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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1, 2 and 4-10 in the reply filed on 4/6/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “the claimed infrared reflective film of claims 1 and 11 is fundamentally different from the disclosure, teachings, and suggestions by D1. In particular, D1 discloses paint coatings that utilize titanium dioxide pigments to provide the paint with improved infrared reflectance. See para. [0007]. Nowhere does D1 teach the use of first and second polymeric materials having a defined refractive index relationship (n1/n2 > 1.04). D1 is additionally silent regarding a film having a reflectivity greater than 30% for wavelengths between 800 and 1000 nm and a transmittance greater than 60% for wavelengths between 400 and 700 nm...because claims 1, 2, 4-12 and 1-18 are novel and non-obvious in view of the prior art, including D1, the Examiner’s assertion that the claimed invention lacks unity of invention because the special technical feature of the claimed invention does not improve on the prior art is therefore in error”. This is not found persuasive because evidence of lack of unity exists between the two groups as shown by the 102 rejection below, wherein Hara et al. (US 2016/0082697) is found to teach all the features of at least independent claim 1. As such, the special technical features of the claimed invention are not found to define a contribution over the prior art. Thus, the restriction is appropriate.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 11, 12 and 14-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 4/6/2026.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hara et al. (US 2016/0082697) [hereinafter Hara].
Regarding claim 1, Hara discloses a vinyl article (Fig. 7) comprising a vinyl substrate (support 20; paragraph [0024]), and an infrared reflective film (23) disposed on the vinyl substrate, wherein the infrared reflective film has a reflectivity greater than 30% for wavelengths between 800 and 1000 nm and a transmittance greater than 60% for wavelengths between 400 and 700 nm (Figs. 1-2; Table 8), wherein the infrared reflective film (23) comprises a first polymeric material having a refractive index, n1, and a second polymer material having a refractive index, n2, wherein n1/n2 is greater than 1.04 (low and high refractive index resin layers 21 and 22; Tables 1-7).
Regarding claim 2, Hara discloses the vinyl substrate (20) comprising a polyvinyl chloride resin (paragraph [0024]).
Regarding claim 4, Hara discloses the infrared reflective film (23) comprising a plurality of alternating layer of the first polymeric material and the second polymeric material (Fig. 7, layers 21 and 22).
Regarding claim 5, Hara discloses each of the plurality of alternating layers of the first polymeric material and the second polymeric material (layers 21 and 22) having an average thickness ranging from 100 to 250 nm (paragraph [0033]).
Regarding claim 6, Hara discloses the first polymeric material is selected from the group consisting of polycarbonate, polyethylene naphthalate, polystyrene, polyethylene terephthalate, polysulfone, polyamide, cyclic polyolefins, polyvinyl chloride, and the second polymeric material selected from the group consisting of poly(methyl methacrylate) and polyvinylidene fluoride (paragraph [0057]).
Regarding claim 9, Hara discloses the infrared reflective film having a reflectivity greater than 40% for wavelengths between 800 and 1000 nm and a transmittance greater than 70% for wavelengths between 400 and 700 nm (Figs. 1-2; Table 8).
Regarding claim 10, the limitation “the vinyl article comprises a plank of vinyl siding, architectural trim or a foamed vinyl substrate” recites a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention. It has been held that a claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. As shown above, Hara clearly teaches all the structural limitations of the claimed article. Accordingly, the article of Hara is capable of performing the intended use recited in claim 10.
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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hara in view of Wheatley (US 5,122,906).
Regarding claim 7, Hara fails to specifically teach the first polymeric material comprising polycarbonate and the second polymeric material comprising poly(methyl methacrylate). Hara teaches the polymeric material is not limited and can include polycarbonate and polymethyl methacrylate (paragraph [0057). Wheatley teaches a multilayered reflective polymeric body including alternating layers of first and second polymeric materials such as polycarbonate and polymethyl methacrylate which have differing refractive indexes for the purpose of providing a uniform highly reflective appearance (Examples 1-2). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first polymeric material and the second polymeric material in Hara to have the first polymeric material comprise polycarbonate and to have the second polymeric material comprise poly(methyl methacrylate) as suggested by Wheatley, if so desired, in order to provide transparency in the visible light region and provide a uniform highly reflective appearance.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hara as applied to claims 1 and 4 above.
Regarding claim 8, Hara teaches 3 or more alternating layers of the first polymeric material and the second polymeric material (paragraph [0035]). However, Hara fails to specifically teach the infrared reflective film comprising 50 to 400 alternating layers of the first polymeric material and the second polymeric material. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the number of alternating layers of the first polymeric material and the second polymeric material in Hara to be 50 to 400, 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. MPEP 2144.05 (II).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CATHERINE A SIMONE whose telephone number is (571)272-1501. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at 571-270-1547. 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.
CATHERINE A. SIMONE
Examiner
Art Unit 1781
/Catherine A. Simone/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights