DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. This application is a 371 of App. No. PCT/EP2023/067524, filed on 06/27/2023, which is entitled to and claims the benefit of priority of FR App. No. FR2206423, filed 06/28/2022. The preliminary amendment filed on 12/27/2024 is entered and acknowledged by the Examiner.
3. Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1-12 without traverse in the reply filed on 05/18/2026 is acknowledged.
4. Claims 1-25 are pending. Claims 1-12 are under examination on the merits. Claims 13-25 are withdrawn to a non-elected invention from further consideration.
Information Disclosure Statement
5. The information disclosure statement submitted on 12/27/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the examiner has considered the information disclosure statement.
6. The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Drawings
7. The drawings are received on 12/27/2024. These drawings are acceptable.
Priority
8. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted on 12/27/202 under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Claim Objections
9. Claims 2-12 are objected to because of the following informalities: It is suggested that “as claimed in claim 1, wherein" (all occurrences) be deleted and "according to claim 1, wherein" be inserted in its stead so as to engender claim language clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
10. Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: It is suggested that “said nanocrystals are previously obtained" be deleted and "said nanocrystals are obtained" be inserted in its stead so as to engender claim language clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
11. Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: It is suggested that “wherein it comprises" be deleted and "wherein the sol formation comprises" be inserted in its stead so as to engender claim language clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
12. 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.
13. Claims 1-12 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. The term "type" in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "type" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what nanocrystals of the type MₓWO₃-y is intended to convey. The addition of the word “type” to an otherwise definite expression extends the scope of the expression so as to render it indefinite, see Ex parte Copenhaver, 109 USPQ 1 18 (Bd. App. 1955). See also MPEP 2173.05 (B) (e). Claims 2-12 being depended on claim 1 are rejected as well.
14. Claim 12 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claim 12, recites “one or more solvents chosen from water and alcohols”, wherein the improper phrasing of the Markush group renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear which members of the group are part of the claimed invention. Markush groups must be stated in the alternative, of which one acceptable form is “…selected from the group consisting of A, B and C.” See MPEP § 2173.05(h).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
15. 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.
16. Claims 1-5, 8-10, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tsunematsu et al. (US Pub. No. 1021/0214273 A1, hereinafter “’273”).
Regarding claim 1: ‘273 discloses a sol formulation, which is useful for forming a solar- control coating (Page 1, [0001]), comprising at least: one or more silica-based sol-gel matrix precursors (Page 14, [0208]-[0210], Example 1), and nanocrystals of the type MₓWO₃-y, with M representing potassium (K), sodium (Na) or cesium (Cs), x ranging from 0.05 to 0.33 and y from 0 to 0.4, referred to as doped tungsten bronze nanocrystals, homogeneously and individually such as hexagonal cesium tungsten bronze with Cs/W (molar ratio)=0.33 (Cs0.33WOz, 2.0≤z≤3.0) dispersed in a protic solvent medium such as water (Page 14, [0202], Example 1).
Regarding claim 2: ‘273 discloses the sol formulation (Page 1, [0001]), wherein said doped tungsten bronze nanocrystals are surface-functionalized with at least one ligand that is capable of promoting good dispersion of said nanocrystals within the sol formulation (Page 14, [0208], Example 1),
Regarding claim 3: ‘273 discloses the sol formulation (Page 1, [0001]), wherein said nanocrystals are cesium-doped tungsten bronze nanocrystals such as hexagonal cesium tungsten bronze with Cs/W (molar ratio)=0.33 (Cs0.33WOz, 2.0≤z≤3.0) (Page 14, [0202], Example 1).
Regarding claim 4: ‘273 discloses the sol formulation (Page 1, [0001]), wherein said nanocrystals are obtained via a bottom-up synthetic route (Page 1, [0001]).
Regarding claim 5: ‘273 discloses the sol formulation (Page 1, [0001]), wherein said nanocrystals have a hexagonal prism morphology (Page 3, [0038]; Page 20, Claim 15).
Regarding claim 8: ‘273 discloses the sol formulation (Page 1, [0001]), wherein said doped tungsten bronze nanocrystals have a degree of doping with alkali metal in of between 0.05 and 0.33 such as hexagonal cesium tungsten bronze with Cs/W (molar ratio)=0.33 (Cs0.33WOz, 2.0≤z≤3.0) (Page 14, [0202], Example 1).
Regarding claim 9: ‘273 discloses the sol formulation (Page 1, [0001]), wherein said doped tungsten bronze nanocrystals are present in an amount of from 1 to 50 mg/mL in the sol formulation (Page 14, [0202], Example 1).
