CTNF 19/088,809 CTNF 86702 DETAILED ACTION 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. 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. Election/Restrictions Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 4-21, in the reply filed on 3/17/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that the applicant argues that the examiner has not established that a serious burden exists if restriction is not required. This is not found persuasive because establishing that the inventions are classified in different subgroups (as set forth in the 1st paragraph of the Restriction Requirement) establishes that a serious burden exists on the examiner if restriction is not required. Further, the method of Group II includes limitations “for radiative cooling”, and “causing the TEG to couple heat via the hot side for generating power, in response to the spectro-angular selective emitter operating as a function of atmospheric angle-dependent spectral emissivity, based on energy from the spectro-angular selective emitter” which is not required for the apparatus of Group I (set forth in claim 4). The search required for Group II (method) is not required for Group I (apparatus) as neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Therefore, there would be a serious burden on the examiner if restriction was not required. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. 08-05 AIA Claim s 22-23 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention , there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 3/17/2026 . Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 14, “operative” should be changed to “operate” . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claim 8 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 8 contains the limitation “wherein the spectro-angular selective emitter is angularly selective to prevent emissions at one or more large incident angular ranges of atmospheric transmittance”. The metes and bounds of the term “large incident angular ranges” is unclear. Appropriate clarification and/or correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 4-17, 19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Xia et al. (“Thermoelectric generator using space cold source”) . Regarding claim 4, Xia discloses an apparatus comprising: a spectro-angular selective emitter which is directed to or facing an atmosphere characterized by an absence of solar light (radiative cooler used at night, abstract, Figure 1 and Page 33941 column 2); and a thermoelectric power generator (TEG) having a hot side and a cold side (abstract and Figure 1), the cold side being coupled to the spectro-angular selective emitter, and the TEG being configured to couple heat via the hot side for generating power based on energy from the spectro-angular selective emitter, wherein the power is to be generated in response to angular selective operation of the spectro-angular selective emitter to account for angle-dependent spectral emissivity of the atmosphere (abstract and Page 33944, column 2). Regarding claim 5, Xia discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Xia additionally discloses that the spectro-angular selective emitter is characterized by its ability to control or limit absorption of heat power at frequencies and angles of atmospheric transmittance and, in response to the ability to control or limit its ability to absorb heat power at frequencies and angles of atmospheric transmittance, one or more levels of the power to be generated are influenced by the angle-dependent spectral emissivity of the atmosphere (Figure 1, abstract and Page 33944, the structure is a radiative cooler which has the claimed structure and necessarily performs the claimed functions). Regarding claim 6, Xia discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Xia additionally discloses that the spectro-angular selective emitter is characterized by its ability to control or limit absorption of heat power at one or more angles including at least one incident angular range of atmospheric transmittance where emission of the atmosphere is dominant (Figure 1, abstract and Page 33944, the structure is a radiative cooler which has the claimed structure and necessarily performs the claimed functions). Regarding claim 7, Xia discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Xia additionally discloses that the spectro-angular selective emitter is characterized by its ability to control or limit absorption of heat power as a function of at least one incident angular range of atmospheric transmittance (The structure shown in Figure 1 necessarily limits the absorption of heat power as a function of at least one incident angular range of atmospheric transmittance since only a portion of the device is exposed to the temperature of the atmosphere which forms a temperature gradient) . Regarding claim 8, Xia discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Xia additionally discloses that the spectro-angular selective emitter is angularly selective to prevent emissions at one or more incident angular ranges of atmospheric transmittance (abstract and Page 33941, results and discussion section and Page 33944, 1 st column and Figure 1). Regarding claim 9, Xia discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Xia additionally discloses that the atmospheric angle- dependent spectral emissivity is a function of the atmospheric transmittance in the zenith direction (Figure 1). Regarding claim 10, Xia discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Xia additionally discloses that the TEG and the spectro- angular selective emitter are part of a radiative cooler that is to radiate out power by absorbing power in the cold side stemming from the atmosphere radiation, and each of the power out and the power in is a function of a surface area of the cold