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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 24 limits the claimed invention to the first glass sheet and/or the second glass sheet being paired after placing the heartened softened glass frit powder material where claim 25 which depends from claim 24 to be limited to the first glass sheet and second glass sheet are paired before placing the heartened softened glass frit powder material.
The limitations are opposite and it is unclear to the Examiner how 24 is capable of depending from claim 25.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 24, 29, 31 and 43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 6558494) and further in view of Simone (US 6494245).
Regarding claims 24 and 43, Wang discloses a method of providing an edge sealing in a process of providing a vacuum insulated glass unit (title) comprising paired glass sheets (2, 3) separated by support structures (5) maintaining a gap between sheets (2, 3) the method comprises:
Providing a first and second glass sheet (2,3)
Applying glass frit seal material to the glass sheet
Preheating the glass sheet with the frit applied thereon to evaporate solvent in said frit, or pre-heating the paired glass sheets including the frit (at least Fig 7, Col 9; lines 45-59)
Wang ‘494 discloses preheating the glass sheets as motivated to prevent thermal shock in the glass during subsequent processing steps (Col 9; lines 55-69).
A final heating via microwave energy of the frit to form a seal (Col 9; lines 65-69)
Evacuation between the sheets to form a VIG unit (Fig 7, Col 10; lines 7-10), is known to occur in some location thus considered an evacuation chamber given the broadest reasonable interpretation, further see Kim abstract)
Wang has identified benefits of heating the glass sheet to a temperature above 200 deg Celsius while in contact with the frit, but prior to a reheating step may yield the benefits of preventing thermal shock, reduce likelihood of cracking and aids in diffusing the frit into the glass for improved bonding (Col 10; line 62-Col 11; line 3) (Col 9; lines 55-60).
It would be obvious to heat the glass sheet
1) before the frit is applied
2) after the frit is applied
As motivated to prevent thermal shock of the glass when the frit is then melted.
"a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103."KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397.”
Wang discloses evacuating the gap via pump out tube which is done in an environment considered an evacuation chamber given the broadest reasonable interpretation (Col 1; lines 35-44). Yielding a hermetic seal (Col 1 line 55) thus air-tight given the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Wang is silent about the means of deposition of the glass frit.
In analogous art of applying a sealant to manufacture insulated glass (Col 1; line 15-30), Simone discloses an automated apparatus and method step of dispensing the sealant on the perimeter of the glass sheet (Col 5; lines 50-62) with adjusting the sealant dispensing flow via heat or pressure (at least claim 10).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to look for a means of dispensing the sealant for the insulated glass and be motivated to modify the method of Wang with the dispensing of Simone as motivated for an automated, means of dispensing a sealant for insulated glass with controlled flow, predetermined shapes and sizes, proper positioning (see advantages in Col 24 of Simone).
The heating of the glass frit of Wang to flow in a known dispensing means of Simone yields the claimed step of heating to a softening temperature.
The combined teachings of Wang and Simone disclose a perimeter of frit disposed on a first or second glass sheet and thereafter the microwave energy is provided locally to along the frit (Col 6; lines 45-50). There is necessarily some cooling because not all of the softened frit is immediately cured. Furthermore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have a break in the method without departing from the scope of the invention of Wang, this would naturally yield cooling.
Regarding claims 25, MPEP 2144.04 Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. App. 1959) (Prior art reference disclosing a process of making a laminated sheet wherein a base sheet is first coated with a metallic film and thereafter impregnated with a thermosetting material was held to render prima facie obvious claims directed to a process of making a laminated sheet by reversing the order of the prior art process steps.). See also In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results)
It would be obvious to apply the softened frit before or after the first and second glass sheet are paired without unexpected results.
Regarding claim 29, Wang discloses the glass sheets (2,3) are tempered (Col 6; lines 18-24)
Regarding claim 31, Wang discloses the microwave beam (17) directs heat at the applied glass frit.
Claim(s) 25 is alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 6558494) and Simone (US 6494245) as applied above and further in view of Streitsov (US 20180362400).
Regarding claim 25, In an analogous art of forming VIG units with spacers, Streitsov discloses It is obvious to align a first and second glass pane before providing an edge sela (30) [0033].
MPEP 2144.04 Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. App. 1959) (Prior art reference disclosing a process of making a laminated sheet wherein a base sheet is first coated with a metallic film and thereafter impregnated with a thermosetting material was held to render prima facie obvious claims directed to a process of making a laminated sheet by reversing the order of the prior art process steps.). See also In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results)
It would be obvious to apply the softened frit before or after the first and second glass sheet are paired without unexpected results.
