DETAILED ACTION
Summary
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Currently claims 1-20 are pending for examination.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120 as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 16/531,865, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein the second concentration is greater than the first concentration” in lines 12-13 with respect to the concentration of the first non-white infrared transparent pigment (first concentration) and the second non-white infrared transparent pigment (second concentration). The 16/531,865 application does not describe the relationship between first and second non-white infrared transparent pigments as claimed and therefore does not provide support for the above limitation.
Claims 2-12 also lack support due to their dependency from claim 1.
Claim 2 recites “wherein the first lubricant and the second lubricant each comprise a silicon-based lubricant”. The 16/531,865 application only discloses the use of SiAk from Wacker Chemie AG in the examples, which is a specific silicone lubricant. Therefore, the 16/531,865 application does not provide support for the entire scope of the broader limitation of “silicon-based lubricant”.
Claim 3 also lacks support due to its dependency from claim 2.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “wherein the second concentration is greater than the first concentration” in lines 9-10 with respect to the concentration of the first non-white infrared transparent pigment (first concentration) and the second non-white infrared transparent pigment (second concentration). The 16/531,865 application does not describe the relationship between first and second non-white infrared transparent pigments as claimed and therefore does not provide support for the above limitation.
Claims 14-20 also lack support due to their dependency from claim 1.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “wherein the fourth concentration is greater than the second concentration” in lines 9-10 with respect to the concentration of the third non-white infrared transparent pigment (third concentration) and the fourth non-white infrared transparent pigment (fourth concentration). The 16/531,865 application does not describe the relationship between third and fourth non-white infrared transparent pigments as claimed and therefore does not provide support for the above limitation.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
Claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein the second concentration is greater than the first concentration” in lines 12-13 with respect to the concentration of the first non-white infrared transparent pigment (first concentration) and the second non-white infrared transparent pigment (second concentration). The instant specification does not describe the relationship between first and second non-white infrared transparent pigments as claimed and therefore does not provide support for the above limitation.
Claim 2 recites “wherein the first lubricant and the second lubricant each comprise a silicon-based lubricant”. The instant specification only discloses the use of SiAk from Wacker Chemie AG in the examples, which is a specific silicone lubricant. Therefore, the instant specification does not provide support for the entire scope of the broader limitation of “silicon-based lubricant”.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “wherein the second concentration is greater than the first concentration” in lines 9-10 with respect to the concentration of the first non-white infrared transparent pigment (first concentration) and the second non-white infrared transparent pigment (second concentration). The instant specification does not describe the relationship between first and second non-white infrared transparent pigments as claimed and therefore does not provide support for the above limitation.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “wherein the fourth concentration is greater than the second concentration” in lines 9-10 with respect to the concentration of the third non-white infrared transparent pigment (third concentration) and the fourth non-white infrared transparent pigment (fourth concentration). The instant specification does not describe the relationship between third and fourth non-white infrared transparent pigments as claimed and therefore does not provide support for the above limitation.
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 (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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claim 1-2 and 9-11 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Decker (US 2010/0047620)1 in view of Greb (US 2010/0242793)1, Suzuki (US 8202616)1, and Kushinnikova (US 2007/0129470)1.
With respect to claims 1-2, Decker teaches multi-component composite coating systems cured on a substrate (paragraph [0002]). The cured coatings and multi-component composite coatings exhibit a desired color and are solar reflective (paragraph [0002]). The multi-component composite coatings comprise (a) a first coating (outer coating) exhibiting a CIELAB L* value of no more than 50 and a total surface reflectance of at least 15% deposited from a composition comprising: (i) a film-forming resin, (ii) an infrared reflective pigment, (iii) an infrared transparent pigment (second/fourth infrared transparent pigment), and (iv) a pigment dispersant; and (b) a second coating (inner coating) deposited beneath at least a portion of the first coating (outer coating), the second coating (inner coating) deposited from a composition comprising (i) a film-forming resin; an infrared reflective flake pigment, and (iii) an infrared reflective inorganic oxide pigment (paragraph [0011]). Decker further teaches the coating may be an architectural coating composition (paragraph [0019]).
The infrared transparent pigments (second/fourth infrared transparent pigment) may be non-white (paragraph [0040]). Examples of suitable textile substrates are fibers, yarns, threads, knits, wovens, nonwovens, and garments (paragraph [0091]). The coating composition may include plasticizers, hindered amine light stabilizers, UV light stabilizers, and flow control agents (paragraph [0083]). The examples use a viscosity reducing agent (see footnotes 3 and 5 of Table 11). The infrared transparent pigment has an average transmission of at least 70% in the near-infrared wavelength region (wavelength between about 700 nm and about 2500 nm) (paragraph [0039]).
