DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 8 September 2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 3 – 9, and 11 – 13 remain pending in the application.
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, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 and 3 – 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jaeger (US 2009/0324858 A1) in view of Horiguchi (JP 2000-054745 A, referencing a machine translation thereof provided with this Office Action).
Regarding claim 1, Jaeger discloses a glass unit (“glazing element”, e.g. “glazing element” 110: e.g. Fig. 1 – 10; ¶¶ [0010] – [0113]) comprising:
a first glass plate (a “glass pane”, e.g. a first one of “glass pane” 1, “glass pane” 2, and “glass pane” 3: e.g. Fig. 1, 4 – 9; ¶¶ [0010] – [0014], [0018] – [0021], [0032] – [0036], [0038] – [0043], [0045], [0047], [0050], [0052], [0053], [0057] – [0059], [0061]);
a second glass plate that is arranged facing the first glass plate with a predetermined interval therebetween and forms an internal space with the first glass plate (an adjacent “glass pane” to the aforementioned “glass pane” corresponding to the first glass plate to form a “space”, e.g. “space” 4-1, 4-2: e.g. Fig. 1, 4 – 9; ¶¶ [0010] – [0014], [0018] – [0021], [0032] – [0036], [0038] – [0043], [0045], [0047], [0050], [0052], [0053], [0057] – [0059], [0061]);
a sealing member that seals a gap at peripheral edges of the first glass plate and the second glass plate (“seal”, e.g. “seal” 6-1, 6-2: e.g. Fig. 1, 5; ¶¶ [0014], [0040], [0050] – [0054]); and
a plurality of spacers arranged between the first glass plate and the second glass plate (“spacer assemblies”, e.g. “spacer assemblies” 5: e.g. Fig. 1, 4 – 7; ¶¶ [0014] ,[0036] – [0038], [0041] – [0044], [0046] – [0049], [0058]),
wherein
the spacers are each shaped as a circular column or as a polygonal column (e.g. ¶ [0046]),
the internal space has been depressurized to a vacuum state (e.g. ¶¶ [0043], [0044], [0050], [0052], [0053]),
the spacers have a compressive strength of, e.g., greater than 350 MPa (“resistance to compression”: e.g. ¶ [0043]),
the first and second glass plates each have a thickness of 10 mm or less, e.g. 6 mm or less (e.g. ¶ [0034]),
the spacers having a thermal conductivity of 25 W/m·K or less, e.g. 5 W/m·K or less (e.g. ¶ [0044]).
With respect to expression (1) and (2), Jaeger discloses embodiments wherein the spacers are cylindrical and have a diameter smaller than 1.5 mm (e.g. ¶ [0049]) and a maximum spacing of 60 mm (e.g. ¶ [0038]). Accordingly, the cross-sectional area S is less than
π
d
2
2
=
π
1.5
m
m
2
2
=
0.5625
π
m
m
2
=
5625
*
10
-
4
π
m
m
2
which encompasses expression (2). From this range, a maximum for R can also be established
800
π
0.5625
π
m
m
2
+
13
=
463
m
m
which Jaeger’s range of 60 mm or less falls within, satisfying expression (1).
Although Jaeger is not explicit as to the spacers being specifically a solid circular column with flat ends or a soldi polygonal column with flat ends, this feature would have been obvious in view of Horiguchi.
Horiguchi discloses spacers for glass units, wherein the spacers are shaped as solids with flat ends as this helps maintain a stable position of the spacer during assembly of the glass unit (“regular hexahedron”, i.e. a cube: e.g. Fig. 1, 6; ¶¶ [0005] – [0046]).
In one embodiment, Jaeger states the spacer can be rhombohedral or rectangular (e.g. ¶ [0046]), both of which can be understood to include cubes as a species thereof. Given Horiguchi assigns the property of stable positioning at least in part to a flat face of the spacer against a glass pane (e.g. ¶¶ [0007] – [0009], [0013] – [0016], [0025] – [0027], [0030], [0046]), similar advantages would have been understood to spacer shapes equivalent to cubes, including cylinders as Jaeger discloses (e.g. ¶¶ [0046], [0049]), on the faces thereof which are flat.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to form Jaeger’s spacers a solid circular columns with flat ends or as a solid polygonal column with flat ends as Horiguchi suggests, the motivation being that such a configuration is useful for maintaining the position of the spacers when manufacturing the glass unit.
The range Jaeger discloses for the compressive strength lies within the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP § 2144.05, I.
Additionally, the ranges Jaeger discloses for the thickness of the first and second glass plates, thermal conductivity, and cross-sectional area S encompass the respective claimed ranges. “[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.” In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See MPEP § 2144.05, I.
Regarding claim 3, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Jaeger discloses the spacers are arranged in a grid pattern (e.g. ¶ [0037]).
As to expression (3), Jaeger notes discloses the distance between adjacent spacers may be 20 mm to 50 mm (e.g. ¶ [0037]). Given S is at most 0.5625π mm2 as shown in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 1 in view of Jaeger and Horiguchi, this yields Pmin ≤ 463 mm, which Jaeger’s previously cited range satisfies.
Regarding claim 4, Jaeger discloses a glass unit (“glazing element”, e.g. “glazing element” 110: e.g. Fig. 1 – 10; ¶¶ [0010] – [0113]) comprising:
a first glass plate (a “glass pane”, e.g. a first one of “glass pane” 1, “glass pane” 2, and “glass pane” 3: e.g. Fig. 1, 4 – 9; ¶¶ [0010] – [0014], [0018] – [0021], [0032] – [0036], [0038] – [0043], [0045], [0047], [0050], [0052], [0053], [0057] – [0059], [0061]);
a second glass plate that is arranged facing the first glass plate with a predetermined interval therebetween and forms an internal space with the first glass plate (an adjacent “glass pane” to the aforementioned “glass pane” corresponding to the first glass plate to form a “space”, e.g. “space” 4-1, 4-2: e.g. Fig. 1, 4 – 9; ¶¶ [0010] – [0014], [0018] – [0021], [0032] – [0036], [0038] – [0043], [0045], [0047], [0050], [0052], [0053], [0057] – [0059], [0061]);
a sealing member that seals a gap at peripheral edges of the first glass plate and the second glass plate (“seal”, e.g. “seal” 6-1, 6-2: e.g. Fig. 1, 5; ¶¶ [0014], [0040], [0050] – [0054]); and
a plurality of spacers arranged between the first glass plate and the second glass plate (“spacer assemblies”, e.g. “spacer assemblies” 5: e.g. Fig. 1, 4 – 7; ¶¶ [0014] ,[0036] – [0038], [0041] – [0044], [0046] – [0049], [0058]),
wherein
the spacers are each shaped as a circular column or as a polygonal column (e.g. ¶ [0046]),
the internal space has been depressurized to a vacuum state (e.g. ¶¶ [0043], [0044], [0050], [0052], [0053]),
the spacers have a compressive strength of, e.g., greater than 350 MPa (“resistance to compression”: e.g. ¶ [0043]),
the first and second glass plates each have a thickness of 10 mm or less, e.g. 6 mm or less (e.g. ¶ [0034]),
the spacers having a thermal conductivity of 25 W/m·K or less, e.g. 5 W/m·K or less (e.g. ¶ [0044]).
With respect to expression (4) and (5), Jaeger discloses embodiments wherein the spacers are cylindrical and have an outer diameter Φ (mm) smaller than 1.5 mm (e.g. ¶ [0049]), which encompasses expression (5). Accordingly, expression (4) results in P ≤ 155 mm, which encompasses Jaeger pitch P (mm) of 20 to 60 mm of the spacers (e.g. ¶¶ [0037], [0038]), thus satisfying expression (4).
Although Jaeger is not explicit as to the spacers being specifically a solid circular column with flat ends or a soldi polygonal column with flat ends, this feature would have been obvious in view of Horiguchi.
Horiguchi discloses spacers for glass units, wherein the spacers are shaped as solids with flat ends as this helps maintain a stable position of the spacer during assembly of the glass unit (“regular hexahedron”, i.e. a cube: e.g. Fig. 1, 6; ¶¶ [0005] – [0046]).
In one embodiment, Jaeger states the spacer can be rhombohedral or rectangular (e.g. ¶ [0046]), both of which can be understood to include cubes as a species thereof. Given Horiguchi assigns the property of stable positioning at least in part to a flat face of the spacer against a glass pane (e.g. ¶¶ [0007] – [0009], [0013] – [0016], [0025] – [0027], [0030], [0046]), similar advantages would have been understood to spacer shapes equivalent to cubes, including cylinders as Jaeger discloses (e.g. ¶¶ [0046], [0049]), on the faces thereof which are flat.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to form Jaeger’s spacers a solid circular columns with flat ends or as a solid polygonal column with flat ends as Horiguchi suggests, the motivation being that such a configuration is useful for maintaining the position of the spacers when manufacturing the glass unit.
The range Jaeger discloses for the compressive strength lies within the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP § 2144.05, I.
Additionally, the ranges Jaeger discloses for the thickness of the first and second glass plates, thermal conductivity, and cross-sectional area S encompass the respective claimed ranges. “[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.” In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See MPEP § 2144.05, I.
Regarding claim 5, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Jaeger discloses an outer diameter Φ (mm) of the spacers is 1.5 mm or less (e.g. ¶ [0049]), which encompasses the claimed range. “[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.” In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See MPEP § 2144.05, I.
Regarding claim 6, in addition to the limitations of claim 5, Jaeger discloses a pitch P (mm) of the spacers is 20 mm or more and 60 mm or less (e.g. ¶¶ [0037], [0038]), and a compressive strength of the spacers is 1000 MPa or more (e.g. ¶ [0043]).
Jaeger’s pitch P overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP § 2144.05, I.
Meanwhile, Jaeger’s compressive strength encompasses the claimed range. “[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.” In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See MPEP § 2144.05, I.
Regarding claim 7, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Jaeger discloses an outer diameter Φ (mm) of the spacers is 1.5 mm or less (e.g. ¶ [0049]), which encompasses the claimed range. “[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.” In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See MPEP § 2144.05, I.
Regarding claim 8, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Jaeger discloses an outer diameter Φ (mm) of the spacers is 1.5 mm or less (e.g. ¶ [0049]), which encompasses the claimed range. “[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.” In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See MPEP § 2144.05, I.
Regarding claim 9, in addition to the limitations of claim 8, Jaeger discloses a compressive strength of the spacers is 1000 MPa or more (e.g. ¶ [0043]), which encompasses the claimed range. “[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.” In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See MPEP § 2144.05, I.
Regarding claim 11, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Jaeger discloses a pitch P (mm of the spacers is 20 mm or more and 60 mm or less (e.g. ¶¶ [0037], [0038]), which is within the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP § 2144.05, I.
Regarding claim 12, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Jaeger discloses the spacers are formed using a material that does not contain a carbon component (species are listed which do not contain carbon: e.g. ¶¶ [0043], [0044]).
Regarding claim 13, although Jaeger and Horiguchi are not explicit as to a fracture toughness value KIC of the spacers is 1.0 MPa·m1/2, as noted in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 1 in view of Jaeger and Horiguchi, Jaeger and Horiguchi provide spacers having substantially the same structure as claimed. Furthermore, Jaeger also provides the same compositions for the spacers which are thermally insulating (such as zirconium oxide: e.g. ¶¶ [0043], [0044]) as the instant specification (mentions zirconia, i.e. zirconium oxide: e.g. ¶ [0040]).
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). MPEP § 2112.01, I. Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists regarding the fracture toughness.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 5 – 9, filed 8 September 2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 1 and 3 – 13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Jaeger and Horiguchi.
Applicant asserts patentability on the basis that Vogel-Martin (WO 2017/155687 A1) and Abe (WO 2017/169253; US 2019/0112226) fail to teach, principally, spacers with the further descriptions of a solid circular or polygonal column with flat ends. Applicant asserts patentability on the basis of implied descriptions of the terms “solid” and “flat ends” from the published application (p. 6 of the Remarks).
Jaeger and Horiguchi are collectively cited for teaching spacers which meets the features Applicant considers within the scope of the claim terms.
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 ETHAN A UTT whose telephone number is (571)270-0356. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 7:30 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. Central.
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, Veronica Ewald can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
/ETHAN A. UTT/Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783