CTNF 18/914,697 CTNF 80883 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Double Patenting 08-33 AIA The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. 08-37 AIA Claim s 1 – 17 is/are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 – 7 of copending Application No. 18/663,800 (herein referred to as application ‘800) in view of Zhu, et al. (US 2019/0152410 A1), further in view of Suemitsu (US 2023/0118292 A1) and Schacklette, et al. (US 5,099,621) . This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection. Although not identical, the claims in co-pending application ‘800 recite first and second reflecting layers, an infrared radiating layer on the second light reflecting layer with the thicknesses, materials and properties recited. However, co-pending application ‘800 fails to teach that there is 1) a colored layer comprising a first thermoplastic resin wherein the resin is either ABS or polycarbonate or 2) an adhesive layer on the second light reflecting layer. Zhu teaches a radiative cooling film comprised of multiple layers. The base film (130) is a color layer, which may be laminated onto an article (paragraph 0025). Zhu, however, is silent with respect to the layers laminated thereto using an adhesive. Suemitsu, likewise, teaches a radiative cooling device made of multiple layers; the layers may be separately formed and laminated to each other using adhesives (paragraph 0285 – 0286). Zhu, and Suemitsu, however, both do not teach the specific type of base film that may be used. Schacklette, et al. teach a conductive multi-layer layer disposed on a vehicle window to control light-transmission therethrough and thus, maintaining the interior cool (column 1, lines 10 – 25). The base substrate is typically flexible and may be made of polycarbonate (column 5, lines 45 – 50). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include the color layer of Zhu, made of polycarbonate wherein the multiple layers are attached via adhesive for the purposes of providing a “tint” or color layer to the product that exhibits a color when exposed to sunlight. In addition, the use of adhesive(s) allows the laminate to be separately formed and connected or joined per the teachings of Suemitsu. In addition, the use of the polycarbonate base allows for flexibility per the teachings in Schacklette, et al. Claims 1 – 17 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 – 16 of copending Application No. 18/663,800 (herein referred to as application ‘800) in view of Zhu, et al. (US 2019/0152410 A1) and Schacklette, et al. (US 5,099,621). Although not identical, the claims in co-pending application ‘800 recite first and second reflecting layers, an infrared radiating layer on the second light reflecting layer with the thicknesses, materials and properties recited. However, co-pending application ‘800 fails to teach that there is a colored layer comprising a first thermoplastic resin wherein the resin is either ABS or polycarbonate. Zhu, et al. teach a radiative cooling film comprised of multiple layers. The base film (130) is a color layer, which may be laminated onto an article (paragraph 0025). Zhu, et al. however, do not teach the specific type of base film that may be used. Schacklette, et al. teach a conductive multi-layer layer disposed on a vehicle window to control light-transmission therethrough and thus, maintaining the interior cool (column 1, lines 10 – 25). The base substrate is typically flexible and may be made of polycarbonate (column 5, lines 45 – 50). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include the color layer of Zhu, et al. made of polycarbonate for the purposes of providing a “tint” or color layer to the product that exhibits a color when exposed to sunlight. In addition, the use of the polycarbonate base allows for flexibility per the teachings in Schacklette, et al. Claims 18 – 20 is/are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 17 of copending Application No. 18/663,800 (herein referred to as application ‘800) in view of Zhu, et al. (US 2019/0152410 A1), further in view of Suemitsu (US 2023/0118292 A1) and Schacklette, et al. (US 5,099,621). Although not identical, the claims in co-pending application ‘800 recite a mobility comprising first and second reflecting layers, an infrared radiating layer on the second light reflecting layer with the thicknesses, materials and properties recited. However, co-pending application ‘800 fails to teach that there is 1) a colored layer comprising a first thermoplastic resin wherein the resin is either ABS or polycarbonate or 2) an adhesive layer on the second light reflecting layer. Zhu, et al. teach a radiative cooling film comprised of multiple layers. The base film (130) is a color layer, which may be laminated onto an article (paragraph 0025). Zhu, et al. however, is silent with respect to the layers laminated thereto using an adhesive. Suemitsu, likewise, teaches a radiative cooling device made of multiple layers; the layers may be separately formed and laminated to each other using adhesives (paragraph 0285 – 0286). Zhu, et al. and Suemitsu, however, both do not teach the specific type of base film that may be used. Schacklette, et al. teach a conductive multi-layer layer disposed on a vehicle window to control light-transmission therethrough and thus, maintaining the interior cool (column 1, lines 10 – 25). The base substrate is typically flexible and may be made of polycarbonate (column 5, lines 45 – 50). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include the color layer of Zhu, et al. made of polycarbonate wherein the multiple layers are attached via adhesive for the purposes of providing a “tint” or color layer to the product that exhibits a color when exposed to sunlight. In addition, the use of adhesive(s) allows the laminate to be separately formed and connected or joined per the teachings of Suemitsu. In addition, the use of the polycarbonate base allows for flexibility per the teachings in Schacklette, et al. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1 and 4 – 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu, et al. (US 2019/0152410) in view of Suemitsu, et al. (US 2023/0118292 A1) . Zhu, et al. teach a colored laminate for radiative cooling, the colored laminate comprising: a colored layer comprising a first thermoplastic resin (item 130 – figure 1; paragraph 0025 – examiner notes Zhu, et al. teach that the color layer may be disposed on an article and may be made of polymer); a UV cut layer (item 110 – figure 1) wherein the UV cut layer may be made of multiple layers (paragraph 0004). The UV cut layer may be made of alternating layers of metals or metal oxides with color filter layers (paragraph 0026 – 0027). Color filter layers may be made of polymer such has PDMS or PMP (paragraph 0003). The polymeric layer is/are transparent to first range of electromagnetic radiation. The alternating metal layers also serve, like the polymeric layers, to reflect light and may be formed of metals (paragraph 0027) or oxides (paragraph 0026). Therefore, the examiner contends that the alternating layers of metals/metal oxides with the polymer layers serve as the first and second light reflecting layers. In addition, the laminate of Zhu, et al. includes an upper radiative cooling layer (item 120 – figure 1; paragraph 0025) which functions as the recited infrared-ray radiating layer. Zhu, et al. however do not specifically teach the polymer layer (i.e, first light reflecting layer) has a reflectance equal to or higher than 80% for light having a wavelength in a range from 780 – 1300 and a transmittance equal to or higher than 70% for visible light having a wavelength in a range from 400 – 780 nm. However, the UV cut layer(s) are intended to have a layer or group of layer(s) wherein reflection and/or absorption in the UV spectrum with wavelengths between 300 nm – 200 nm and reflection and absorption in the IR spectrum with wavelengths between 1000 nm – 5000 nm is equal to or greater than 60% when the layer is exposed to sunlight (paragraph 0022). Examiner notes these ranges overlap the claimed range and thus, a prima facie of obviousness exists. Examiner contends the polymeric layer(s) as part of the UV/IR cut layer(s) would have a reflectance as claimed. Likewise, the metal layer(s) may be comprised of a plurality of layers, also offering the same type of reflectance. Zhu, et al. however, do not teach an adhesive layer on the second light reflecting layer. Examiner notes that the reference teaches the formation of the multi-layer film and does not limit it to any specific process. Suemitsu, et al. teach a radiative cooling laminate which includes light reflecting layers, protective layer, resin material layer and a color layer (figure 1). The layers may be separately formed and joined or attached into a single piece (paragraph 0285). The attachment means may be an adhesive (paragraph 0285). Typical adhesives may be urethanes or acrylics (paragraph 0286). Thus, the examiner contends that it would have been obvious at the time the invention was filed to include the adhesive of Suemitsu, et al. to join the layers of Zhu, et al. for the purpose of forming the laminate into a single piece. With respect to claim 4, Zhu, et al. teach the first light reflecting layer has an average thickness of 50 – 300 micron (paragraph 0033) and the second light reflecting layer has an average thickness of 30 – 300 (paragraph 0030). With respect to claim 5 – 6, Zhu, et al. teach that metal oxides and/or metals may be used for the second reflective layer (or as part of the UV cut layer). Metals may include metals or alloys of silver, copper, aluminum or gold (paragraph 0027). Metal oxides may include titanium oxide, silicon oxide, or aluminum oxide (paragraph 002). Thus, based on the listed species in Zhu, et al. it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed that the first and send protective metal layers and the metal layer be comprised of the species as recited for the purpose of providing the reflection and absorption necessary to maintain the article being protected as cool as possible. With respect to claim 7 – 8, Zhu, et al. as modified