Decker is silent as to the second coating (inner coating) comprising a first non-white infrared transparent pigment.
Greb teaches substantially dark pigments which are able to reflect IR radiation, methods of producing them, and the use thereof (paragraph [0001]). In a preferred variant the invention includes adding IR-transparent dark color pigments (paragraphs [0114]-[0117]). Application of media with the pigments of Greb possess a largely dark appearance (paragraph [0133]). The degree of darkness of the media may be increased further where appropriate by means of further addition of color pigments such as IR-transparent pigments, examples being Paliogen black (paragraph [0133]).
Since both Decker and Greb teach media comprising IR reflective pigments, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have modified the second coating (inner coating) of Decker to include a Paliogen black IR-transparent pigment in order to achieve the desired degree of darkness in the coating.
It further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize the amount of first and second non-white infrared transparent pigment to include the claimed range. One would have been motivated to provide the desired degree of darkness to the coatings. It has been held that, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Decker teaches that the coating composition can comprise any of a variety of thermoplastic and/or thermosetting compositions for example polyurethane polymers, however is silent as to the resin in the first and second coatings (inner/outer coatings) being polyvinyl chloride.
Suzuki teaches a dark color sheet-like body having light reflection properties in a near-infrared region (col. 1, lines 7-17). The dark color sheet-like body is a synthetic resin sheet-like body and comprises surface layer (A) receiving solar radiation and a reflection layer (B) (col. 2, lines 60-64). Suzuki further teaches that from the viewpoint of texture, light resistance, and processability, a polyvinyl chloride-based resin, a polyurethane-based resin, and a thermoplastic elastomer-based resin are preferable (col. 4, lines 55-58). When a polyvinyl chloride resin is used as the synthetic resin, the same polyvinyl-based resin is preferably used for both the surface layer (A) and the reflection layer (B) (col. 5, lines 25-28). Plasticizers commonly used with polyvinyl chloride include phthalate ester-based plasticizers, trimellitate ester-based plasticizers, aliphatic carboxylic acid ester-based plasticizers, and polyester-based plasticizers (col. 5, lines 41-54). The plasticizer affects the viscosity of the resin (col. 5, lines 55-64).
Since both Decker in view of Greb and Suzuki teach dark color two layer bodies having light reflection properties in a near-infrared region comprising film-forming resins such as thermoplastics and polyurethane, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the resins of the first and second coatings of Decker in view of Greb to be polyvinyl chloride because it is known in the art as suitable for film-forming resins and provides the predictable results of a coated resin composition with light reflection properties in a near-infrared region. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
With respect to the specific plasticizer used, to one of ordinary skill in the art it would have been obvious to try the plasticizers disclosed by Suzuki as suitable for polyvinyl chloride, which include non-phthalate plasticizers, in order to determine which provides the desired viscosity. See MPEP 2143.
Decker in view of Greb and Suzuki is silent as to the compositions including a silicon-based lubricant.
Kuvshinnikova teaches compositions for plastic articles with low L* values and also good resistance to solar radiation (paragraph [0005]). The thermoplastic resin compositions may include additives such as silicone fluid lubricants (paragraph [0033]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the resin compositions of Decker in view of Greb and Suzuki to include a silicone fluid lubricant because it is known in the art as an additive for thermoplastic resin compositions and would yield the predictable result of plastic articles with low L* values and good resistance to solar radiation. The use of known techniques to improve similar products in the same way is obvious when predictable results are achieved. See MPEP 2143(I)(C).
With respect to the coatings being free of titanium dioxide, Decker discloses the use of titanium dioxide, among other materials, as suitable colored and/or opaque infrared-reflective pigments (paragraph [0027]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to try the IR-reflective pigments of Decker, including those other than titanium dioxide, in order to determine which provides the desired color and IR-reflectiveness. See MPEP 2143.
With respect to claim 9, Decker in view of Greb, Suzuki, and Kuvshinnikova teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Decker further teaches that the infrared transparent pigment (second non-white infrared transparent pigment) is preferably an infrared transparent black pigment such that the coating exhibits a dark color (paragraph [0042]). As described in the rejection of claim 1 above, it would have been obvious to modify the second coating (inner coating) of Decker to include a Paliogen black IR-transparent pigment in order to achieve the desired degree of darkness in the coating as described by Greb.
With respect to claims 10-11, Decker in view of Greb, Suzuki, and Kuvshinnikova teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Greb further teaches that the degree of darkness of the coating may be increased further by the further addition of the IR-transparent Paliogen black (paragraph [0133]).
