DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Response to Remarks/Arguments
With respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 102(a)(1), Applicant's arguments filed 01/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues, see page 7 that Hebrink’s fins are not a corrugated, macro-scale, self-supporting shape.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. First of all, the limitations “corrugated” and “macro-scale” are not claimed in claim 1. Regarding the limitation, “self-supporting”, Hebrink discloses in Fig. 2A and page 10, that the structure 218 is 3D structures. Hebrink further discloses the layer 208 defines the structure 218 and layer 208 includes a polymer material such as fluoropolymer or polyolefin polymer (page 10, lines 17-21), which are known solid materials.
Applicant further argues, see page 7, the last paragraph, that Hebrink does not teach any thermally conductive material disposed inside fins because the transparent coatings such as graphene, AZO, and ITO that Examiner relied on in previous Office Action are not disposed “inside” fin cavities because the coatings are disposed “onto” one of the layers of the film for antistatic purpose.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Hebrink clearly discloses such transparent conductive coatings may be disposed or coated onto one of the layers of the antisoiling surface structured films (page 21, lines 17-18). In page 10, third paragraph, and Figs. 2A-2C, Hebrink discloses the layer 208 is an antisoiling layer. Figs 2A and 2B describe 208 is under 202 (surface). Therefore, the coating onto 208 would be located below the surface 202, which thus results in “inside of the plurality of fins” as claimed in claim 1.
Applicant further argues Hebrink does not teach “the film is transmissive to radio frequency wavelengths” because Hebrink’s film comprises IR-reflective layer which impedes RF transmission.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Hebrink discloses the IR-reflective layer comprises one or more layers 1218 that transmit at least a portion of the IR (infra-red) light (page 22, lines 32-33). The wavelength of IR (380 THz ~ 300 GHz, 780nm ~ 1mm) is shorter than radio-frequency wavelength (20 kHz~300 GHz, 15 km ~ 1mm). Therefore, the IR-reflective layer of Hebrink would be more transmissive for radio-frequency waves than the IR waves, if not fully transmissive.
Specification
The amendment filed 01/19/2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: “As shown in FIG. 2, each fin 210 is hollow and defines an internal cavity bounded by opposing sides 214, 216 and base 218 beneath peak 212”.
FIG. 2 shows the area bounded by opposing sides 214, 216 and base 218 is 220, which is a thermally conductive polymer or adhesive (Specification as filed, page 13, line 30). The Specification including figures as filed do not disclose the fin 210 is hollowed and resulting in any “internal cavity”.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 30-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 30, the claim 30 recites a limitation “a plurality of fins defining a plurality of respective cavities formed therein.” This limitation is not described in the specification as filed on 09/24/2024.
Claims 31-33 are rejected due to their dependencies to claim 30 above.
Regarding claim 34, the claim 34 recites a limitation “a plurality of fins defining a plurality of respective cavities formed in a second major surface.” This limitation is not described in the specification as filed on 09/24/2024.
Claim 35 is rejected due to its dependency to claim 34 above.
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.
Claims 30-35 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 30, the claim 30 recites a limitation “a plurality of fins defining a plurality of respective cavities formed therein.” This limitation is not described in the specification as filed on 09/24/2024. Therefore, it renders the claim vague and indefinite.
Claims 31-33 are rejected due to their dependencies to claim 30 above.
Regarding claim 34, the claim 34 recites a limitation “a plurality of fins defining a plurality of respective cavities formed in a second major surface.” This limitation is not described in the specification as filed on 09/24/2024. Therefore, it renders the claim vague and indefinite.
Claim 35 is rejected due to its dependency to claim 34 above.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4-12, 28 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hebrink (WO 2020240447 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hebrink teaches a cooling film, comprising:
an antisoiling layer secured to a first major surface of a reflective microporous layer, wherein the reflective microporous layer is diffusely reflective of electromagnetic radiation over a majority of wavelengths in the range of 400 to 2500 nanometers, the antisoiling layer has an outwardly facing antisoiling surface opposite the reflective microporous layer (Abstract), the film is shaped into a self-supporting three-dimensional structure (Fig. 2A, 218, page 10, line 29-30, micro-structures 218, 3D structure) comprising a plurality of fins (Fig. 2A, 218, 220, page 10, line 33), and the film is transmissive to radio frequency wavelengths (page 21, lines 24-29, IR-reflective layer; page 22, lines 32-35); and
a thermally conductive material disposed inside of the plurality of fins, the thermally conductive material comprising one or more of: aluminum oxide, boron nitride, graphene particles, metal-coated glass beads, and metal-coated glass fibers (page 22, lines 7-18, aluminum doped zinc oxide (AZO), a thin layer of graphene, which may be disposed onto one of the layers of the antisoiling surface structured films).
