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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Species I in the reply filed on 29 Jun. 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Species II (the dielectric layer being a polymeric layer) is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made in the reply filed on 29 Jun. 2026, and for the reasons mentioned above, is being treated as an election without traverse.
Newly submitted claims 42 and 43, directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: Claims 43 and 44 are method claims, which would have been restricted against the device claims had claims 43 and 44 been in the prior set of claims.
Accordingly, claims 42 and 43 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
Since applicant marked claims 42 and 43 as being withdrawn, examiner is treating these claims as being withdrawn without traverse. These claims or amended versions of these claims will be subject to rejoining if the final versions of these claims contain all the limitations of a device claim that is found to be allowable.
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 11 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.
Claim 11 recites the limitation that the lower bound of the subscript x (related to the relative amount of tungsten) is 0. This limitation is confusing, since claim 1 implies that the blocks in the array contain tungsten. It is not clear if the current invention is claiming devices lacking tungsten.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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, 6-7, 9-10, 13, 37-39, and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu et al. (US Patent Application 2017/0297750 A1, published 19 Oct. 2017, hereinafter Liu).
Regarding claims 1, 6-7, 9-10, 13, 37-39, and 42, Liu teaches a radiative cooling panel comprising material islands disposed with a lattice constant of 2 to 10 µm (Abstract). Liu teaches a transition temperature in a tungsten-doped vanadium dioxide of 20-30°C (paragraph 0017). Liu teaches phase change islands in a periodic array with a period between adjacent islands of 2 to 10 µm, and a fill factor of 20 to 80% (paragraph 0013 and Figure 1). These parameters correspond to the lateral dimensions of the islands ranging from 0.89 to 8.9 µm. Liu teaches the thickness of the dielectric layer is the ratio of the wavelength (approximately 8 µm) divided by the refractive index of the dielectric material (1.75) (paragraph 0015); thus, Liu teaches a dielectric thickness of 4.6 µm. Liu teaches a metal layer, made of silver, aluminum, or gold, with a thickness of 200 nm (paragraph 0032). Liu teaches the tungsten-doped vanadium dioxide films have a thickness of 20 to 100 nm (claim 8). Liu teaches that the outer surface of his panel has a planar outer surface (that is, substantially flat surface) (paragraph 0018).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 8, 11, 15, and 39-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US Patent Application 2017/0297750 A1, published 19 Oct. 2017, hereinafter Liu).
Regarding claims 8, 11, 15, and 39-41, Liu teaches the elements of claim 1, and Liu teaches his dielectric layer comprises potassium bromide (paragraph 0044). Liu teaches the vanadium dioxide is doped with tungsten in order to adjust the transition temperature (paragraphs 0010 and 0017). Liu teaches the targeted mid-IR peak wavelength for which his panel is designed is approximately 8 µm (paragraph 0033). As shown on Figures 1 and 3(B), the radiative cooling panel taught by Liu is attached to a spacecraft; therefore, the metal layer is attached to a substrate.
It is the examiner’s position that one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret a doping level as falling within the relative concentration range limitation of claim 11.
It is the examiner’s position that the characteristic described by claim 15 is the method by which the radiative cooling panel taught by Liu operates.
Liu teaches that a conventional thermal regulation method is by covering a spacecraft with a multi-layer insulation comprising Kapton (polyimide) or Mylar (metallized polyester) layers. It is the examiner’s position that one of ordinary skill in the art would combine the conventional multi-layer insulation with the radiative cooling panel taught by Liu, such that the substrate of Liu’s radiative cooling panel would be both a polymeric and a dielectric material.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12, 17, and 36 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Liu teaches the inclusion of a conductive layer, rather than a polymeric layer, as a top protective layer on his radiative cooling panel, and Liu teaches feature dimensions that do not overlap with the claimed distance between the bottom of the embedded blocks and the top of the metal layer as recited in claim 12.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ito et al. (“Inverting the thermal radiative contrast of vanadium dioxide by metasurfaces based on localized gap-plasmons,” APL Photonics, Vol. 4, article 086101, pp. 1-10, published 2018, hereinafter Ito) teaches an array of vanadium oxide blocks as a metasurface to alter thermal radiation (Abstract and Figure 3). Li and Fan (“Nanophotonic control of thermal radiation for energy applications,” Optics Express, Vol. 26, pp. 15995-16021, published 2018, hereinafter Li) teaches the use of vanadium dioxide to control thermal radiation (page 16012, 2nd paragraph). Liu and Padilla (“Thermochromic infrared metamaterials,” Adv.Mat., pp. 871-875, published 2016, hereinafter Liu II) teaches an array of metamaterial in an array pattern to control the energy emitted from a surface (Abstract and Figure 1). Tang et al. (“A thermal radiation modulation platform by emissivity engineering with graded metal-insulator transition,” Adv.Mat., Paper 1907071, pp. 1-6, published 2020, hereinafter Tang) teaches the emissivity of a surface using vanadium dioxide (Abstract). Tazawa et al. (JP H11/152585 A, published 08 Jun. 1999, hereinafter Tazawa) teaches a temperature stabilizing method using tungsten-doped vanadium dioxide (Abstract). Yoshimoto et al. (US Patent Application 2018/0334269 A1, published 22 Nov. 2018, hereinafter Yoshimoto) teaches a thermal emission structure composed of a regular array of phase-change material that undergoes a transition form a high-temperature phase to a low-temperature phase (Abstract). Zhu (CN 104962869 A, published 07 Oct. 2015, hereinafter Zhu) teaches a power saving film with a nanostructure comprising tungsten-doped vanadium dioxide (Abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN VINCENT LAWLER whose telephone number is (571)272-9603. The examiner can normally be reached on M - F 8:00 am - 5:00 pm ET.
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, Callie Shosho can be reached on 571-272-1123. 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.
/JOHN VINCENT LAWLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights