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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: It appears that stacked layer should be stacked layers.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 13 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sato et al. (US 20190093871 A1).
In regards to claims 13 and 15-16, Sato teaches a wavelength conversion member of reflection type that converts light with a specific wavelength to light with other wavelength and also reflects the light on a reflection surface to emit the light as illumination light [Abstract, 0001, claim 1, Fig. 2]. The member comprises a reflector disposed within the body [0021, 0036, 0038, Fig. 2]. The member further comprises a phosphor layer (i.e., photon conversion material) in which the phosphor particles are configured to convert visible radiation incident on the layer to visible radiation having a different wavelength than the incident visible radiation and non-visible radiation (i.e., heat-thermal radiation) [Claim 1, 0046, 0048-0050].
In regards to claim 17, Sato teaches the reflector is disposed over a world-facing surface of the body [Fig. 2, Claim 1].
Claims 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chang et al. (US 20170045732 A1), herein Chang,
In regards to claims 13-16, Chang teaches a light reflective device that converts the wavelength of light and reflect it [Abstract, 0036, 0060, Fig, 4]. The coating comprises a reflective layer comprising reflective particles on a substrate [0037, 0060, Fig. 4]. The coating further comprises a phosphor particles (i.e., active particles) in a binder matrix overlying the reflective layer [0036, 00585]. The member further comprises a phosphor layer (i.e., photon conversion material) in which the phosphor particles are configured to convert visible radiation incident on the layer to visible radiation having a different wavelength than the incident visible radiation and non-visible radiation (i.e., heat-thermal radiation).
In regards to claim 17, Chang teaches the reflector is disposed over a world-facing surface of the body [Fig. 1, Abstract, claim 1].
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.
Claims 1-2, and 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al. (US 20170045732 A1), herein Chang, in view of Noriaki (WO 2019058757 A1).
The Examiner has provided a machine translation of (WO 2019058757 A1. The citation of the prior art in this rejection refers to the machine translation.
In regards to claims 1-2 and 4, Chang teaches a light reflective coating that converts the wavelength of light and reflect it [Abstract, 0036, 0060, Fig, 4]. The coating comprises a reflective layer comprising reflective particles [0037, 0060, Fig. 4]. The coating further comprises a phosphor particles (i.e., active particles) in a binder matrix overlying the reflective layer [0036, 00585]. The reflected light is expected to include solar light.
Chang does not expressly teach that the phosphor layer is a black layer.
Noriaki teaches a display device [lines 14-19]. The device comprises light control layers that comprise light reflective layers and light absorption layers [lines 111-116]. Noriaki further teaches that the absorption layer comprises a black film and a phosphor that absorb and emit light [lines 749-751, 1514-1517].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have used the black film of Noriaki as the binder of the phosphor layer of Chang. One would have been motivated to do so as it would have been the simple substitution of one known binder/layer for absorption layers comprising phosphors for another to obtain predictable results. One would have further been motivated by the ability to improve the appearance of the layer with the color.
In regards to claims 5-6, Chang further teaches phosphor particles are configured to convert visible radiation incident on the layer to visible radiation having a different wavelength than the incident visible radiation and non-visible radiation (i.e., heat-thermal radiation) [0036].
In regards to claim 7, Chang further teaches phosphor particles are configured to convert visible radiation incident on the layer to visible radiation having a different wavelength (i.e., color) than the incident visible radiation and non-visible radiation (i.e., heat-thermal radiation) [0036].
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al. (US 20170045732 A1), herein Chang, in view of Noriaki (WO 2019058757 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hebrink et al. (US 20230355821 A1), herein Hebrink.
In regards to claim 8, modified Chang does not teach that the black layer includes first and second regions having a difference in thickness.
Hebrink teaches a multilayer articles having reflecting and absorbent layers [Abstract, claim1].
Hebrink teaches that in order to mitigate the adhesion of dirt to the surface layer nonplanar features protrude from the surface creating regions of first and second thicknesses [0062].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have added the nonplanar features of Hebrink to the black surface layer of modified Chang. One would have been motivated to do so based on the features ability to prevent the adhesion of dirt.
Claims 3 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al. (US 20170045732 A1), herein Chang, in view of Noriaki (WO 2019058757 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sprague et al. (US20210191246 A1), herein Sprague.
In regards to claim 3, modified Chang doesn’t teach the reflective component comprises a multilayer polymer thin film or a multilayer dielectric thin film.
Sprague teaches wavelength conversion elements [Abstract, claim 1]. The element comprises reflective layers and phosphors layers [claims 1, 10, 0006, 0009, 0011, 0015]. Sprague further the reflective layers comprises multilayer dielectric particles comprising 6 thin layers in a reflective layer [0015, 0051, claims 21-23]. Sprague teaches the use of the particles in the layer provides a nearly continuous distribution of reflected light [0010]. As multiple particle types can be used in the layer, the reflection and transmission of wavelengths can be tuned per the application [0011].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have used the multilayer dielectric particle layer of Sprague as the reflector of Chang. One would have been motivated to do so as Sprague teaches the particles provide a tunable nearly continuous distribution of reflected light.
In regards to claim 9, modified Chang doesn’t teach the black layer is a multilayer comprising a plurality of stacked layers.