by Suemitsu, et al. teach an adhesive that is UV-curable or moisture-curable (Suemitsu, et al. - paragraph 0286 and 0289), wherein the adhesive may be acrylic, silicone or urethane based (Suemitsu, et al. – paragraph 0286). With respect to claim claim 9, Zhu, et al. as modified by Suemitsu, et al. teaches that the layer thicknesses should be adjusted such that heat radiation is greater than the absorption of solar energy (paragraph 0022). In one embodiment, Suemitsu, et al. teach the adhesive layer has an average thickness of 10 micron (paragraph 0351); however, this is one example and not encompassing of the entirety of the teachings in Suemitsu, et al. Therefore, the examiner contends that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Zhu, et al. with the adhesive of Suemitsu, et al. such that the adhesive thickness ranges between 0.1 – 1 micron for the purpose of ensuring that the amount of radiation given off is greater than the solar absorption, which ensures the article can cool. In addition, Zhu, et al. teach that the infrared-radiating layer may have a thickness of between 10 – 180 micron (paragraph 0030 – 0031). With respect to claim 10, while not specifically teaching that the properties of the first thermoplastic resin (in the color layer) have different optical properties than the second thermoplastic resin (in the infrared-radiating layer), the distinction is obvious based on the teachings in the primary reference of Zhu, et al. The color layer in Zhu, et al. designed to emit a color when exposed to sunlight and viewed by an observer (paragraph 0025), while the infrared-radiating layer (item 120 – figure 1) is designed to emit thermal radiation in the atmosphere (paragraph 0036), thereby ensuring cooling of the article . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu, et al. (US 2019/0152410) in view of Suemitsu, et al. (US 2023/0118292 A1) and further in view of Schacklette, et al. (US 5,099,621) . Zhu, et al. and Suemitsu, et al. teach the limitations as noted above, but fail to teach that the first thermoplastic resin comprises at least one polymer selected from the group of ABS or polycarbonate (PC). Schacklette, et al. teach a conductive multi-layer layer disposed on a vehicle window to control light-transmission therethrough and thus, maintaining the interior cool (column 1, lines 10 – 25). The base substrate is typically flexible and may be made of polycarbonate (column 5, lines 45 – 50). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include the color layer of Zhu, et al. made of polycarbonate wherein the multiple layers are attached via adhesive for the purposes of providing a “tint” or color layer to the product that exhibits a color when exposed to sunlight. The use of the polycarbonate base allows for flexibility per the teachings in Schacklette, et al . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu, et al. (US 2019/0152410) in view of Suemitsu, et al. (US 2023/0118292 A1) and further in view of Lee, et al. (US 2021/0310700 A1) . Zhu, et al. and Suemitsu, et al. teach the limitations as noted above, but fail to teach that the first light reflecting layer comprises a stack in which first layers including a first polymer and second layers including a second polymer having a lower refractive index than a refractive index of the first layers are alternately stacked. Lee, et al. teach a radiative cooling device (see abstract) with alternating layers of polymeric films have differing refractive indices (paragraph 0130 – 0131). The alternating configuration ensures an efficient means to keep the internal temperature of the article cooler than the exterior. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include the alternating stack of polymer layers per the teachings in Lee, et al. for the purpose of ensuring an efficient means to keep the internal temperature of the article cooler than the exterior . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 11 and 13 – 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu, et al. (US 2019/0152410) in view of Suemitsu (US 2023/0118292 A1) and further in view of Lee, et al. (US 2021/0310700 A1) . Zhu, et al. teach a colored laminate for radiative cooling, the colored laminate comprising: a colored layer comprising a first thermoplastic resin (item 130 – figure 1; paragraph 0025 – examiner notes Zhu, et al. teach that the color layer may be disposed on an article and may be made of polymer); a UV cut layer (item 110 – figure 1) wherein the UV cut layer may be made of multiple layers (paragraph 0004). The UV cut layer may be made of alternating layers of metals or metal oxides with color filter layers (paragraph 0026 – 0027). Color filter layers may be made of polymer such has PDMS or PMP (paragraph 0003). The polymeric layer is/are transparent to first range of electromagnetic radiation. The alternating metal layers also serve, like the polymeric layers, to reflect light and may be formed of metals (paragraph 0027) or oxides (paragraph 0026). Therefore, the examiner contends that the alternating layers of metals/metal oxides with the