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 .
Applicant's submission filed on 2/12/26 has been entered. Claims 44-45, 47-49, 51 and 62-65 are pending examination, claims 52-61 are withdrawn and claims 1-43, 46, and 50 are canceled.
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 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) 44-45, 47-49, 51, and 63-65 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rozbicki et al (US 2014/0182125; hereafter Rozbicki) in view of Varaprasad et al (US 2009/0068350; hereafter Varaprasad), and Morgan (US 2,383,470; hereafter Morgan).
Claim 44: Rozbicki teaches a method of processing a transparent conductive oxide layer (TCO) coated glass substrate (See, for example, abstract, [0031-0033], [0039],[0062] Fig 1-3), the method comprising:
(b) forming a laminate comprising TCO / glass substrate (201) and a second glass substrate (230) (See, for example, Fig 2B; [0037]). Although the order of particularly laminating the TCO glass substrate to the second glass substrate is not explicitly provided, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated such a claimed sequence since the selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new of unexpected results (In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946)).
(c) fabricating an EC stack onto the TCO coated glass substrate at a coater (See, for example, [0028], [0032], Fig 1-3).
(d) fabricating an insulated glass unit (IGU) using the laminate as a first pane and a second pane (210) as a mate lite of the IGU (See, for example, [0037], Fig 2-3),
Rozbicki teaches wherein the starting glass substrate can comprise a TCO coated glass substrate shipped from a commercial float glass manufacturing (first) facility and processed at a second facility to apply an EC stack (See, for example, [0062-63]); but it does not explicitly teach in the first facility performing (a) covering the TCO coated glass substrate with a sacrificial coating; and further wherein in step (c) the coater removes the sacrificial coating. Varaprasad teaches a method of forming IG window units (See, for example, abstract). Varaprasad further teaches wherein coated glass panels being exposed to periods of cutting, seaming, shipping, unloading, and handling tend to have the coating(s) thereon damaged (see, for example, [0004-0006]). Varaprasad teaches wherein such damage can be avoided and the mechanical and environmental durability of coated glass panels can be improved by applying sacrificial coatings thereon and removing them when ready for subsequent processing (see, for example, [0002-0007], [0016], Fig 2). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated covering the TCO coated glass substrate at the first commercial float glass facility with a sacrificial coating and removing it prior to EC stack deposition at the second receiving / processing facility as it would predictably reduce damage to the coated surface and promote mechanical and environmental durability.
Morgan similarly teaches a method of protecting glass substrate prior to coating, and further involving the application of temporary sacrificial protective coatings (See, for example, pg 1 lines 1-34, pg 2 2nd col, line 48 - pg 3 1st col, line 45). Morgan further teaches wherein exposure of cleaned surfaces to the atmosphere results in instantaneous contamination of foreign particles, and to preserve surface cleanliness temporary sacrificial coatings should be removed within the same coating chamber which is intended to apply the functional coating thereto (See, for example, pg 1 2nd col lines 21-45, and pg 3 lines 1-23). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated removal of the sacrificial coating within the same coater used for fabricating the EC stack since such an incorporation would predictably preserve surface cleanliness.
The combined art further teach the added limitation of removal of the sacrificial coating by controlled heating, thereby causing at least one of oxidation reaction, ashing or delamination (See, for example, Varaprasad abstract, [0015], [0018], [0032], [0045], [0048], wherein removal of the sacrificial temporary protective coating can be achieved by a heating step, such as via steam, combustion / burning off (ashing / oxidation), thermal decomposition (ashing / oxidation), peeling (delamination), or chemical methods or combinations, and Morgan (see, for example, pg 3 col 1 lines 23-32) has similarly taught removal via “any desired manner and by any suitable means, such as by the application of suitable heating”).
Claim 45: Varaprasad further teaches wherein the sacrificial coating is removed by peeling (See, for example, abstract, [0015], [0018], [0045], wherein removal of the sacrificial temporary protective coating can be achieved by a heating step, such as via steam, burning off, thermal decomposition, peeling, or chemical methods or combinations).
Claim 47: Rozbicki further teaches wherein the EC stack is fabricated between a first and a second transparent electronically conductive layer configured to deliver an electrical potential difference over surfaces of the electrochromic stack and thereby cause optical switching of the solid state electrochromic device / IGU (see, for example, [0009], [0052], Fig 1-3, claim 1).
Claim 48: Rozbicki further teaches wherein forming the IGU further comprises applying bus bars (see, for example, [0032]Fig 1-2).
Claim 49: The combination of Rozbicki in view of Varaprasad and Morgan further teaches wherein the sacrificial coating is removed in a second facility (such as the receiving facility at which the EC stack is deposited) (see, for example, the rejection of claim 44 above).
Claim 51: Varaprasad further teaches wherein the sacrificial coating has a thickness of preferably 10 to 250 microns (See, for example, [0037]).
Claim 63: Varaprasad further teaches wherein the removal by controlled heating is at 650oC (See, for example, [0048]).
Claim 64: refer to the rejection of claim 44 above, and Varaprasad further teaches wherein the sacrificial coating is made from a material that does not permanently chemically react with the TCO coated glass substrate (see, for example, [0027], [0031], [0047-48] wherein the surface protection is intended to avoid chemical damage; is applied to sensitive surfaces, thus the intention is clear that surface properties / chemistry is maintained, further it explicitly teaches wherein coating is completely and cleanly removed leaving no traces or residue on the glass surface).