Sprague teaches wavelength conversion elements [Abstract, claim 1]. The element comprises reflective layers and phosphors layers [claims 1, 10, 0006, 0009, 0011, 0015]. Sprague further teaches it is desirable to use two different phosphors that emit two different colors or more [0011, 0046].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have used the three different phosphors of Sprague as the phosphors of Chang. One would have been motivated to do so as Sprague teaches this is a conventionally known technique to combine phosphors of different colors depending in the application and thus one would have had a reasonable expectation of success. Further, it would have been obvious to have utilized the phosphors in separate black layers, for ease of application and dispersing of the phosphors. The three black layers are considered to meet the limitation of the stacked multilayer.
In regards to claims 10-11, modified Chang doesn’t teach the coating further comprising a second black layer including second active particles overlying the black layer and wherein the black layer is configured to convert a first band of incident visible radiation to radiation having a first converted wavelength, and the second black layer is configured to convert a second band of the incident visible radiation to radiation having a second converted wavelength.
Sprague teaches wavelength conversion elements [Abstract, claim 1]. The element comprises reflective layers and phosphors layers [claims 1, 10, 0006, 0009, 0011, 0015]. Sprague further teaches it is desirable to use two different phosphors that emit two different colors or more [0011, 0046].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have used the two different phosphors of Sprague as the phosphors of Chang. One would have been motivated to do so as Sprague teaches this is a conventionally known technique to combine phosphors of different colors depending in the application and thus one would have had a reasonable expectation of success. Further, it would have been obvious to utilized the phosphors in separate black layers, for ease of application and dispersing of the phosphors.
In regards to claims 10 and 12, modified Chang doesn’t teach the coating further comprising a second black layer including second active particles overlying the black layer and wherein the black layer is configured to convert incident visible radiation to visible radiation having a different wavelength than the incident visible radiation, and the second black layer is configured to convert the visible radiation having the different wavelength to visible radiation or non-visible radiation.
Sprague teaches wavelength conversion elements [Abstract, claim 1]. The element comprises reflective layers and phosphors layers [claims 1, 10, 0006, 0009, 0011, 0015]. Sprague further teaches it is desirable to use two different phosphors that emit two different colors or more [0011, 0046].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have used the two different phosphors of Sprague as the phosphors of Chang. One would have been motivated to do so as Sprague teaches this is a conventionally known technique to combine phosphors of different colors depending in the application and thus one would have had a reasonable expectation of success. Further, it would have been obvious to utilized the phosphors in separate black layers, for ease of application and dispersing of the phosphors.
Claims 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al. (US 20170045732 A1), herein Chang, in view of Noriaki (WO 2019058757 A1) and Sprague et al. (US 20210191246 A1), herein Sprague.
In regards to claim 18, Chang teaches a light reflective costing that converts the wavelength of light and reflect it [Abstract, 0036, 0060, Fig, 4]. The coating comprises a reflective layer comprising reflective particles on a substrate [0037, 0060, Fig. 4]. The coating further comprises a phosphor particles (i.e., active particles) in a binder matrix overlying the reflective layer [0036, 00585]. The reflected light is expected to include solar light.
Chang does not expressly teach that the phosphor layer is a black layer.
Noriaki teaches a display device [lines 14-19]. The device comprises light control layers that comprise light reflective layers and light absorption layers [lines 111-116]. Noriaki further teaches that the absorption layer comprises a black film and a phosphor that absorb and emit light [lines 749-751, 1514-1517].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have used the black film of Noriaki as the binder of the phosphor layer of Chang. One would have been motivated to do so as it would have been the simple substitution of one known binder/layer for absorption layers comprising phosphors for another to obtain predictable results. One would have further been motivated by the ability to improve the appearance of the layer with the color.
Chang does not teach that the phosphors are microcrystals.
Sprague teaches wavelength conversion elements [Abstract, claim 1]. The element comprises reflective layers and phosphors layers [claims 1, 10, 0006, 0009, 0011, 0015]. Sprague further teaches the phosphors are microcrystals by example [0046].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have used the black film of Noriaki as the binder of the phosphor layer of Chang. One would have been motivated to do so as it would have been the simple substitution of one known phosphor for another to achieve predictable results.
In regards to claim 20, Chang further teaches the phosphors convert visible radiation to light and heat [007, 0036, 0055].
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al. (US 20170045732 A1), herein Chang, in view of Noriaki (WO 2019058757 A1) and Sprague et al. (US 20210191246 A1), herein Sprague as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Eilertsen et al. (US 4902567 A), herein Eilertsen.
In regards to claim 19, Chang does not teach that the phosphors microcrystals comprise a monolayer.
Eilertsen teaches electroluminescent lamp devices [Abstract, col 1 lines 7-15]. Eilertsen teaches a uniform monolayer of phosphor particles with uniform brightness over the surface [Col 1 lines 44-68, Col 2 lines 51-61].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have used a monolayer of phosphor particles as taught by Eilertsen as the phosphor layer of Chang. One would have been motivated to do so as the monolayer provides uniform brightness across the coating.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH A COLLISTER whose telephone number is (571)270-1019. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 9 am-5 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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-0604. 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.
/ELIZABETH COLLISTER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784