It therefore would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the amount of black IR-transparent pigments in the coatings to include the claimed range. One would have been motivated to provide the desired degree of darkness to the coated strands. It has been held that, where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Claim 3 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Decker (US 2010/0047620)2 in view of Greb (US 2010/0242793)1, Suzuki (US 8202616)1, and Kushinnikova (US 2007/0129470)1 as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Handermann (US 2006/0160454).
With respect to claim 3, Decker in view of Greb, Suzuki, and Kuvshinnikova teaches all the limitations of claim 2 above.
Decker in view of Greb, Suzuki, and Kuvshinnikova is silent as to the silicone fluid lubricant being present in an amount of 1 part per hundred parts of the polyvinyl chloride.
It is known in the art that silicone lubricant can enhance the softness, hand, and drape of the textile product into which the treated fibers are incorporated (Handermann; paragraph [0022]). It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the desired amount, such as 1 part per hundred parts of the resin, in order to provide the desired softness, hand, and drapeability to the resulting textile.
Claims 4 and 12 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Decker (US 2010/0047620)1 in view of Greb (US 2010/0242793)1, Suzuki (US 8202616)1, and Kushinnikova (US 2007/0129470)1 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of McDaniel (US 2010/0210745).
With respect to claim 4, Decker in view of Greb, Suzuki, and Kuvshinnikova teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Decker in view of Greb, Suzuki, and Kuvshinnikova is silent as to the stabilizer comprising a barium zinc mixed stabilizer.
Decker further teaches stabilizers can be included in the coating composition (paragraph [0083]), however is silent as to the stabilizer being a barium zinc mixed stabilizer.
It is known in the art that heat stabilizers reduce thermal degradation of a polymeric material (McDaniel; paragraph [1336]). A heat stabilizer may also be used with a polymer comprising chlorine to reduce dehydrochlorination (McDaniel; paragraph [1336]). Examples of heat stabilizers include barium-zinc salts (McDaniel; paragraph [1336]).
It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified the stabilizer of Decker in view of Greb, Suzuki, and Kuvshinnikova to be a heat stabilizer in order to reduce thermal degradation and dehydrochlorination of the polyvinyl chloride resin. It further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try the thermal stabilizers disclosed in paragraph [1336] of McDaniel, including a barium zinc salt, in order to determine which provides the necessary thermal and dehydrochlorination protection to the PVC resin. See MPEP 2143.
With respect to claim 12, Decker in view of Greb, Suzuki, and Kuvshinnikova teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Decker further teaches that examples of suitable colored and/or opaque infrared-reflective pigments include white pigments such as titanium dioxide (paragraph [0027]). Decker in view of Greb, Suzuki, and Kuvshinnikova is silent as to the coatings comprising zinc sulfide.
Zinc sulfide is known in the art as a white pigment that confers a white color to a coating, similar to antimony oxide, lead carbonate, lithopone, titanium dioxide, a white lead, and zinc oxide (McDaniel; paragraph [1802]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have substituted the titanium dioxide of Decker in view of Greb, Suzuki, and Kuvshinnikova with zinc sulfate because it would yield the predictable result of a white color. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Claim 5 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Decker (US 2010/0047620)3 in view of Greb (US 2010/0242793)1, Suzuki (US 8202616)1, and Kushinnikova (US 2007/0129470)1 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ruch (US 5668209).
With respect to claim 5, Decker in view of Greb, Suzuki, and Kuvshinnikova teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Decker in view of Greb, Suzuki, and Kuvshinnikova is silent as to the viscosity agents including isoparaffin.
It is known in the art that isoparaffins are suitable viscosity regulators for plastisol compositions (Ruch; col. 7, lines 5-23, col. 8, lines 20-34). It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the viscosity reducing agent of Decker in view of Greb, Suzuki, and Kuvshinnikova to be isoparaffin because it is known in the art as a suitable viscosity agent for plastisols and would yield the predictable result of a resin with the desired viscosity for coating applications. The use of known techniques to improve similar products in the same way is obvious when predictable results are achieved. See MPEP 2143(I)(C).
Claims 6-8 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Decker (US 2010/0047620)4 in view of Greb (US 2010/0242793)1, Suzuki (US 8202616)1, and Kushinnikova (US 2007/0129470)1 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Brooks (US 4587997)1.
With respect to claims 6-8, Decker in view of Greb, Suzuki, and Kuvshinnikova teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Decker in view of Greb, Suzuki, and Kuvshinnikova are silent as to the coated strands forming warp and weft strands.