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 6558494) and further in view of Simone (US 6494245) as applied above and further in view of Lemmer (US 20120164420).
Regarding claims 27, Wang and Simone make obvious forming a vacuum insulated glass as disclosed in claim 24 however does not precisely state the softened frit powder is conducted within or outside of the vacuum chamber.
Lemmer discloses IR heat treatment may be performed at any time once the layer to be treated has been deposited [0098], thus it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at any time after the frit has been deposited without unexpected results.
Claim(s) 24-25, 27, 29-32, 35-37, 41-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 20090151855) and further in view of Wang (US 6558494) herein after referred to Wang ‘494 and Kim (US 20190186192) and as evidenced by
Chenxing Xin, Zheng Li, Liang Hao, Yan Li, A comprehensive review on additive manufacturing of glass: Recent progress and future outlook, Materials & Design, Volume 227, 2023, as viewed at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2023.111736. And referred to as Xin herein after.
Regarding claims 24 and 43, Wang discloses a method of providing an edge sealing in a process of providing a vacuum insulated glass unit (title, abstract) comprising paired glass sheets separated by support structures maintaining a gap between said paired glass sheets, wherein the method comprises:
providing a first glass sheet and a second glass sheet, first and second substantially parallel spaced-apart glass substrates (Claim 1),
placing a glass frit powder on the periphery of the glass sheet [0005],
re-heating the applied glass frit powder material by use of at least one heat source “uniform heat sources” and localized heating to the perimeter of the VIG assembly so as to melt the ceramic frit applied to the edges” [0049]/[0058]-[0060];
evacuating the gap between the paired glass sheets in a vacuum chamber and sealing the paired glass sheets to provide the VIG unit (at least claim 10).
Wang discloses tempered glass is least to lose its tempered strength at about 428 deg Celsius for an hour [0009] and
Analogous art of forming a VIG Wang ‘494 has identified benefits of pre-heating the glass sheet to a temperature above 200 deg Celsius may yield the benefits of preventing thermal shock, reduce likelihood of cracking with local heat sealing of the frit and aids in diffusing the frit into the glass for improved bonding (Col 10; line 62-Col 11; line 3) (Col 9; lines 55-60) (Col 11; lines 33-41).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try pre-heating the glass sheet prior to application of the frit reasonable expectation of the benefits taught by Wang and Wang ‘494 described above.
"a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103."KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397.”
Wang teaches the frit is applied to the edges [0005] however fails to disclose precisely how the frit is applied.
In the analogous art of making a VIG, Kim discloses applying frit to a glass to melt and create a seal wherein the frit [0020]
may be deposited using a sputtering process, mechanical deposition process, a manual deposition process, a chemical vapor deposition, a pyrolysis processes, a spray coating process, a photolithographic process, a screen printing process, a 3D printing process, an inkjet printing process, such as a piezoelectric inkjet printing process, or a combination thereof [0029]
the primary reference Wang is silent as to how to apply the glass frit thus it would be obvious to one skilled in the art to look to Kim as motivated to find a suitable methods of frit application to a glass sheet during manufacture of a VIG.
The method of 3D or FDM printing glass compositions uses heating. Furthermore, it is evidenced by Xin Table 1 that all glass containing 3D printing technology of FDM first appeared in 2015 (Table 1) and FDM of glass frit uses heat extrusion (Table 2). Thus the combined modification of Wang with Kim makes obvious a heated softened frit deposition via 3D printing to a skilled artisan.
Regarding claim 25-26, MPEP 2144.04 states:
Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. App. 1959) (Prior art reference disclosing a process of making a laminated sheet wherein a base sheet is first coated with a metallic film and thereafter impregnated with a thermosetting material was held to render prima facie obvious claims directed to a process of making a laminated sheet by reversing the order of the prior art process steps.). See also In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results); In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930) (Selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious.).
It would be obvious to a skilled artisan would be motivated to apply the frit to the panes before or after pairing and achieve the final heated seal of the panes without unexpected results.
Regarding claim 27, Wang states the evacuation is performed following and or during the cooling step (at least claim 10) and the frit is applied before the pre-heating unit (claim 1 and 21) [0044]-[0047], [0062]
Wang does not specifically state the localized laser heating must occur in or out of the vacuum chamber, In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results).