side (abstract and Page 33941, results and discussion section and Page 33944, 1 st column and Figures 1 and 3-4). Regarding claim 11, Xia discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Xia additionally discloses an external circuit to draw power from the TEG (circuit shown in Figure 1), wherein the TEG and the spectro-angular selective emitter are part of a radiative cooler that is to radiate out power towards the external circuit by absorbing power in the cold side stemming from limited or controlled angular direction of the atmospheric transmittance, and each of the power out and the power in is a function of a surface area of the cold side (abstract and Page 33941, results and discussion section and Page 33944, 1 st column). Regarding claim 12, Xia discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Xia additionally discloses that the TEG and the spectro-angular selective emitter are part of a radiative cooler that is to radiate out power by accounting for angle-dependent spectral emissivity of the atmosphere and by absorbing power in the cold side stemming from the atmosphere radiation, and each of the power out and the power in is a function of a surface area of the cold side (abstract and Page 33941, results and discussion section and Page 33944, 1 st column). Regarding claim 13, Xia discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Xia additionally discloses that the TEG and the spectro- angular selective emitter are part of a radiative cooler that is to radiate out power by accounting for angle-dependent spectral emissivity of the atmosphere and by absorbing power in the cold side stemming from the atmosphere radiation, wherein each of the power out and the power in is a function of a surface area of the cold side, and the atmospheric angle- dependent spectral emissivity is a function of the atmospheric transmittance in the zenith direction (abstract and Page 33941, results and discussion section and Page 33944, 1 st column and Figures 1 and 3). Regarding claim 14, Xia discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Xia additionally discloses that the spectro-angular selective emitter includes a multi-layer structure (Figure 3, radiative cooler includes silica film on aluminum foil) that is configured to operate selectively on wavelength and incident angle, relative to the zenith direction, to facilitate thermoelectric power generation (abstract and Page 33941, results and discussion section and Page 33944, 1 st column and Figures 1 and 3). Regarding claim 15, Xia discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Xia additionally discloses that the spectro-angular selective emitter includes a multi-layer structure (Figure 3, radiative cooler includes silica film on aluminum foil) configured to operate via an emissivity spectrum, which is selective in terms of atmosphere radiation wavelength and incident angle of atmosphere radiation, that facilitates or optimizes thermoelectric power generation (abstract and Page 33941, results and discussion section and Page 33944, 1 st column and Figures 1 and 3). Regarding claim 16, Xia discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Xia additionally discloses that the TEG and the spectro- angular selective emitter are part of a radiative cooler that is to radiate out power as a function of: control of emissivity of the cold side based on selective atmosphere radiation wavelength and selective incident angle of atmosphere radiation; parasitic-heat-transfer control; and temperature control of the cold side (abstract and Page 33941, results and discussion section and Page 33944, 1 st column and Figures 1 and 3). Regarding claim 17, Xia discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Xia additionally discloses that the spectro-angular selective emitter is part of a radiative cooler that is spectrally selective to facilitate emission at frequencies wherein the radiative cooler is in an environment in which at least one of the following is applicable: atmospheric absorption is in a wavelength range of 8-13 microns, and ozone layer reflection is less than approximately 9.5 microns (Figure 3). Regarding claim 19, Xia discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Xia additionally discloses that the spectro-angular selective emitter is part of a radiative cooler (abstract, Results and Discussion and Figure 1) and said generating power includes generating power at a level that exceeds 1.5 W/m 2 (Page 33944, column 2, 1 st paragraph, see output power of 2.84 W/m 2 ) due at least in part to at least two of: engineered environmental convection of the TEG and the spectro-angular selective emitter; a thermoelectric figure of merit set to improve nighttime power density generation or set to an upper limit of nighttime power density; and an area ratio between the TEG and the radiative cooler engineered or optimized to facilitate said generating power at a level that exceeds 1.5 W/m 2 (Page 33944, column 2, 1 st paragraph and Conclusion, see output power of 2.84 W/m 2 due to optimized radiative cooler). Regarding claim 21, Xia discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Xia additionally discloses that the TEG is to generate power based on energy directed from the spectro-angular selective emitter and by controlling or limiting: ability of the spectro-angular selective emitter to absorb heat power at one or more of frequencies and angles, where emission of the atmosphere is dominant; and parasitic heat loss associated with transfer of heat into the cold side (abstract, Figures 3-4, Page 33942, column 1-2) . 