DETAILED ACTION
Claims 64-70 & 72-87 are pending as amended on 09/04/25,
claims 78-83 being withdrawn.
Response to Amendment
This final action is a response to the amendment filed on September 4, 2025. No claims have been amended as a result of the previous action; the rejections have been maintained. Claims 86-87 have been added.
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 64-69, 72-76 & 86-87 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang et al., CN 201793481 (machine translation attached) in view of Veerasamy et al., US 2014/0087099 and Loubet, CA 996337.
With regard to claims 64-68 & 86-87, Liang teaches a known method for sealing an insulated glass assembly, wherein two tempered glass substrates (1/2) with spacers (10) therebetween are preheated via a radiant heater (5) to a temperature ranging from 300-350 deg. C and a sealant dispensing nozzle (8) heats and softens low-melting point glass frit material (12) and applies it to the perimeter of the preheated glass substrates to form a seal (throughout, e.g. abstract, [FIGS. 1-2]). Liang uses a heated nozzle to apply molten glass sealant to panes that are preheated to 300-350 deg. C (abstract), wherein one of ordinary skill would understand that the sealant would also be above that temperature & would likely be heated to at least 400 deg. C [0006] (and a difference between this exemplary high pane preheat temperature and exemplary low frit melting point temperature would also be well under 310 degrees).
While this reference does not expressly disclose that these preheated glass substrates are heated locally, this too was a well-known practice in this art at the time of Applicant’s invention, as shown for example by Veerasamy, which uses directed laser radiation (40) to heat a peripheral regions of glass substrates rather than waste heat on the entire assembly or otherwise damage it (throughout, e.g. abstract, [0013 & FIGS. 1-8]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings & suggestions of Veerasamy with those of Liang, in order to predictably preheat the substrates more efficiently using known directed radiation techniques.
While Liang teaches preheating prior to sealant application & Veerasamy teaches localized heating, there is no one teaching in either reference for localized preheating of panes prior to the application of sealant thereon; this would likely have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in light of these two teachings. In any event, this too was conventional practice in this art at the time of Applicant’s invention, as shown for example by Loubet, which teaches both the local preheating of an edge region of spaced panes prior to application of a fusible material in order to improve wetting, as well as local heating of the applied frit as in Veerasamy (throughout, e.g. abstract, [Pg. 6 & FIG. 10]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings & suggestions of Loubet with those of Liang & Veerasamy, to form an IG assembly using only known means for achieving good wetting and focused energy use.
With regard to claim 69, this small distance for a molten bead to flow into a gap between two spaced panes would naturally have depended on the sizes/viscosities of the materials being used (see also MPEP 2144.04(IV)A) and/or would have been obvious to arrive at during the course of routine experimentation with different materials.
With regard to claims 72-74, Veerasamy also teaches the conventional use of lead-free frits such as low-melting point vanadium-barium-zinc oxide frits (e.g. [0012, 0033]).
With regard to claim 75, Veerasamy also teaches the conventional practice of reheating a seal material & evacuating (e.g. [0018]).
With regard to claim 76, as Liang uses a heated nozzle to apply molten glass sealant to panes that are preheated to 300-350 deg. C (abstract), wherein one of ordinary skill would understand that the sealant would also be above that temperature & must be heated to at least 400 deg. C [0005] (and a difference between this exemplary high pane preheat temperature and exemplary low frit melting point temperature would also be well under 310 degrees).
Claim 70 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang et al., CN 201793481 (machine translation attached) in view of Veerasamy et al., US 2014/0087099 and Loubet, CA 996337 and further in view of Kawabe et al., US 5,985,069.
The teachings of Liang & Veerasamy & Loubet have been detailed above, and while these references do not expressly disclose whether a glass material dispensing nozzle has a ‘pressure control arrangement’ to control/start/stop the flow of material, this is of course believed to be implicit or otherwise prima facie obvious to incorporate. In any event, these were conventional features for such nozzles, as shown for example by Kawabe, which teaches a sealant dispensing nozzle comprising a position sensor (8) and pressure control means (11/12) to govern the amount of material needed at a given position (throughout, e.g. abstract, [FIGS. 1-8]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings & suggestions of Kawabe with those of Liang & Veerasamy & Loubet, in order to predictably provide increased control over a sealant dispensing step.
Claim 77 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang et al., CN 201793481 (machine translation attached) in view of Veerasamy et al., US 2014/0087099 and Loubet, CA 996337 and further in view of Cabo, US 2003/0014998.
The teachings of Liang & Veerasamy & Loubet have been detailed above, including the use of solventless binderless molten glass frit sealant application, and while these references do not expressly disclose whether said frit is a soda lime glass frit, as this is one of the most common type of glass pane materials, and it is generally desirable to use like materials with like coefficients of expansion, it is believed that it would have been prima facie obvious to try and use soda lime frit to match panes of this common glass during routine experimentation with common materials. Note also the teachings of Cabo, which fuse two glass sheets together with a composition comprising inexpensive soda lime glass frit (throughout, e.g. abstract, [0027 & FIGS. 1-8]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings & suggestions of Cabo with those of Liang & Veerasamy & Loubet, in order to predictably provide a quality seal using a known alternative type of low-melting frit which is readily available/inexpensive.
