Detailed Office Action
The communication dated 1/30/2026 has been entered and fully considered.
Claims 1-20 are pending with claims 1-8 withdrawn from consideration.
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 without traverse of Group II in the reply filed on 1/30/2026 is acknowledged.
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.
Claim 20 is 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.
The term “high solar reflectance” in claim 20 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high solar reflectance” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The term “high thermal emittance” in claim 20 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term” high thermal emittance ” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purpose of examination the Examiner interprets this as greater than about 0.9.
The term “strong molecular” in claim 20 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “strong molecular” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not clear why this is being claimed as the independent claim already states that the paper is made of HAP and therefore necessarily has the same types of bonds.
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 9-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. 2017/0022668 ZHU et al., hereinafter ZHU.
As for claim 9, ZHU discloses hydroxyapatite paper [abstract, Figure 3 and 4] that has been formed by the calcium oleate solvothermal process [0009-0012]. The fibers (nanowires/microwires) are washed [0012] and then added and dispersed in a solvent followed by forming, pressing and drying to obtain a paper [0018-0020].
The Examiner interprets “for radiative cooling and heat dissipation” as an intended use of the paper formed.
As for claims 10 and 17, the paper sheet is flexible [0018]
As for claims 11-15, 18, and 20, ZHU discloses a substantially the same product hydroxyapatite paper made in substantially the same way. Th instant invention example makes the fibers by combining oleic acid, alcohol, calcium chloride, NaOH, and monosodium phosphate and reacting for 24 hours at 190 degrees C followed by dispersing in denatured alcohol and washing [Instant specification 0025-0026]. The instant invention then vacuum filters the product, dries the formed sheet at 60 degrees C and presses the paper sheet produced [instant specification 0026]. ZHU discloses mixing oleic acid, calcium chloride, ethanol alcohol, sodium hydroxide and monobasic sodium phosphate together and heating at 180 degrees C or 200 degrees C for 23 hours [Examples 1-3]. ZHU discloses separating and washing the produced reaction product with ethanol and water. This is followed by vacuum filtering drying at 60 degrees C and pressing [Examples 1-3]. It follows that it will have substantially the same properties as claimed.
"Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties."
In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
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)
As for claim 19, paper is a layered staggered structure and this can be seen in Figure 3 of ZHU.
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 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2017/0022668 ZHU et al., hereinafter ZHU, in view of, if necessary, CN109082942A ZHU et al., hereinafter ZHU II.
*The Examiner refers to the English machine translation of ZHU II.
As for claim 16, ZHU disclose a hydroxyapatite paper as per supra. ZHU does not disclose the sheet thickness. However, changes in size are typically prima facie obvious [MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A)]. Paper is well known to come in different thicknesses (caliper) from thin tissue paper to thick carboards.
In the alternative, if necessary, ZHU discloses that the paper can be used for printing, patterns, and images [0055]. In the same art of ZHU of hydroxyapatite paper ZHU II discloses that hydroxyapatite paper can be 30-500 microns [0018, 0039] which overlaps/abuts the instant claimed range. At the time of the invention it would be obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art to apply the known thicknesses of ZHU II to the paper of ZHU such that the paper was suitable for artwork. The person of ordinary skill in the art would expect success as both ZHU and ZHU II discloses hydroxyapatite paper and ZHU states that the paper can be used for printing and images.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY J CALANDRA whose telephone number is (571)270-5124. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:45 AM -4:15 PM.
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, Abbas Rashid can be reached at (571)270-7457. 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.
ANTHONY J. CALANDRA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1748
/Anthony Calandra/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748