Brooks teaches woven screen fabrics such as those used for insect screens in windows and doors that also to block out undesirable light while at the same time permitting as much air as possible and some desirable light (col. 1, lines 4-8). The warp yarns and weft yarns have been coated, pigmented, and heat, light, and UV stabilized (col. 2, lines 32-35 and col. 2, line 66 – col. 3, line 3).
Since both Decker in view of Greb, Suzuki, and Kuvshinnikova and Brooks teach coated yarns that provide protection from sunlight, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified the coated yarns of Decker in view of Greb, Suzuki, and Kuvshinnikova to be woven as described in Brooks in order to provide a woven fabric screen for use in windows that blocks out desirable light and glare but at the same time permits as much air as possible as well as some desirable light.
Claims 13-18 and 20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Decker (US 2010/0047620)5 in view of Greb (US 2010/0242793)1, Suzuki (US 8202616)1, Kushinnikova (US 2007/0129470)1, and Brooks (US 4587997)1.
With respect to claims 13-17, Decker teaches multi-component composite coating systems cured on a substrate (paragraph [0002]). The cured coatings and multi-component composite coatings exhibit a desired color and are solar reflective (paragraph [0002]). The multi-component composite coatings comprise (a) a first coating (outer coating) exhibiting a CIELAB L* value of no more than 50 and a total surface reflectance of at least 15% deposited from a composition comprising: (i) a film-forming resin, (ii) an infrared reflective pigment, (iii) an infrared transparent pigment (second/fourth infrared transparent pigment), and (iv) a pigment dispersant; and (b) a second coating (inner coating) deposited beneath at least a portion of the first coating (outer coating), the second coating (inner coating) deposited from a composition comprising (i) a film-forming resin; an infrared reflective flake pigment, and (iii) an infrared reflective inorganic oxide pigment (paragraph [0011]). Decker further teaches the coating may be an architectural coating composition (paragraph [0019]).
The infrared transparent pigments (second/fourth infrared transparent pigment) may be non-white (paragraph [0040]). Examples of suitable textile substrates are fibers, yarns, threads, knits, wovens, nonwovens, and garments (paragraph [0091]). The coating composition may include plasticizers, hindered amine light stabilizers, UV light stabilizers, and flow control agents (paragraph [0083]). The examples use a viscosity reducing agent (see footnotes 3 and 5 of Table 11). The infrared transparent pigment has an average transmission of at least 70% in the near-infrared wavelength region (wavelength between about 700 nm and about 2500 nm) (paragraph [0039]).
Decker is silent as to the second coating (inner coating) comprising a first non-white infrared transparent pigment.
Greb teaches substantially dark pigments which are able to reflect IR radiation, methods of producing them, and the use thereof (paragraph [0001]). In a preferred variant the invention includes adding IR-transparent dark color pigments (paragraphs [0114]-[0117]). Application of media with the pigments of Greb possess a largely dark appearance (paragraph [0133]). The degree of darkness of the media may be increased further where appropriate by means of further addition of color pigments such as IR-transparent pigments, examples being Paliogen black (paragraph [0133]).
Since both Decker and Greb teach media comprising IR reflective pigments, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have modified the second coating (inner coating) of Decker to include a Paliogen black IR-transparent pigment in order to achieve the desired degree of darkness in the coating.
It further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize the amount of first and second non-white infrared transparent pigment to include the claimed range. One would have been motivated to provide the desired degree of darkness to the coatings. It has been held that, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Decker teaches that the coating composition can comprise any of a variety of thermoplastic and/or thermosetting compositions for example polyurethane polymers, however is silent as to the resin in the first and second coatings (inner/outer coatings) being polyvinyl chloride.
Suzuki teaches a dark color sheet-like body having light reflection properties in a near-infrared region (col. 1, lines 7-17). The dark color sheet-like body is a synthetic resin sheet-like body and comprises surface layer (A) receiving solar radiation and a reflection layer (B) (col. 2, lines 60-64). Suzuki further teaches that from the viewpoint of texture, light resistance, and processability, a polyvinyl chloride-based resin, a polyurethane-based resin, and a thermoplastic elastomer-based resin are preferable (col. 4, lines 55-58). When a polyvinyl chloride resin is used as the synthetic resin, the same polyvinyl-based resin is preferably used for both the surface layer (A) and the reflection layer (B) (col. 5, lines 25-28). Plasticizers commonly used with polyvinyl chloride include phthalate ester-based plasticizers, trimellitate ester-based plasticizers, aliphatic carboxylic acid ester-based plasticizers, and polyester-based plasticizers (col. 5, lines 41-54). The plasticizer affects the viscosity of the resin (col. 5, lines 55-64).