Wang suggests that multiple chambers or zones or a single chamber/zone may be used [0044] that it is necessary to control the temperature to allow the frit to heat sufficiently [0046].
Analogous art Kim also states other order of steps may be contemplated by a skilled artisan [0031]
It would be obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Wang with the re-heating during the evacuation/vacuum chamber as motivated to efficiently seal the frit at the edges without overheating the glass substrates and evacuate the space between, there are no new or unexpected results associated with precisely placing the re-heating in the vacuum chamber.
Regarding claim 29, Wang states the glass may be tempered [0015], Wang suggests thermal tempering [0043], [0081],
Alternatively, Examiner takes official notice chemically strengthening, which is considered an ion source, is a well-known method of tempering or strengthening glass sheets.
Regarding claim 30, Wang indicates the temperature suitable to melt the frit is 350-500 deg. C [0057] and the temperature ramp down, or cooling, to 100 deg C upon exiting the oven. Evacuating is performed during or just after said cooling (claim 10) thus the VIG could be evacuated in any temperature range of 100-400 deg C. Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious.
Alternatively it would be obvious to a skilled artisan to be motivated to evacuate the VIG assembly during a temperature zone in which the glass frit is heated to a sealing/melting temperature but the sheets are not so heated as to cause deformation or a loss of tempering as indicated in Fig 3 of Wang, thus about 600-800 deg C. in [0057]/[0030] Wang.
Regarding claim 31, at least one heat source is directing the majority of the heating energy at the applied glass frit powder material (see for example laser source directed in Fig 7).
Regarding claim 32, Wang suggests the heat source comprises a near-infrared or an infrared light source [0043], which may be a lamp [0077]
Regarding claim 35, Wang discloses a glass frit powder material melts from 300-500 deg C [0057] thus a low temperature glass frit powder material given the indicated claim interpretation.
Regarding claim 36, Wang states the temperature below the melting temperature of the frit is 200-300°C thus the softening temperature is above 300°C and wherein the glass frit powder material is applied at substantially that temperature because given the broadest reasonable interpretation “applied” is considered the melting frit to the plates.
Regarding claim 37, Wang is silent as to the composition of the frit. Kim discloses a low temperature frit sealing material having at least zinc oxide [0029]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to look for suitable frit components known in the art such as those taught by Kim for a VIG.
Regarding claim 38, Wang discloses a lead including frit for a lower temperature [0043] Wang does not state “wherein the glass frit powder material comprises less than 0.1 wt% lead.” It would be obvious to optimize the amount of lead as motivated to achieve the desired frit softening temperature.
Regarding claim 41, Wang ‘484 discloses the pre-heating the sheets by an oven and re-heating of the applied glass frit powder is via microwave or as indicated by Wang laser.
Regarding claim 42, Wang discloses the re-heating of the applied glass frit powder material at least partly re-softens the applied glass frit powder material, so that the applied glass frit powder material at least partly melts [0049].
Regarding claims 44-45, Kim suggests the frit
may be deposited using a sputtering process, mechanical deposition process, a manual deposition process, a chemical vapor deposition, a pyrolysis processes, a spray coating process, a photolithographic process, a screen printing process, a 3D printing process, an inkjet printing process, such as a piezoelectric inkjet printing process, or a combination thereof [0029]
wherein [0022] Kim suggests a suitable frit to fully melt at temperatures less than or equal to the softening temperature of 250-750 deg. Celsius of a suitable glass. Thus the temperature at the time of deposition is expected to be above the softening temperature of the suitable glass taught by Kim and the suitable frit taught by Kim for FDM must lie within 250-750 deg. Celsius.
It would be mere optimization of the skilled artisan to determine an optimum preheated temperature of the glass as motivated that it does not soften, melt, deform or lose temper and it would be obvious to a skilled artisan to be motivated to optimize the temperature of the frit such that it can easily flow through the 3D or FDM nozzle.
Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 1997)(Claims were unpatentable because appellants failed to submit evidence of criticality of the claimed ranges
Claim(s) 24 is alternatively rejected and claims 37 and 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 20090151855) and Wang ‘494 of Kim (US 20190186192) and as evidenced by Xin above and further in view of Petrmichl (US 20170232712).
Regarding claim 37, Wang, Wang ‘494 and Kim make obvious claim 24 above
Wang desires a “low temperature glass frit powder material” sealing layer that is well-known to melt between 300-500 deg. C as indicated on page 6 of the remarks filed 11/13/2024. Wang is silent as to the composition of the glass frit.
