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 .
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.
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:
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over U.S. 2018/0066469 A1 (“Vogel-Martin”) in view of U.S. 2017/0022100 A1 (“Masters ‘100”) and EP 1918493 A1 (“Horiguchi”).
Considering claims 1, 6, and 8, Vogel-Martin discloses a vacuum insulated glass having two glass panes and a vacuum gap located between the glass panes, wherein the vacuum gap is sealed from the exterior via an edge seal bonded to the glass panes. (Vogel-Martin ¶ 0181 and Figs. 12A and12B). Vogel-Martin is analogous art, for it is directed to the same field of endeavor as that of the instant application (VIGs). Vogel-Martin further discloses that a plurality of pillars (used as spacers) is located within the vacuum gap, wherein the pillars directly contact the glass panes and are arranged in an orderly fashion, and wherein the pillars have heights of 0.01 to 2 mm and maximum width of 0.01 to 2 mm. (Id. ¶¶ 0057-0071 and Figs. 2A-6B). In certain embodiments, the pillars have diameter of 0.5 mm (cross-sectional area of 0.196 mm2) and height of 0.2 mm. (Id. Table 1). As such, it is readily apparent that the broader disclosures re: dimensions of the pillars overlap the claimed dimensions recited in claims 6 and 8, and that the dimensions of the specific example read on the claimed dimensions with sufficient specificity. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. (See In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90, In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, and In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379; MPEP § 2144.05).
Vogel-Martin further discloses that compressive strength of the pillars is 400 MPa to 12 GPa. (Vogel-Martin ¶ 0129). This range thus overlaps the disclosed range. Thus, the claimed pitch is at least obvious. As “vacuum” is literally in the name of the product (albeit with vacuum meaning pressure orders of magnitude less than atmospheric pressure), interior pressure of 50.7 KPa or less (essentially half of atmospheric pressure at sea level) is also a well-known feature of VIGs. (See e.g. the teachings of, Andersen and ¶ 0102 of Vogel-Martin).
As pitch is equal to diameter + spacing, and as Vogel-Martin discloses 0.01 to 2 mm for the former and 20 mm for the latter in a particular case (that of Table 1) where pillar diameter is 0.5 mm, it is clear that pitch in excess of 15 mm is disclosed with sufficient specificity or alternatively obvious. As an alternative, to the foregoing, Vogel-Martin discloses that arrangements of parts of the VIG other than the pillars per se is according to conventional techniques. (Id. ¶ 0181). It is noted that at least in Masters ‘100, spacing of tens of millimeters is known. (Masters ‘100 ¶ 0024).
Vogel-Martin discloses that in general, pillar height variation can be reduced by the application of a compliant material. (Vogel-Martin ¶ 0177). Furthermore, Vogel-Martin discloses the ability to minimize non-uniformity for the fine features located on the surfaces of spacers of certain embodiments, wherein fine structures having height up to 0.5 mm have maximum variance of 1% (0.005 mm). (Id. ¶¶ 0090 and 0094). As such, with Vogel-Martin disclosing minimizing height variation by usage of compliant material and with Vogel-Martin additionally demonstrating the capability to controlling height variation, Vogel-Martin is considered to have suggested spacers without fine features but having compliant material, wherein such spacer can have height difference on the order of 0.005 mm.
Re: the claimed radius of curvature, it is noted that it is known in the art to design convex spacers having radius of curvature of 900 to 2,600 microns (0.9 to 2.6 mm) for the surface that contacts a glass pane, wherein such curvature is more gradual (as in having greater radius of curvature) as compared to peripheral portions of the spacer. (Masters ‘100 ¶¶ 0031-0033). In particular, Masters ‘100 notes that this more gradual radius of curvature reduces stress. (Id. ¶ 0033). Given that the spacer/pillar of Vogel-Martin can be tapered, and as the curved spacers of Masters ‘100 has similar dimensions (width of a few hundred microns) and arrangements, it would have been obvious, to a person of ordinary skill at the time of the claimed invention to have used the shape taught in Masters ‘100 to the VIG of Vogel-Martin, in order to reduce stress.
It is noted that an additional difference between the spacers of Vogel-Martin and Masters ‘100 and the spacers as claimed is that only one end face is curved. However, as taught in Horiguchi, a VIG spacer can have two curved convex surfaces facing respective glass panes (configuration as recited in claim 1) or alternatively have one planar portion facing one glass pane and one curved convex surface facing the other glass pane. (Horiguchi ¶¶ 0009-0025 and Figs. 1-7). As such, it would have been obvious, to a person of ordinary skill at the time of the claimed invention, to have utilized a plurality of spacers, each having two curved convex surfaces, as Horiguchi is considered to have shown that such a configuration is functionally equivalent to the configuration taught in Vogel-Martin and Masters ‘100.
Vogel-Martin in view of Masters ‘100 and Horiguchi renders obvious claims 1, 6, and 8.
Considering claim 3, direct contact is shown in Fig. 12B of Vogel-Martin.
Considering claim 5, in view of what is known of VIGs, pressure of 2.67 Pa is also considered obvious.
Considering claim 7, Vogel-Martin discloses that each pillar is primarily formed of a ceramic material such as alumina or stabilized zirconia. (Id. ¶ 0129). Such material is known to have Young’s Modulus in excess of 100 GPa.
Response to Arguments and Additional Comments
In view of amendments to claim 1, the previously instated prior art rejection over at least Vogel-Martin has been withdrawn. New rejection has been instated above.
Requiring each of the spacers to be monolithic (as in formed of the same material throughout) would define claim 1 over the rejection above, as the portion of Vogel-Martin relied upon above is directed to a spacer that is not monolithic, as each spacer has one portion made of one distinct material and another portion made of the compliant material.
Concluding Remarks
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 Zheren Jim Yang whose telephone number is (571)272-6604. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10:30 - 7:30 ET.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached on (571)270-1547. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Z. Jim Yang/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781