Since both Decker in view of Greb and Suzuki teach dark color two layer bodies having light reflection properties in a near-infrared region comprising film-forming resins such as thermoplastics and polyurethane, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the resins of the first and second coatings of Decker in view of Greb to be polyvinyl chloride because it is known in the art as suitable for film-forming resins and provides the predictable results of a coated resin composition with light reflection properties in a near-infrared region. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
With respect to the specific plasticizer used, to one of ordinary skill in the art it would have been obvious to try the plasticizers disclosed by Suzuki as suitable for polyvinyl chloride, which include non-phthalate plasticizers, in order to determine which provides the desired viscosity. See MPEP 2143.
Decker in view of Greb and Suzuki is silent as to the compositions including a silicon-based lubricant.
Kuvshinnikova teaches compositions for plastic articles with low L* values and also good resistance to solar radiation (paragraph [0005]). The thermoplastic resin compositions may include additives such as silicone fluid lubricants (paragraph [0033]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the resin compositions of Decker in view of Greb and Suzuki to include a silicone fluid lubricant because it is known in the art as an additive for thermoplastic resin compositions and would yield the predictable result of plastic articles with low L* values and good resistance to solar radiation. The use of known techniques to improve similar products in the same way is obvious when predictable results are achieved. See MPEP 2143(I)(C).
Decker in view of Greb, Suzuki, and Kuvshinnikova are silent as to the coated strands forming warp and weft strands in a woven fabric.
Brooks teaches woven screen fabrics such as those used for insect screens in windows and doors that also to block out undesirable light while at the same time permitting as much air as possible and some desirable light (col. 1, lines 4-8). The warp yarns and weft yarns have been coated, pigmented, and heat, light, and UV stabilized (col. 2, lines 32-35 and col. 2, line 66 – col. 3, line 3).
Since both Decker in view of Greb, Suzuki, and Kuvshinnikova and Brooks teach coated yarns that provide protection from sunlight, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified the coated yarns of Decker in view of Greb, Suzuki, and Kuvshinnikova to be woven as described in Brooks in order to provide a woven fabric screen for use in windows that blocks out desirable light and glare but at the same time permits as much air as possible as well as some desirable light.
With respect to claim 18, Decker in view of Greb, Suzuki, Kuvshinnikova, and Brooks teaches all the limitations of claim 13 above. Greb further teaches that the degree of darkness of the coating may be increased further by the further addition of the IR-transparent Paliogen black (paragraph [0133]).
It therefore would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the amount of black IR-transparent pigments in the coatings to include the claimed range. One would have been motivated to provide the desired degree of darkness to the coated strands. It has been held that, where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
With respect to claim 20, Decker in view of Greb, Suzuki, Kuvshinnikova, and Brooks teaches all the limitations of claim 13 above. Decker further teaches that the infrared transparent pigment (second non-white infrared transparent pigment) is preferably an infrared transparent black pigment such that the coating exhibits a dark color (paragraph [0042]). As described in the rejection of claim 1 above, it would have been obvious to modify the second coating (inner coating) of Decker to include a Paliogen black IR-transparent pigment in order to achieve the desired degree of darkness in the coating as described by Greb.
Claims 19 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Decker (US 2010/0047620)6 in view of Greb (US 2010/0242793)1, Suzuki (US 8202616)1, Kushinnikova (US 2007/0129470)1 and Brooks (US 4587997)1 as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of McDaniel (US 2010/0210745).
With respect to claim 19, Decker in view of Greb, Suzuki, Kuvshinnikova, and Brooks teaches all the limitations of claim 13 above.
Decker further teaches that examples of suitable colored and/or opaque infrared-reflective pigments include white pigments such as titanium dioxide (paragraph [0027]). Decker in view of Greb, Suzuki, Kuvshinnikova, and Brooks is silent as to the coatings comprising zinc sulfide.
Zinc sulfide is known in the art as a white pigment that confers a white color to a coating, similar to antimony oxide, lead carbonate, lithopone, titanium dioxide, a white lead, and zinc oxide (McDaniel; paragraph [1802]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have substituted the titanium dioxide of Decker in view of Greb, Suzuki, Kuvshinnikova, and Brooks with zinc sulfate because it would yield the predictable result of a white color. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Larissa Rowe Emrich whose telephone number is (571)272-2506. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30am - 4:00pm EST.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
LARISSA ROWE EMRICH
Examiner
Art Unit 1789
/LARISSA ROWE EMRICH/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
1 Cited in IDS
2 Cited in IDS
3 Cited in IDS
4 Cited in IDS
5 Cited in IDS
6 Cited in IDS
Prosecution Insights