polymer layers serve as the first and second light reflecting layers. In addition, the laminate of Zhu, et al. includes an upper radiative cooling layer (item 120 – figure 1; paragraph 0025) which functions as the recited infrared-ray radiating layer. Zhu, et al. however do not specifically teach the polymer layer (i.e, first light reflecting layer) has a reflectance equal to or higher than 80% for light having a wavelength in a range from 780 – 1300 and a transmittance equal to or higher than 70% for visible light having a wavelength in a range from 400 – 780 nm. However, the UV cut layer(s) are intended to have a layer or group of layer(s) wherein reflection and/or absorption in the UV spectrum with wavelengths between 300 nm – 200 nm and reflection and absorption in the IR spectrum with wavelengths between 1000 nm – 5000 nm is equal to or greater than 60% when the layer is exposed to sunlight (paragraph 0022). Examiner notes these ranges overlap the claimed range and thus, a prima facie of obviousness exists. Examiner contends the polymeric layer(s) as part of the UV/IR cut layer(s) would have a reflectance as claimed. Likewise, the metal layer(s) may be comprised of a plurality of layers, also offering the same type of reflectance. Furthermore, while not specifically teaching that the properties of the first thermoplastic resin (in the color layer) have different optical properties than the second thermoplastic resin (in the infrared-radiating layer), the distinction is obvious based on the teachings in the primary reference of Zhu, et al. The color layer in Zhu, et al. designed to emit a color when exposed to sunlight and viewed by an observer (paragraph 0025), while the infrared-radiating layer (item 120 – figure 1) is designed to emit thermal radiation in the atmosphere (paragraph 0036), thereby ensuring cooling of the article. Zhu, et al. however, do not teach an adhesive layer on the second light reflecting layer. Examiner notes that the reference teaches the formation of the multi-layer film and does not limit it to any specific process. Suemitsu, et al. teach a radiative cooling laminate which includes light reflecting layers, protective layer, rein material layer and a color layer (figure 1). The layers may be separately formed and joined or attached into a single piece (paragraph 0285). The attachment means may be an adhesive (paragraph 0285). Typical adhesives may be urethanes or acrylics (paragraph 0286). Thus, the examiner contends that it would have been obvious at the time the invention was filed to include the adhesive of Suemitsu, et al. to join the layers of Zhu, et al. for the purpose of forming the laminate into a single piece. In addition, Zhu, et al. and Suemitsu, et al. teach the limitations as noted above, but fail to teach that the first light reflecting layer comprises a stack in which first layers including a first polymer and second layers including a second polymer having a lower refractive index than a refractive index of the first layers are alternately stacked. Lee, et al. teach a radiative cooling device (see abstract) with alternating layers of polymeric films have differing refractive indices (paragraph 0130 – 0131). The alternating configuration ensures an efficient means to keep the internal temperature of the article cooler than the exterior. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include the alternating stack of polymer layers per the teachings in Lee, et al. for the purpose of ensuring an efficient means to keep the internal temperature of the article cooler than the exterior. With respect to claim 13, Zhu, et al. teach the first light reflecting layer has an average thickness of 50 – 300 micron (paragraph 0033) and the second light reflecting layer has an average thickness of 30 – 300 (paragraph 0030). With respect to claim 14, Zhu, et al. teach that metal oxides and/or metals may be used for the second reflective layer (or as part of the UV cut layer). Metals may include metals or alloys of silver, copper, aluminum or gold (paragraph 0027). Metal oxides may include titanium oxide, silicon oxide, or aluminum oxide (paragraph 002). Thus, based on the listed species in Zhu, et al. it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed that the first and send protective metal layers and the metal layer be comprised of the species as recited for the purpose of providing the reflection and absorption necessary to maintain the article being protected as cool as possible. With respect to claim 15 – 16, Zhu, et al. as modified by Suemitsu, et al. teach an adhesive that is UV-curable or moisture-curable (Suemitsu, et al. - paragraph 0286 and 0289), wherein the adhesive may be acrylic, silicone or urethane based (Suemitsu, et al. – paragraph 0286). In addition, Zhu, et al. as modified by Suemitsu, et al. teaches that the layer thicknesses should be adjusted such that heat radiation is greater than the absorption of solar energy (paragraph 0022). In one embodiment, Suemitsu, et al. teach the adhesive layer has an average thickness of 10 micron (paragraph 0351); however, this