results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the weight ratio of the ceramic fine particles to the polymer resin from Hebrink in the range instantly claimed, motivated by the desire to optimize sunlight reflectivity performance and infrared emissivity in the wavelength range of 8-13 µm.
As to claim 9, the reflective microporous layer has a thickness of 10 to 200 microns within the claimed range (paragraph 45).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hebrink as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of US 2021/0131708 to Dai et al. (hereinafter “Dai”).
Hebrink does not explicitly disclose the reflective microporous layer comprising at least one additive of a conditioning agent and a photo-initiator to improve workability.
Dai, however, discloses a smart sub-ambient radiative cooling (SSRC) composition comprising TiO2 particles; inorganic particles including silica, calcium carbonate, silica carbide, alumina, zinc oxide or mixtures thereof; fluorescent pigment particles and a polymer (abstract). The SSRC composition has an infrared emissivity of greater than 0.9 between 3 to 16 µm (paragraph 8). The SSRC composition achieves 7oC cooling on a scale-model building during noon hours and demonstrates exceptional weather resistance (paragraph 31). The SSRC composition further includes at least one additive selected from a wetting agent, a dispersant agent and a rheology modifier (paragraph 69). The rheology modifier reads on the claimed conditioning agent.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a rheology modifier disclosed in Dai in the reflective microporous layer of Hebrink, motivated by the desire to promote processing and handling of the material.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hai Vo whose telephone number is (571)272-1485. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 am - 6:00 pm with every other Friday off.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at 571-272-1490. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Hai Vo/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1788