Regarding claim 4, all the limitations of claim 1 are taught by Hebrink.
Hebrink further teaches the film, wherein the reflective microporous layer has an average absorbance of at least 50 percent over a wavelength range of 8 microns to 13 microns (page 4, lines 3-5).
Regarding claim 5, all the limitations of claim 1 are taught by Hebrink.
Hebrink further teaches the film, further comprising an infrared-absorptive layer secured to a second major surface of the film opposite the first major surface, wherein the infrared-absorptive layer has an average absorbance of at least 50 percent over the wavelength range of 4 to 20 microns (page 3, line 35 ~ page 4. line 5).
Regarding claim 6, all the limitations of claim 1 are taught by Hebrink.
Hebrink further teaches the film, wherein the infrared-absorptive layer is secured to the reflective microporous layer opposite the antisoiling layer (Fig. 1, page 3, line 35 ~ page 4. line 5, adhesive layer 172, microporous layer 110, IR-absorptive(reflective) layer 150).
Regarding claim 7, all the limitations of claim 1 are taught by Hebrink.
Hebrink further teaches the film, further comprising an auxiliary reflective microporous layer secured to the reflective microporous layer opposite the antisoiling layer (Fig. 12, page 4, lines 26-27).
Regarding claim 8, all the limitations of claim 28 are taught by Hebrink.
Hebrink further teaches the film, wherein the reflective microporous layer is diffusely reflective of electromagnetic radiation over a majority of wavelengths in the range of 300 to 3000 nanometers (page 7, lines 25-27).
Regarding claim 9, all the limitations of claim 1 are taught by Hebrink.
Hebrink further teaches the film, wherein the outwardly facing antisoiling surface comprises a nano-structured surface superimposed on a micro-structured surface (page 29, lines 8-10).
Regarding claim 10, all the limitations of claim 10 are taught by Hebrink.
Hebrink further teaches the film, wherein the antisoiling layer comprises a second fluoropolymer (page 29, lines 14-16).
Regarding claim 11, all the limitations of claim 1 are taught by Hebrink.
Hebrink further teaches the film, wherein the reflective microporous layer comprises a micro-voided polymer film (page 29, lines 17-19).
Regarding claim 12, all the limitations of claim 1 are taught by Hebrink.
Hebrink further teaches the film, wherein the reflective microporous layer comprises a micro-voided polymer film (page 29, lines 26-28).
Regarding claim 28, all the limitations of claim 1 are taught by Hebrink.
Hebrink further teaches the film, wherein the reflective microporous layer comprises a first fluoropolymer (Abstract).
Regarding claim 29, all the limitations of claim 1 are taught by Hebrink.
Hebrink further teaches the film, wherein the reflective microporous layer comprises a polyester (page 6, lines 12-20).
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 26 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hebrink (WO 2020240447 A1) in view of Yetisir (US 2020/0381814 A1).
Regarding claim 26, all the limitations of claim 1 are taught by Hebrink.
Hebrink does not explicitly teach the cooling film is transmissive to radio frequency wavelengths in a range from 1.1 to 33.6 GHz.
Yetisir teaches a radome for an antenna for satellite radio frequency communication ([0003]) wherein the antenna comprises a fluoropolymer layer ([0078], [0080]) and it is known that the satellite communication operates in the frequency range of 4-18 GHz (C-band 4-8 GHz, X-band 8-12 GHz, Ku-band 12-18 GHz) .
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention that the cooling film of Hebrink comprising fluoropolymer be transmissive to radio frequency wavelengths in a range from 1.1 to 33.6 GHz as evidenced by Yetisir above.
Regarding claim 27, all the limitations of claim 1 are taught by Hebrink in view of Yetisir.
Hebrink in view of Yetisir does not explicitly teach the cooling film transmits at least 96% of power over a range from 22 to 33 GHz.
Yetisir further teaches degradations in received power ranges 0.7-0.8 dB ([0106]).
A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties.").
It is also noted that Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 30-35 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b), set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 30 and 34, the prior arts fail to teach or reasonably suggest a cooling film assembly, comprising a thermally conductive material disposed inside of the plurality of cavities, in combination with the other limitations of the claims.
Regarding claims 31-33 and 35, the claims 31-33 and 35 are allowable due to their dependencies to claim 30 and 34 above, respectively.
Regarding claims 31-33, the claims 31-33 are allowable due to their dependencies to claim 30 above.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEOKJIN KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-1487. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, Alexander H. Taningco can be reached at 571-272-8048. 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.
/SEOKJIN KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2844