Claim 65: Rozbicki in view of Varaprasad and Morgan teach the method of claim 44 (above), wherein Rozbicki and Varaprasad have taught the substrate as TCO coated glass substrate, and further as being tempered (See, for example, Rozbicki [0043] [0061-62] and Varaprasad [0021], [0032], [0039]). The combination further teaches after the tempering, washing the TCO coated glass substrate and the sacrificial coating so that a thermal resistance of the sacrificial coating is degraded such that, subsequent to the washing, the sacrificial layer is no longer able to withstand temperatures experienced during the tempering (see, for example, the rejection of claim 44 above, and Varaprasad: [0015], [0018], [0021], [0028], [0032], [0045], [0048], claim 4, wherein embodiments where the sacrificial coating is applied after tempering and removed prior to EC stack deposition; and wherein the removal can be interpreted as comprising a washing as claimed since the removal is taught as comprising a combination of chemical washing (solvent/ steam) / controlled heating / delamination / peeling. As the washing / heating join removal process results in completely eliminating the sacrificial coating said coating is degraded by the process and the sacrificial layer is no longer able to withstand temperature experienced during the tempering (as the layer is destroyed and no longer a layer).
Claim(s) 45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rozbicki in view of Varaprasad and Morgan as applied to claim 44 above, and further in view of Hirai et al (JPH09148279; citations directed to the machine translation provided herein; hereafter Hirai).
Claim 45: In addition to removal of the temporary coating via heating, Varaprasad additionally teaches wherein the sacrificial coating can be removed by peeling (See, for example, abstract, [0015], [0018], [0045], wherein removal of the sacrificial temporary protective coating can be achieved by a heating step, such as via steam, burning off, thermal decomposition, peeling, or chemical methods or combinations). For sake of argument, that Varaprasad does not explicitly teach an exemplary embodiment of removal during a heating step and removal by peeling Hirai teaches a method of applying a temporary protective coating films (See, for example, [0001]). Hirai further teaches wherein it is well known in the art of such films to tailor the film to control the adhesivity and reduce damage to the underlying surface by peeling while heating as it would facilitate removal (see, for example, [0001], [0008], [0014-15], [0022], [0039]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated removal by heat treatment with peeling since it would predictably facilitate temporary protective coating film removal while reducing damage to the underlying substrate.
Claim(s) 62 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rozbicki in view of Varaprasad and Morgan as applied to claim 44 above, and further in view of Howard (US 1,937,321; hereafter Howard).
Claim 62: Rozbicki in view of Varaprasad and Morgan teach the method of claim 44 above, wherein Rozbicki has taught the substrate as TCO coated glass substrate, and further as being tempered (See, for example, [0043] [0061-2])). But it is silent as to the conditions of tempering to achieve the tempered TGO glass substrate. Howard teaches a method for producing tempered glass of uniform good glass quality (See, for example, pg 1 lines 1-49). Howard teaches wherein air is used as the atmosphere of tempering as it provides as it provides a predictable atmosphere for tempering glass as well as means for regulating the temperature of the process (See, for example, pg1 lines 25-50, pg 3 lines 1-27). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated an air atmosphere as the atmosphere the TGO glass substrate is tempered in since air is readily available, since it has been demonstrated to serve predictably as a tempering atmosphere, further providing a predictable means to aid in temperature regulation of the tempering process achieving uniform good glass quality; and since when a primary reference is silent as to a certain detail, one of ordinary skill would be motivated to consult a secondary reference which satisfies the deficiencies of the primary reference; and / or since the selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new of unexpected results (In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed 2/12/26, with respect to previously applied 35 USC 112 (a) and (b) rejections of claims 44-45, 47-49, 51 and 62 have been fully considered and are persuasive, therefore these rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's remaining arguments filed 2/12/26 directed to the art rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually (Morgan teaches removal via glow discharge / bombardment, not controlled heating as claimed, Rozbicki doesn’t teach removal), 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). The rejection is over a combination of references not Rozbicki or Morgan alone; so each does not individually have to teach each and every limitation. Morgan has not only taught removal via glow discharge, but alternately has taught removal via “any desired manner and by any suitable means, such as by the application of suitable heating” (see, for example, pg 3 col 1 lines 23-32). Further Varaprasad has taught wherein removal of the sacrificial temporary protective coating can be achieved by a heating step, such as via steam, burning off (ashing), thermal decomposition (ashing / oxidation), peeling (delamination), or chemical methods or combinations, and further in an exemplary embodiment has taught removal via combustion by firing at 650oC for about 8 min to cleanly burn off the layer (See, for example, abstract, [0015], [0018], [0045], [0048]) which alone, or considering the combinations, would readily read upon the claimed limitation to controlled heating causing oxidation, ashing , or delamination. The examiner further disagrees that Applicant’s arguments that the argued teachings would not read on controlled heating since such heating processes all require at least minimum temperatures / times to achieve heating / steam / burning etc for removal thus such heat treatments were controlled to at least some degree.
As to the remaining dependent claims they remain rejected as no additional separate arguments are provided.
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 NATHAN H EMPIE whose telephone number is (571)270-1886. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 5:30AM - 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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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.
/NATHAN H EMPIE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712