Petrmichl discloses frit for a VIG of at least one oxide selected from vanadium oxide, barium oxide, zinc oxide, bismuth oxide, aluminum oxide, silicon oxide, magnesium oxide, chromium oxide, iron oxide, cobalt oxide, sodium oxide, manganese oxide, tantalum oxide, molybdenum oxide, niobium oxide, tellurium oxide [0036]-[0037]
It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to look to the available art as motivated to find a suitable frit for a VIG.
Regarding claims 24 and 40, Wang does not suggest a clamping arrangement step.
In an analogous art of manufacturing a VIG Petrmichl discloses clamping first and second glass substrates;
providing a plurality of infrared (IR) absorbing clamps around a peripheral area of the VIG assembly, the IR absorbing clamps clamping the first and second glass substrates together and during directing IR energy from at least one IR source toward frit so as to form the edge seal. (at least claim 1) The clamps apply pressure to compress the frit to the desired height and hold the glass substrate in place [0033].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Wang with the step of providing clamps taught by Petrmichl as motivated by compressing the frit to the desired height and hold the glass substrate in place.
The clamp application is a break in heating and thus considered a cooling step.
Claim(s) 24-25, 27, 29-32, 34-36,40-42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Liang (CN 201793481) machine translation provided herein and Cooper (US 20090151853) and further in view of Kim (US 20190186192) and as evidenced by
Regarding claims 24-25, Liang discloses a method, and resulting product, of providing an edge sealing in a process of providing a vacuum insulated glass unit (title, abstract) comprising paired glass sheets separated by support structures maintaining a gap between said paired glass sheets, wherein the method comprises:
providing a first glass sheet and a second glass sheet (1/2) [0021]
pre-heating the sheets (abstract) 300-350 deg. Celsius [0006]
applying a softened glass frit material via low-melting glass powder heating device (6/8), considered to soften the glass powder to paired substrates (2 and 1) [0025], [0021]/[0026];
evacuating the gap between the paired sheets in a vacuum device [0021]/[0026] and thus sealing the paired sheets providing a VIG.
Liang does not expressly state the claim limitation of re-heating the applied glass frit powder material by use of at least one heat source.
In an analogous art of forming a VIG, Cooper discloses providing localized heating to the frit via a laser to seal the VIG and avoid melting the glass sheets at least [0056] which may occur in the evacuation chamber [0026].
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Liang with localized frit heating as motivated to efficiently seal the frit at the edges without overheating the glass substrates and prevents de-tempering.
Liang does not explicitly state cooling the softened applied frit to a solidifying temperature.
Any break in the process between applying the frit and melting using the laser, such as moving the assembly to another location would obviously have cooling and the prior art not explicitly need disclose the term “cooling” verbatim for this to be obvious to a skilled artisan.
Additionally, Cooper states there may be additional cooling or heating applied in any chamber and/or to the edges so that frit can be heated and cooled quickly [0058-[0059]. It would be obvious to cool the applied softened frit as motivated to reduce any temperature gradient and reduce de-tempering/ breakage of the assembly.
Regarding claim 27, Liang applies the heated frit prior to the glass being in the vacuumizing device thus a skilled artisan would have reason to believe it occurs at atmospheric pressure.
Additionally In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results).
In the present rejection the process steps of re-heating applied glass frit powder to form vacuum insulated glass is known in Cooper and using a vacuum chamber or evacuation device to form vacuum insulated glass is known in the prior art of both Liang and Cooper.
It would be obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Liang with the re-heating before after or during the evacuation/vacuum chamber as motivated to efficiently seal the frit at the edges without overheating the glass substrates, there are no new or unexpected results associated with precisely placing the re-heating solely in the vacuum chamber.
Regarding claim 29, Liang discloses the first glass sheet and the second glass sheet have been toughened or strengthened [0021] by thermal tempering [0027]
Regarding claim 30, Liang does not explicitly recite the temperature of the glass sheets during the vacuum step.
Liang discloses the glass is maintained between 300-350 degrees Celsius so the toughened glass can retain the characteristics of toughened glass.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the temperature of the glass within these temperatures of between 300-350 degrees Celsius during vacuuming so the toughened glass can retain the characteristics of toughened glass.
Regarding claim 31, the at least one heat source of Cooper is directing the majority of the heating energy at the applied glass frit powder material (see for example laser source directed in Fig 7).