Regarding claim 10: ‘273 discloses the sol formulation (Page 1, [0001]), wherein the sol formulation comprises, as a precursor of the silica-based sol-gel matrix, at least one organosilane of formula RnSiX(4-n), in which: n is equal to 0 or 1, the groups X, which may be identical or different, represent hydrolyzable groups chosen from alkoxy, acyloxy or halide groups, the groups R, which may be identical or different, represent non-hydrolyzable organic groups bonded to silicon via a carbon atom (Page 14, [0208]-[0210], Example 1).
Regarding claim 12: ‘273 discloses the sol formulation, wherein the protic solvent medium is formed by one or more solvents selected from the group consisting of water and alcohols including from 1 to 5 carbon atoms (Page 14, [0202], Example 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
17. 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.
18. Claims 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsunematsu et al. (US Pub. No. 1021/0214273 A1, hereinafter “’273”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lin et al. (US Pub. No. 2017/0183240 A1, hereinafter “’240”).
Regarding claims 4-7: The disclosure of ‘273 is adequately set forth in paragraph 16 above and is incorporated herein by reference. ‘273 does not expressly teach the nanocrystals are in the form of nanorods, and doped tungsten bronze nanocrystals have a controlled size and morphology so as to adjust the spectral position of their localized surface.
However, ‘240 teaches a method of preparing CsxWO3 particles comprises heating a composition containing (1) cesium, (2) tungsten, (3) a solvent, and (4) a fatty acid, at a temperature of at least 200° C., to produce CsxWO3 particles, with x=0.31-0.33 (Page 1, [0004]). ‘240 teaches the particles are obtained via a bottom-up synthetic route (Page 3, [0035]-[0038]), wherein the particles have a hexagonal prism morphology, and nanocrystals are in the form of nanorods (Page 4, [0043]-[0044]). ‘240 teaches the doped tungsten bronze nanocrystals have a controlled size and morphology so as to adjust the spectral position of their localized surface (Page 2, [0024]; Page 4, [0043]) with benefit of providing the synthesis of doped tungsten bronze nanorods with high crystallinity, high nanoparticle stability, and successful size and shape control (Page 2, [0023]).
In an analogous art of the sol formulation comprising doped tungsten bronze nanocrystals, and in the light of such benefit before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of producing doped tungsten bronze nanocrystals by ‘273, so as to include the nanocrystals which are in the form of nanorods, and doped tungsten bronze nanocrystals have a controlled size and morphology so as to adjust the spectral position of their localized surface as taught by ‘240, and would have been motivated to do so with reasonable expectation that this would result in providing the synthesis of doped tungsten bronze nanorods with high crystallinity, high nanoparticle stability, and successful size and shape control as suggested by ‘240 (Page 2, [0023]).
19. Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsunematsu et al. (US Pub. No. 1021/0214273 A1, hereinafter “’273”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kubo et al. (US Pub. No. 2014/0300956 A1, hereinafter “’956”).
Regarding claims 10-11: The disclosure of ‘273 is adequately set forth in paragraph 16 above and is incorporated herein by reference. ‘273 teaches the sol formulation (Page 1, [0001]), wherein the sol formulation comprises, as a precursor of the silica-based sol-gel matrix (Page 14, [0208]-[0210], Example 1). This rejection is applied in the interest of advancing prosecution in the event it can be shown that ‘273 does not expressly teach the sol formulation comprises, as silica-based sol-gel matrix precursors.
However, ‘956 teaches an infrared cut filter comprising: a transparent dielectric substrate; an infrared reflecting layer formed on one surface of the transparent dielectric substrate and configured to reflect infrared light; and an infrared absorbing layer formed on the other surface of the transparent dielectric substrate and configured to absorb infrared light (Page 3, [0084]; Page 11, Claim 1), and formed by encapsulating infrared absorbing pigment in a matrix formed by a sol-gel method to contain silica as a main component (Page 4, [0096]; Page 4, [0098]) with benefit of providing the sol-gel film with certain flexibility, cracks will be less likely to be created (Page 4, [0105])
In an analogous art of the sol formulation, and in the light of such benefit before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the sol formulation, which is useful for forming a solar- control coating by ‘273, so as to include the sol formulation comprises, as silica-based sol-gel matrix precursor as taught by ‘956, and would have been motivated to do so with reasonable expectation that this would result in providing the sol-gel film with certain flexibility, cracks will be less likely to be created as suggested by ‘956 (Page 4, [0105]).
Prior-Art Cited But Not Applied
20. Any prior-art reference which is cited on FORM PTO-892 but not applied is cited of interest to show the general state of the prior-art at the time of the application’s invention. Please see Sun et al. (CN107573725 A, machine translation).
Examiner Information
21. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bijan Ahvazi, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571) 270-3449. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9.00 A.M. -7 P.M..
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joseph Del Sole can be reached on 571-272-1130. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Bijan Ahvazi/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763
06/03/2026
bijan.ahvazi@uspto.gov
Prosecution Insights