is one example and not encompassing of the entirety of the teachings in Suemitsu, et al. Therefore, the examiner contends that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Zhu, et al. with the adhesive of Suemitsu, et al. such that the adhesive thickness ranges between 0.1 – 1 micron for the purpose of ensuring that the amount of radiation given off is greater than the solar absorption, which ensures the article can cool. In addition, Zhu, et al. teach that the infrared-radiating layer may have a thickness of between 10 – 180 micron (paragraph 0030 – 0031). With respect to claim 17, Zhu, et al. teach that the radiative cooling material is disposed on an exterior surface of an object (paragraph 0009) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu, et al. (US 2019/0152410) in view of Suemitsu, et al. (US 2023/0118292 A1), in view of Lee, et al. (US 2021/0310700 A1) and further in view of Schacklette, et al. (US 5,099,621) . Zhu, et al., Suemitsu, et al. and Lee, et al. teach the limitations as noted above, but fail to teach that the first thermoplastic resin comprises at least one polymer selected from the group of ABS or polycarbonate (PC). Schacklette, et al. teach a conductive multi-layer layer disposed on a vehicle window to control light-transmission therethrough and thus, maintaining the interior cool (column 1, lines 10 – 25). The base substrate is typically flexible and may be made of polycarbonate (column 5, lines 45 – 50). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include the color layer of Zhu, et al. made of polycarbonate wherein the multiple layers are attached via adhesive for the purposes of providing a “tint” or color layer to the product that exhibits a color when exposed to sunlight. The use of the polycarbonate base allows for flexibility per the teachings in Schacklette, et al . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 18 – 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu, et al. (US 2019/0152410) in view of Suemitsu (US 2023/0118292 A1) . Zhu, et al. teach a mobility comprising: a mobility body (paragraph 0009); and a radiative cooling material disposed on the mobility body, the radiative cooling material comprising a colored laminate comprising: a colored layer comprising a first thermoplastic resin (item 130 – figure 1; paragraph 0025 – examiner notes Zhu, et al. teach that the color layer may be disposed on an article and may be made of polymer); a UV cut layer (item 110 – figure 1) wherein the UV cut layer may be made of multiple layers (paragraph 0004). The UV cut layer may be made of alternating layers of metals or metal oxides with color filter layers (paragraph 0026 – 0027). Color filter layers may be made of polymer such has PDMS or PMP (paragraph 0003). The polymeric layer is/are transparent to first range of electromagnetic radiation. The alternating metal layers also serve, like the polymeric layers, to reflect light and may be formed of metals (paragraph 0027) or oxides (paragraph 0026). Therefore, the examiner contends that the alternating layers of metals/metal oxides with the polymer layers serve as the first and second light reflecting layers. In addition, the laminate of Zhu, et al. includes an upper radiative cooling layer (item 120 – figure 1; paragraph 0025) which functions as the recited infrared-ray radiating layer. Zhu, et al. however do not specifically teach the polymer layer (i.e, first light reflecting layer) has a reflectance equal to or higher than 80% for light having a wavelength in a range from 780 – 1300 and a transmittance equal to or higher than 70% for visible light having a wavelength in a range from 400 – 780 nm. However, the UV cut layer(s) are intended to have a layer or group of layer(s) wherein reflection and/or absorption in the UV spectrum with wavelengths between 300 nm – 200 nm and reflection and absorption in the IR spectrum with wavelengths between 1000 nm – 5000 nm is equal to or greater than 60% when the layer is exposed to sunlight (paragraph 0022). Examiner notes these ranges overlap the claimed range and thus, a prima facie of obviousness exists. Examiner contends the polymeric layer(s) as part of the UV/IR cut layer(s) would have a reflectance as claimed. Zhu, et al. however, do not teach an adhesive layer on the second light reflecting layer. Examiner notes that the reference teaches the formation of the multi-layer film and does not limit it to any specific process. Suemitsu, et al. teach a radiative cooling laminate which includes light reflecting layers, protective layer, rein material layer and a color layer (figure 1). The layers may be separately formed and joined or attached into a single piece (paragraph 0285). The attachment means may be an adhesive (paragraph 0285). Typical adhesives may be urethanes or acrylics (paragraph 0286). Thus, the examiner contends that it would have been obvious at the time the invention was filed to include the adhesive of Suemitsu, et al. to join the layers of Zhu, et al. for the purpose of forming the laminate into a single piece. With respect to claim 19, Zhu, et al. teach