Regarding claim 32, the heat source comprises a near-infrared or an infrared light source [0035], wherein the near-infrared or infrared light source is obviously a continuous wave laser or a pulsed laser because these are the only options, an infrared lamp.
Regarding claim 34, Liang discloses preheating the glass sheets [0021] before applying the heated, softened glass frit powder material at the first glass sheet and/or the second glass sheet [0021].
Liang does not explicitly state the glass sheet temperature is lower than the softening temperature of the frit however Liang discusses this is a known problem in the art that the frit melting temperature is 400-550 degrees Celsius and melting of the frit causes the toughened glass to be completely annealed [0004]. Optimizing the temperatures of the heated frit upon application, relative to the pre-heated glass is a matter of determining the optimum temperature for effectively sealing the glass by fully melting the frit while avoiding overheating the glass sheets and maintaining the compressive forces that toughen the glass.
Regarding claim 35, the glass frit powder material Liang discloses is a low temperature glass frit powder material given the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Regarding claim 36, Liang is concerned with the softening temperature of the glass and provides a temperature monitoring system such that the glass can be heated without losing the toughening characteristics and the frit is to be melted to create a seal. As indicated above, Cooper makes obvious additional localized heating to the frit to ensure melting of the frit without melting the substrate.
It would be obvious where Liang discloses pre-heating optimum at 300-350 degrees Celsius [0027] that the frit be applied at a similar temperature as motivated to avoid over heating the glass substrates upon application of the heated frit.
Regarding claim 40, Liang discloses a clamping arrangement (3) provides a compression force to the edge sealing material during and/or after re-heating of the applied glass frit powder material [0021].
Regarding claims 41-42, Liang suggests a first heating arrangement (5) provides a pre-heating of the glass sheets [0021], and Cooper makes obvious a second heat source of localized heating provides re-heating of the applied glass frit powder material while said pre-heating is provided (Cooper [0046]/[0056]), the frit powder will soften under the localized heating.
Claim(s) 29 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Liang (CN 201793481) machine translation provided herein and Cooper (US 20090151853) and further in view of Kim (US 20190186192) as applied above and further in view of Grzybowski et al. (US 20120247063) .
Regarding claim 29, Liang discloses the first glass sheet and the second glass sheet have been toughened or strengthened [0021] however is silent as to chemically strengthening.
In an analogous art of forming a VIG, Grzybowski discloses toughened glass that is chemically strengthened [0076]/ [0085], thus ion exchanged by any ion exchange process known in the art. Grzybowski specifically suggests ion exchange via molten salt, or as is well-known in the art for ion exchange strengthening a skilled artisan would be inclined to use toughened glass wherein the toughening is via ion salt paste, ion implantation of plasma.
Claim(s) 33 and 37-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Liang (CN 201793481) machine translation provided herein and Cooper (US 20090151853) and further in view of Kim (US 20190186192) as applied above and further in view of Veerasamy (US 20140087099).
Regarding claim 33, Liang discloses the base method of manufacturing a VIG including pre-heating of the glass and applying heated softened frit, Cooper makes obvious localized heating of the frit with radiation to further heat the frit while avoiding heating the entire glass substrate.
In an analogous art Veerasamy also discloses methods of manufacturing vacuum insulated glass, or VIG, using localized radiation heating.
Veerasamy suggests any suitable laser, continuous or pulsed at a suitable power, spot size and duration may be used [0042]-[0044] and provides a controlled feedback loop for optimizing such parameters to heat and locally melt the frit, or solder, throughout the manufacturing process as necessary (at least [0032]-[0033]).
Liang does not explicitly state the frit composition. Veerasamy suggests frit compositions of vanadium oxide, barium oxide, silicon oxide, bismuth oxide, zinc oxide and containing some lead[0009], [0011]-[0012], [0033]. It is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to reduce the lead content as much as possible as motivated by specific countries limiting or forbidding the use of lead in electronics [0012]
Where Liang does not disclose the low melting frit composition it would be obvious to one skilled in the art to look to the frit compositions of Veerasamy as motivated to find a suitable frit for sealing a vacuum insulated glass.
Additionally, in view of Veerasamy it would be obvious to a skilled artisan to optimize the spot size of the laser to locally heat the frit and fully seal the VIG.
Specifically regarding claim 39, Veerasamy discloses the frit may include an organic binder [0012]
Claim(s) 39 is/are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Liang (CN 201793481) machine translation provided herein and Cooper (US 20090151853) and further in view of Kim (US 20190186192) and as applied above and further in view of Axtell (US 20180009700).