Claims 84-85 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang et al., CN 201793481 (machine translation attached) in view of Veerasamy et al., US 2014/0087099 and Loubet, CA 996337 and further in view of Naito et al., US 9,556,061.
The teachings of Liang & Veerasamy & Loubet have been detailed above, including the use of various evacuating methods for insulated glass assemblies, and while the exemplary embodiments of Liang teach evacuation after curing the edge seal, Liang also teaches both species of evacuating before & after curing the edge seal material [0006], either of which would have been obvious to try as the only possibilities. (wherein in either version, one of ordinary skill appreciates that they will necessarily compress the panes together against the spacers to form the desired product, and that this is a natural effect of evacuating the interior space of this type of sealed sandwich). While the prior art does not expressly disclose an example with evacuating after applying seal material but before hardening it, thus compressing said seal material down to a spacer-defined gap, this too was a conventional practice in the art, as shown for example by Naito, which uses the differential pressure of evacuating the interior space of an insulated glass assembly to compress its molten edge seal [FIG. 12]. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings & suggestions of Naito with those of Liang & Veerasamy & Loubet, in order to provide an evacuated assembly by a known alternative sequence of steps which predictably gives the panels their desired gap.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see response, “Remarks,” filed September 4, 2025 with respect to the prior art rejections of the claims have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
With regard to claim 64, in response to applicant's argument that a secondary reference Veerasamy is directed to seal material curing rather than pane preheating, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). One of ordinary skill would have readily understood that a more efficient, directed/local heating benefit of the prior art would be just as applicable to preheating pane portions as it is to heating sealant portions. Additionally, such an argument fails to address that the rejection of the claim was also based on a combination with Loubet, and its explicit teaching towards a beneficial, localized preheating of pane material at the sealant applying region (also, Veerasamy does teach heating the pane edges themselves – Applicant’s citations notes only that these pane edges are heated less, relative to the seal material). There is no proposal to bodily incorporate Veerasamy into Liang to somehow eliminate its preheating of the panes prior to sealant application, or to ‘reverse’ processes or to otherwise ‘boil/foam’ a frit paste; these hypotheticals are not relevant to the proposed rejection and are unexplained/unsupported by evidence and unpersuasive. It is maintained that it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in this art to apply the well-known & efficient, directed-energy applications of the prior art to known heating steps in this art, such as the VIG pane-preheating and/or frit-sealing methods of Liang.
With regard to new claims 86-87, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Applicants note that Loubet suggests a ‘for example’ preheat temperature of 100 deg. C, but this has no bearing on the proposed rejection. As noted previously, Liang already explicitly taught that the preheat temperatures of the pane edges is above 300 degrees, to bring them near to the high temperature of its molten glass frit sealant. It is noted that Loubet does not even concern itself with the composition of its meltable seal material, using the above temperature only once as an exemplary comparison with the higher melting temperature of a theoretical molten sealant bead which must obtain good wetting by hitting a preheated surface. This is the same principle as in Liang or in any other such preheating process – bringing a surface nearer to the temperature of an applied molten sealant, to avoid heat shock, save processing time, etc. The new claim limitations are already met by the teachings of Liang, which teaches these high temperatures for its similar glass frit material.
Applicant’s assertions that Loubet is not in the same field of endeavor, because it is directed to ‘hot melt organic seal’ and ‘no tempered glass’ (all assertions unsupported by citation/evidence) is moot, as the prior art still clearly teaches localized preheating prior to application of a molten pane edge sealing material, the precise problem with which Applicants were concerned. First, Examiner maintains that all applied art & the instant invention reside in the same field of forming evacuated glass pane assemblies with peripheral sealing materials (hence, why Loubet appears in Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement of relevant art). Second, as stated above, Loubet is also directed to Applicant’s particular problem of reducing a temperature difference between a molten sealant and the pane which it is being applied to, thus indisputably meeting the second prong of the analogous art test; see MPEP 2141.01(a). Even further still, as noted previously, one of ordinary skill in the art would have likely already arrived at localized preheating based merely on the teachings & suggestions of Liang’s preheating prior to coating with molten glass sealant & Veerasamy’s example of a more localized heating, which of course requires less energy – there is always a clear motivation for one in any art to reduce waste. The instant claims as written remain rather broad and are still not considered to be patentably distinguishable over the teachings & suggestions of the prior art.
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 JOHN BLADES whose telephone number is (571)270-7661. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 PST.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at (571)270-5038. 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.
/JOHN BLADES/
Examiner
Art Unit 1746
/PHILIP C TUCKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1745