07-15 AIA Claim s 4-17 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 ( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Mu et al. (“A novel self-powering ultrathin TEG device based on micro/nano emitter for radiative cooling”) . Regarding claim 4, Mu discloses an apparatus comprising: a spectro-angular selective emitter which is directed to or facing an atmosphere characterized by an absence of solar light (radiative cooler, abstract, Introduction and Page 496, 1 st column); and a thermoelectric power generator (TEG) having a hot side and a cold side (abstract, Section 3.1 and Figures 2 and 4), the cold side being coupled to the spectro-angular selective emitter (Figures 2 and 4, radiative cooler, abstract, Introduction and Page 496, 1 st column), and the TEG being configured to couple heat via the hot side for generating power based on energy from the spectro-angular selective emitter, wherein the power is to be generated in response to angular selective operation of the spectro- angular selective emitter to account for angle-dependent spectral emissivity of the atmosphere (Introduction and Sections 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3). Regarding claim 5, Mu discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Mu additionally discloses that the spectro-angular selective emitter is characterized by its ability to control or limit absorption of heat power at frequencies and angles of atmospheric transmittance and, in response to the ability to control or limit its ability to absorb heat power at frequencies and angles of atmospheric transmittance, one or more levels of the power to be generated are influenced by the angle-dependent spectral emissivity of the atmosphere (abstract, Page 496 and 498, Conclusion section and Figures 2 and 4). Regarding claim 6, Mu discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Mu additionally discloses that the spectro-angular selective emitter is characterized by its ability to control or limit absorption of heat power at one or more angles including at least one incident angular range of atmospheric transmittance where emission of the atmosphere is dominant (abstract, Page 496, Conclusion section and Figure 2). Regarding claim 7, Mu discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Mu additionally discloses that the spectro-angular selective emitter is characterized by its ability to control or limit absorption of heat power as a function of at least one incident angular range of atmospheric transmittance (abstract, Page 496, Conclusion section and Figure 2). Regarding claim 8, Mu discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Mu additionally discloses that the spectro-angular selective emitter is angularly selective to prevent emissions at one or more large incident angular ranges of atmospheric transmittance (abstract, Page 496, Conclusion section and Figure 2). Regarding claim 9, Mu discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Mu additionally discloses that the atmospheric angle- dependent spectral emissivity is a function of the atmospheric transmittance in the zenith direction (abstract, Page 496, Conclusion section and Figure 2). Regarding claim 10, Mu discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Mu additionally discloses that the TEG and the spectro- angular selective emitter are part of a radiative cooler that is to radiate out power by absorbing power in the cold side stemming from the atmosphere radiation, and each of the power out and the power in is a function of a surface area of the cold side (abstract, Page 496 and 498, Conclusion section and Figures 2 and 4). Regarding claim 11, Mu discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Mu additionally discloses an external circuit to draw power from the TEG (Page 495, Section 3.1), wherein the TEG and the spectro-angular selective emitter are part of a radiative cooler that is to radiate out power towards the external circuit by absorbing power in the cold side stemming from limited or controlled angular direction of the atmospheric transmittance, and each of the power out and the power in is a function of a surface area of the cold side (abstract, Page 496 and 498, Conclusion section and Figures 2 and 4). Regarding claim 12, Mu discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Mu additionally discloses that the TEG and the spectro- angular selective emitter are part of a radiative cooler that is to radiate out power by accounting for angle-dependent spectral emissivity of the atmosphere and by absorbing power in the cold side stemming from the atmosphere radiation, and each of the power out and the power in is a function of a surface area of the cold side (abstract, Page 496 and 498, Conclusion section and Figures 2 and 4). Regarding claim 13, Mu discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Mu additionally discloses that the TEG and the spectro- angular selective emitter are part of a radiative cooler that is to radiate out power by accounting for angle-dependent spectral emissivity of the atmosphere and by absorbing power in the cold side stemming from the atmosphere radiation, wherein each of the power out and the power in is a function of a surface area of the cold side, and the atmospheric angle- dependent spectral emissivity is a function of the atmospheric transmittance in the zenith direction (abstract, Page 496 and 498, Conclusion section and Figures 2 and 4). Regarding claim 14, Mu discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Mu additionally discloses that the spectro-angular selective emitter includes a multi-layer structure that is configured to operate selectively on wavelength and incident angle, relative to the zenith direction, to facilitate thermoelectric power generation (Figure 1 and Page 496, 1 st column , the selective emitter is an alternating set of SiO2/Si3N4 with different thicknesses). Regarding claim 15, Mu discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Mu additionally discloses that the spectro-angular selective emitter includes a multi-layer structure configured to operate