that the radiative cooling material is disposed on the mobility body in place of an exterior paint layer (paragraph 0009 and 0021) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu, et al. (US 2019/0152410) in view of Suemitsu, et al. (US 2023/0118292 A1) and further in view of Schacklette, et al. (US 5,099,621) and Lee, et al. (US 2021/0310700 A1) . Zhu, et al. and Suemitsu, et al. teach the limitations as noted above, but fail to teach that the first thermoplastic resin comprises at least one polymer selected from the group of ABS or polycarbonate (PC). Schacklette, et al. teach a conductive multi-layer layer disposed on a vehicle window to control light-transmission therethrough and thus, maintaining the interior cool (column 1, lines 10 – 25). The base substrate is typically flexible and may be made of polycarbonate (column 5, lines 45 – 50). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include the color layer of Zhu, et al. made of polycarbonate wherein the multiple layers are attached via adhesive for the purposes of providing a “tint” or color layer to the product that exhibits a color when exposed to sunlight. The use of the polycarbonate base allows for flexibility per the teachings in Schacklette, et al. In addition, Zhu, et al. teach the first light reflecting layer has an average thickness of 50 – 300 micron (paragraph 0033) and the second light reflecting layer has an average thickness of 30 – 300 (paragraph 0030). Zhu, et al. also teach that metal oxides and/or metals may be used for the second reflective layer (or as part of the UV cut layer). Metals may include metals or alloys of silver, copper, aluminum or gold (paragraph 0027). Metal oxides may include titanium oxide, silicon oxide, or aluminum oxide (paragraph 002). Thus, based on the listed species in Zhu, et al. it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed that the first and send protective metal layers and the metal layer be comprised of the species as recited for the purpose of providing the reflection and absorption necessary to maintain the article being protected as cool as possible. Furthermore, while not specifically teaching that the properties of the first thermoplastic resin (in the color layer) have different optical properties than the second thermoplastic resin (in the infrared-radiating layer), the distinction is obvious based on the teachings in the primary reference of Zhu, et al. The color layer in Zhu, et al. designed to emit a color when exposed to sunlight and viewed by an observer (paragraph 0025), while the infrared-radiating layer (item 120 – figure 1) is designed to emit thermal radiation in the atmosphere (paragraph 0036), thereby ensuring cooling of the article. Last of all, while, Zhu, et al. and Suemitsu, et al. teach the limitations as noted above, both fail to teach that the first light reflecting layer comprises a stack in which first layers including a first polymer and second layers including a second polymer having a lower refractive index than a refractive index of the first layers are alternately stacked. Lee, et al. teach a radiative cooling device (see abstract) with alternating layers of polymeric films have differing refractive indices (paragraph 0130 – 0131). The alternating configuration ensures an efficient means to keep the internal temperature of the article cooler than the exterior. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include the alternating stack of polymer layers per the teachings in Lee, et al. for the purpose of ensuring an efficient means to keep the internal temperature of the article cooler than the exterior. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIA VERONICA EWALD whose telephone number is (571)272-8519. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri ~9am-5:30pm 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, Srilakshmi Kumar can be reached at 571-270-7769 . 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. /MARIA V EWALD/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783 Application/Control Number: 18/914,697 Page 2 Art Unit: 1783 Application/Control Number: 18/914,697 Page 3 Art Unit: 1783 Application/Control Number: 18/914,697 Page 4 Art Unit: 1783 Application/Control Number: 18/914,697 Page 5 Art Unit: 1783 Application/Control Number: 18/914,697 Page 6 Art Unit: 1783 Application/Control Number: 18/914,697 Page 7 Art Unit: 1783 Application/Control Number: 18/914,697 Page 8 Art Unit: 1783 Application/Control Number: 18/914,697 Page 9 Art Unit: 1783 Application/Control Number: 18/914,697 Page 10 Art Unit: 1783 Application/Control Number: 18/914,697 Page 11 Art Unit: 1783 Application/Control Number: 18/914,697 Page 12 Art Unit: 1783 Application/Control Number: 18/914,697 Page 13 Art Unit: 1783 Application/Control Number: 18/914,697 Page 14 Art Unit: 1783 Application/Control Number: 18/914,697 Page 15 Art Unit: 1783 Application/Control Number: 18/914,697 Page 16 Art Unit: 1783 Application/Control Number: 18/914,697 Page 17 Art Unit: 1783 Application/Control Number: 18/914,697 Page 18 Art Unit: 1783
Prosecution Insights