Regarding claim 39, Liang does not specifically disclose the frit comprising binder or solvent.
In an analogous art of frit (title) for use in vacuum insulated glass [0228} Axtell discloses the dry frit powder may have a suitable amount of binder or solvent so it is suitable for application of printing, roll coating, ink jet printing, spraying [0103]-[0106]. It would be obvious for one skilled in the art to use to use binder or solvent in the frit of Liang as motivated that it is suitable to be applied as desired by the manufacturer.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/27/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s remarks discuss independent claim 24 are amended to include “conducted in a vacuum chamber”.
Applicant asserts that the amendment overcomes the claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102. Examiner believes Applicant intended to state the amendment overcomes the claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 and agrees.
Wang ‘484 and Simone claim 24
Applicant argues the rejection of the amendment overcomes the claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 that Wang ‘494’ teaches a frit with solvent and or binder and the instant application such solvents and binders are not needed and the claimed process can be sped up.
Applicant argues that that if a skilled person preheat the glass and then applied the frit paste the applied frit paste would fail due to violent boiling.
Applicant fails to address that Wang ‘494 discloses preheating the glass sheets as motivated to prevent thermal shock in the glass during subsequent processing steps (Col 9; lines 55-69). Therefore the frit need not be deposited prior to preheating because it is the glass that needs to be preheated to prevent thermal shock.
The fact that the prior art uses a frit with binder or solvent does not negate this teaching for preheating the glass substrates in the prior art nor does it make the present claim nonobvious over the disclosure of Wang ‘494.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Stating that using the frit deposition nozzle of Simone in the method of Wang ‘494 would yield clogging or failure is not based on fact or evidence, simply a statement of Applicant. Claim 24 does not require a particular frit composition and particle size thus there are furthermore no unexpected results in present independent claim 24 and Applicant uses this reasoning that the binder and solvent in Wang ‘494’ would not motivate a skilled artisan to preheat the glass substrates to be pre-heated before placing the frit however Examiner disagrees because Wang ‘494’ clearly discloses preheating the substrates prevents thermal shock of the glass in subsequent local heating of the frit which is a disclosed reasonable expectation of success..
Wang ‘855 and Wang ‘484 and Kim and Xin claim 24
Applicant argues Wang ‘855 is silent about how the frit is applied and Kim is relied on for depositing the frit using 3D printing. Applicant argues that Wang ‘494 uses a frit with a solvent and binder and the instant application uses neither. Applicant argues a difference in a frit of the present claims and prior art cited. And points out the difference between each prior art reference but fails to argue the rejection as a whole. 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).
Applicant asserts that there is no teaching in Wang ‘855 of “re-heating” of amended claim 24.
Wang ‘855 discloses tempered glass is least to lose its tempered strength at about 428 deg Celsius for an hour [0009] and local IR heating to melt the frit
Wang ‘494 has identified benefits of pre-heating the glass sheet to a temperature above 200 deg Celsius may yield the benefits of preventing thermal shock, reduce likelihood of cracking with local heat sealing of the frit and aids in diffusing the frit into the glass for improved bonding (Col 10; line 62-Col 11; line 3) (Col 9; lines 55-60) (Col 11; lines 33-41).
Liang Cooper and Kim claim 24
Applicant argues Liang discloses pouring already melted frit to form a seal on the pre-heated sheets to create a seal and it would be unnecessary to have a re-heating sealing step.
Examiner disagrees, Liang states herein a vacuum pumping device; the vacuum pumping device vacuumizes the gap between the two glass substrates through said glass pump-line; and after achieving the required vacuity, said glass pump-line is fused and sealed to maintain the vacuity
In combination with the teachings of Cooper it is clearly disclosed a skilled artisan would be motivated to heat and cool the substrates and frit
Cooper states there may be additional cooling or heating applied in any chamber and/or to the edges so that frit can be heated and cooled quickly [0058-[0059]. It would be obvious to cool the applied softened frit as motivated to reduce any temperature gradient and reduce de-tempering/ breakage of the assembly.
Cooling the softened applied frit prior to localized heating in the vacuum chamber yields the expected results of an evacuated sealed VIG with controlled or avoided de-tempering as disclosed by 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 JODI COHEN FRANKLIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3966. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 am-4 pm.
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, Alison Hindelang can be reached at (571) 270-7001. 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.
JODI COHEN FRANKLIN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1741
/JODI C FRANKLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741