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 .
Status of Application
Claims 1-15 are pending. Claims 2 and 3 are withdrawn. Claims 1 and 4-15 are presented for examination.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 2 and 3 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1/6/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1 and 4-15 in the reply filed on 1/6/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, “powder coating the powder to form a powder layer” should correctly be “powder coating an object to be coated with the powder to form a powder layer”.
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.
1. Claim 15 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 15 recites the limitation "the object to be coated". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
2. Claim(s) 1 and 4-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al. (CN 101143981, reference is made to the provided English translation) in view of Shaid et al. (“Preparation of aerogel-eicosane microparticles for thermoregulatory coating on textile”).
Regarding claims 1 and 4-12, Zhao teaches a process comprising: mixing and solidifying silica aerogel particles (middle of page 2) and a base resin, such as PVDF (middle of page 2, and note that PVDF has a refractive index of 1.42, see Applicant’s specification at 0079), to prepare a powder (middle of page 2); electrostatically spraying the powder to a substrate to form a powder layer; and heat treating the powder layer at 200 ºC to form a film having a thickness of 0.15 mm (Embodiment 10, page 3) for thermal insulation (abstract). Zhao teaches the powder having a particle size of 0.02-0.08 mm (see middle of page 2 and note that this is equivalent to 20-80 microns, which overlaps with Applicant’s claimed range, and note that overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness). Zhao fails to teach the mixing further including an optical modulator and the difference in refractive indexes between the base resin and optical modulator being 0.05 or less.
However, Shaid teaches including eicosane (which has a refractive index of 1.431, see Applicant’s specification at 0080) in combination with silica aerogel particles for providing a thermoregulatory coating (abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhao’s process by additionally mixing eicosane with the silica aerogel particles as disclosed by Shaid, thereby yielding a combination of eicosane and resin with a refractive index difference less than 0.05. One would have been motivated to make this modification as the eicosane will provide additional thermal protection by being able to store and release heat as needed (see Shaid at 2nd paragraph, page 603).
3. Claim(s) 13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao in view of Shaid as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kanamaru et al. (JPH10324579, of which reference is made to the provided English translation).
Regarding claims 13 and 15, Zhao in view of Shaid teach all the limitations of claim 1, but fail to teach the film having a light transmittance of 70% or more and the object to be coated selected from the group as claimed.
However, Kanamaru teaches preparing a heat insulation coating (abstract) comprising a resin and silica aerogel (abstract). Kanamaru teaches the coating for application to a solar cell (0001) which has a visible transmittance of greater than or equal to 80% (abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhao in view of Shaid’s process by selecting a resin and coating to yield a visible transmittance of greater than or equal to 80% and coating on a solar cell as disclosed by Kanamaru. One would have been motivated to make this modification to allow for Zhao in view of Shaid’s process to be used for other thermal insulating applications, and in particular ones like solar cells which require a coating with high light transmittance.
4. Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao in view of Shaid as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Larena et al. (“Effect of surface roughness on the optical properties of multilayer polymer films”).
Regarding claim 14, Zhao in view of Shaid teach all the limitations of claim 1, but fail to teach the surface roughness as claimed.
However, Larena teaches that surface roughness of a coating is a result-effective variable that will alter the optical characteristics of the coating (abstract). In particular, lowering surface roughness will increase the visible light transmittance of the coating (Table 1 and Figure 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the instantly claimed range through process optimization, 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. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Conclusion
Claims 1-15 are pending.
Claims 2 and 3 are withdrawn.
Claims 1 and 4-15 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT S WALTERS JR whose telephone number is (571)270-5351. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at 571-272-1295. 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.
/ROBERT S WALTERS JR/
July 10, 2025Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1717