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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/23/2026 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, 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) 1-6, 8-10 and 12-14 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jribi et al. (US 2015/0247961).
Regarding claims 1 and 3-4, Jribi discloses a transparent substrate (0050) and a thin film multilayer coating (abstract) wherein the thin film multilayer coating comprises a dielectric layer 122, i.e. lower dielectric layer, (abstract) metal undercoating layer 130, i.e. a lower metal protective layer, (0060-0061), functional metal layer 140 containing silver, i.e. a metal functional layer having an infrared reflecting function, (abstract), metal overcoating layer, i.e. an upper metal protective layer, (0060-0061), and dielectric layer 164, i.e. upper dielectric layer, which are sequentially laminated on the transparent substrate (fig. 2), wherein the thickness of the upper metal protective layer is 0.2 to 2.5 nm (0040) and the thickness of the lower protective is 0.2 to 2.5 nm (0040), therefore when the lower metal protective layer has a thickness of 2 nm and the upper metal protective layer has a thickness of 0.3 nm, it meets the present claim. Further, Jribi discloses the transparent substrate with the multilayer coating has a light transition of greater than 60% (0043, 0050, 0137).
In light of the overlap between the claimed multilayer and the multilayer disclosed by Jribi, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a multilayer that is both disclosed by Jribi and encompassed within the scope of the present claims, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2, Jribi discloses the transparent substrate with the thin film multilayer coating of claim 1, further comprising an overcoat 168 (fig. 2) on one side of the upper dielectric layer, which in in a direction away from the transparent substrate (fig. 2) wherein the overcoat comprises titanium dioxide (0104).
Regarding claims 5 and 10, Jribi discloses the transparent substrate with the thin film multilayer coating of claim 1, but does not disclose the claimed thicknesses of metal functional layer, upper and lower dielectric layers.
Since the instant specification is silent to unexpected results, the specific thicknesses of metal functional layer, upper and lower dielectric layer are not considered to confer patentability to the claims. As the reflection and emissivity are variable that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the thicknesses of metal functional layer, upper and lower dielectric layer, the precise thickness would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed thicknesses cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the thicknesses of metal functional layer, upper and lower dielectric layers in the multilayer coating to obtain the desired reflection and emissivity (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Jribi discloses the transparent substrate with the thin film multilayer coating of claim 1, wherein each of the upper metal protective layer and the lower metal protective layer comprises titanium (0040).
Regarding claim 8, Jribi discloses the transparent substrate with the thin film multilayer coating of claim 1, wherein each of the upper dielectric layer and lower dielectric layer comprises a silicon nitride (0039, 0074, 0104).
Regarding claim 9, Jribi discloses the transparent substrate with the thin film multilayer coating of claim 1, wherein given that Jribi does not disclose zirconium or zin in silicon nitride, it is clear that each of the upper dielectric layer and lower dielectric layer is not doped with zirconium or zinc.
Regarding claim 12, Jribi discloses the transparent substrate with the thin film multilayer coating of claim 1, having a reflection rate of visible light of a coated surface is less than 19% (0118).
Regarding claim 13, Jribi discloses the transparent substrate with the thin film multilayer coating of claim 1, having a emissivity is less than 2.5% (0035).
Regarding claim 14, Jribi discloses the transparent substrate with the thin film multilayer coating of claim 1, wherein given that the transparent substrate and the multilayer coating of Jribi is the same as claimed in present claim, it is clear that the transparent substrate and the multilayer coating of Jribi would have the same properties as presently claim.
Claim(s) 7 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jribi et al. (US 2015/0247961) in view of Morin et al. (US 2019/0337843).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Jribi discloses the transparent substrate with the thin film multilayer coating of claims 6 and 16, but fails to disclose nickel chromium alloy.
Morin discloses transparent substrate with multilayer coatings wherein the coating comprising at least one blocker layer, i.e. a protective layer, comprises equivalent and interchangeable of using titanium and nickel chromium alloy (paragraph 0093-0095).
Given that Morin discloses the equivalence and interchangeability of using nickel chromium alloy as presently claimed with using titanium as disclosed by Jribi, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use nickel chromium alloy in the both protective layer of Jribi to meet end users requirements.
Claim(s) 15 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jribi et al. (US 2015/0247961) in view of Melcher et al. (US 2016/0002100).
Regarding claims 15 and 18, Jribi discloses the transparent substrate with the thin film multilayer coating of claim 1, but fails to disclose the transparent substrate as a part of over door.
Melcher discloses oven door (0111) comprising transparent substrate and multilayer coatings (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the transparent substrate with the thin film multilayer coating of Jribi on the oven door as taught in Melcher to meet end users requirements.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The 35 U.S.C. §112, 1st paragraph, rejection(s) of claims have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s argument.
Applicant argues that Jribi is completely silent as to which protective layer is thicker. However, it is noted that given that Jribi discloses the thickness of the upper metal protective layer is 0.2 to 2.5 nm (0040) and the thickness of the lower protective is 0.2 to 2.5 nm (0040), when the lower metal protective layer has a thickness of 2 nm and the upper metal protective layer has a thickness of 0.3 nm, it meets the present claim.
Applicant points to examples of Jribi and argues that the examples disclose much lower visible transmission values. However, “applicant must look to the whole reference for what it teaches. Applicant cannot merely rely on the examples and argue that the reference did not teach others.” In re Courtright, 377 F.2d 647, 153 USPQ 735,739 (CCPA 1967). Further, applicant’s attention is drawn to paragraphs 0043, 0050 and 0137 of Jribi which disclose the visible light transition of greater than 60%, i.e. which comprises any values above 60 including that presently claimed.
Applicant argues that nothing in Jribi suggests using its multilayer stack on an over or boiler door and absent a teaching of motivation in the prior art, the selection of an oven/boiler door as the substrate is based on hindsight. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). The rejection is not based on hindsight but rather on motivation to combine found in the references themselves.
Applicant argues that a person of ordinary skill would recognize that simply taking Jribi’s coating and using it on an oven door is not straightforward due to likely oxidation or deterioration of the siler and metal layers at high temperature, adhesion issues, and the need for tempered glass processes. However, it is noted that “the arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record”, In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965). It is the examiner’s position that the arguments provided by the applicant must be supported by a declaration or affidavit. As set forth in MPEP 716.02(g), “the reason for requiring evidence in a declaration or affidavit form is to obtain the assurances that any statements or representations made are correct, as provided by 35 U.S.C. 24 and 18 U.S.C. 1001”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMIR SHAH whose telephone number is (571)270-1143. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Callie Shosho can be reached at 571-272-1123. 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.
/SAMIR SHAH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights