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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2 April 2026 has been entered.
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, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over U.S. 2005/0138892 A1 (“Misonou”) in view of U.S. 2018/0066469 A1 (“Vogel-Martin”), U.S. 2017/0022100 A1 (“Masters ‘100”), and EP 1918493 A1 (“Horiguchi”).
Considering claims 1, 5, and 8, Misonou 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, wherein the vacuum gap is evacuated to a pressure below 10 Pa (0.01 kPa) and wherein the VIG has overall U-value (thermal transmission value) less than 0.6 W/(m2K). (Misonou ¶¶ 0012-0019). Both values fall within the respective claimed values recited in claims 1, 5, and 8. Misonou discloses each of the glass panes has thickness of 2 to 8 mm, with specific examples of 3.0 mm for each. (Id. ¶¶ 0040 and 0058). Misonou is analogous art, for it is directed to the same field of endeavor as that of the instant application (VIGs).
Although Misonou discloses usage of spacers (pillars) arranged at pitch of at least 15 mm, Misonou does not teach spacer having the requisite shape and composition as claimed. Vogel-Martin teaches a plurality of pillars used as spacers for a VIG, 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 1 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 taught 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 teaches 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 pitch is equal to diameter + spacing, and as Vogel-Martin teaches 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 20 mm is taught with sufficient specificity or alternatively obvious. As an alternative, to the foregoing, Vogel-Martin teaches 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 teaches that in general, pillar height variation can be reduced by the application of a compliant material. (Vogel-Martin ¶ 0177). Furthermore, Vogel-Martin teaches 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 teaching 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. It would have been obvious, to a person of ordinary skill at the time of the claimed invention to have used the pillars of Vogel-Martin for the pillars in the VIG of Misonou, as the pillars of Vogel-Martin exhibit particularly low level of thermal transmission (of 2.1 W/(mK)) and high compressive strength. (Id. Table 1 and 0129).
Vogel-Martin differs from the claimed spacer, as it does not teach the claimed radius of curvature for both opposite surfaces of its pillar. 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.
Re: the presence of curved opposing surfaces, 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.
Misonou in view of Vogel-Martin, Masters ‘100, and Horiguchi renders obvious claims 1 and 8.
Considering claim 3, direct contact is shown in Fig. 12B of Vogel-Martin, and Misonou allows the absence of a low-e coating on one glass plate (thus allowing for direct contact on that glass plate). (Misonou ¶ 0037).
Considering claim 7, Vogel-Martin teaches that each pillar is primarily formed of a ceramic material such as alumina or stabilized zirconia. (Vogel-Martin ¶ 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
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
Prosecution Insights