via an emissivity spectrum, which is selective in terms of atmosphere radiation wavelength and incident angle of atmosphere radiation, that facilitates or optimizes thermoelectric power generation (Figure 1 and Page 496, 1 st column , the selective emitter is an alternating set of SiO2/Si3N4 with different thicknesses). Regarding claim 16, Mu discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Mu additionally discloses that the TEG and the spectro- angular selective emitter are part of a radiative cooler that is to radiate out power as a function of: control of emissivity of the cold side based on selective atmosphere radiation wavelength and selective incident angle of atmosphere radiation; parasitic-heat-transfer control; and temperature control of the cold side (abstract, Page 496 and 498, Conclusion section and Figures 2 and 4). Regarding claim 17, Mu discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Mu additionally discloses that the spectro-angular selective emitter is part of a radiative cooler that is spectrally selective to facilitate emission at frequencies wherein the radiative cooler is in an environment in which at least one of the following is applicable: atmospheric absorption is in a wavelength range of 8-13 microns, and ozone layer reflection is less than approximately 9.5 microns (abstract and column 2, 2 nd paragraph). Regarding claim 20, Mu discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Mu additionally discloses that the spectro-angular selective emitter includes a plurality of dielectric material layers having respective material compositions from among Al2O3, HfO2, MgF2, SiC, SiN, SiO2, TiO2, Ta2O5, Si, and Si3N4 (Figure 1 and Page 496, 1 st column, the selective emitter is an alternating set of SiO2/Si3N4 layers with different thicknesses), at least two different layer thicknesses being less than 1.0 micron (Page 498, conclusion section, the total thickness of 12 periods of the emitter was 1.8 microns, thus each period and layer thickness is less than 1.0 micron), and an emissivity that approximates an optimal emissivity spectrum corresponding to the spectro-angular selective emitter (Figure 1 and Page 496, 1 st column). Regarding claim 21, Mu discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Mu additionally discloses that the TEG is to generate power based on energy directed from the spectro-angular selective emitter and by controlling or limiting: ability of the spectro-angular selective emitter to absorb heat power at one or more of frequencies and angles, where emission of the atmosphere is dominant; and parasitic heat loss associated with transfer of heat into the cold side (abstract, Page 496, Conclusion section and Figure 2) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mu et al. (“A novel self-powering ultrathin TEG device based on micro/nano emitter for radiative cooling”), as applied to claim 4 above, in view of Chen et al. (“Radiative cooling to deep sub-freezing temperatures through a 24-h day-night cycle”) . Regarding claim 18, Mu discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Mu additionally discloses that the spectro-angular selective emitter has one or more dielectric material layers (Figure 1 and Page 496, 1 st column , the selective emitter is an alternating set of SiO2/Si3N4) and is part of a radiative cooler having an infrared window between the atmosphere and the spectro-angular selective emitter (abstract and Page 496, 1 st paragraph) and discloses that at the hot side of the TEG, a heat sink is thermally coupled to the one or more dielectric material layers which, in operation, manifests an emissivity that approximates an optimal emissivity spectrum (Introduction, see heat source at hot end thermally coupled to device and Figures 2 and 4), but Mu does not disclose a vacuum chamber around the spectro-angular selective emitter. Chen discloses a radiative cooler (abstract) comprising a vacuum chamber around a spectro-angular selective emitter comprising a set of multiple dielectric material layers (Figure 2 and Experimental design section, 1 st paragraph). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to add a vacuum chamber to the radiative cooler around the spectro-angular selective emitter of Mu, as taught by Chen, because the vacuum chamber minimizes parasitic heat loses of the emitter and maximizes the efficiency of the radiative cooler (Chen, Figure 2 and Experimental design section, 1 st paragraph). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDSEY A BUCK whose telephone number is (571)270-1234. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5:30pm. 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, Matthew Martin can be reached at (571)270-7871. 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. /LINDSEY A BUCK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728 Application/Control Number: 19/088,809 Page 2 Art Unit: 1728 Application/Control Number: 19/088,809 Page 3 Art Unit: 1728 Application/Control Number: 19/088,809 Page 4 Art Unit: 1728 Application/Control Number: 19/088,809 Page 5 Art Unit: 1728 Application/Control Number: 19/088,809 Page 6 Art Unit: 1728 Application/Control Number: 19/088,809 Page 7 Art Unit: 1728 Application/Control Number: 19/088,809 Page 8 Art Unit: 1728 Application/Control Number: 19/088,809 Page 9 Art Unit: 1728 Application/Control Number: 19/088,809 Page 10 Art Unit: 1728 Application/Control Number: 19/088,809 Page 11 Art Unit: 1728 Application/Control Number: 19/088,809 Page 12 Art Unit: 1728 Application/Control Number: 19/088,809 Page 13 Art Unit: 1728 Application/Control Number: 19/088,809 Page 14 Art Unit: 1728 Application/Control Number: 19/088,809 Page 15 Art Unit: 1728 Application/Control Number: 19/088,809 Page 16 Art Unit: 1728 Application/Control Number: 19/088,809 Page 17 Art Unit: 1728
Prosecution Insights