RESPONSE TO AMENDMENT
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 .
Request for Continued Examination
The Request for Continued Examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.53 (d) filed on October 9, 2025 is acceptable and a RCE has been established. An action on the RCE follows.
Claims 1-5, 7-10, 12-17 and 19-22 are pending in the application, claims 20 and 21 are withdrawn from consideration. Claims 6, 11 and 18 have been cancelled.
Amendments to the claims, filed on October 9, 2025, have been entered in the above-identified application.
WITHDRAWN REJECTIONS
The 35 U.S.C. §103 rejection of over Lorenzzi et al. (US PG Pub. 2018/0194675) in view of Moens et al. (WO 2012/013787), made of record in office action mailed June 11 ,2025 has been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment in response filed October 9, 2025.
REJECTIONS
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.
Claims 1-5, 7-10, 13-17, 19 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reymond et al. (US PG Pub. 2011/0300319) in view of You et al. (WO 2019/112320). See English equivalent documents U.S. Patent No. 11,161,780 for the prior at discussion of WO 2019/112320.
Regarding Applicant’s claims 1, 5, 7-10, 13, Reymond discloses a multilayer solar control coating (abstract, para. [0003]) with a light transmission of greater than 35% (para. [0009] and [0018]). The multilayer coating comprises a transparent substrate (ref. # 10/30, para. [0068]) coated with a stack comprising at least one functional metal layer comprising silver (ref. #140, para. [0068]) and at least two dielectric coatings (ref. #120 and #160, para. [0069]), so that each functional metal layer is placed between two dielectric coatings (fig. 1). Each dielectric coating comprises at least one dielectric layer (para. [0069]). The first dielectric coating (ref. #120) of the at least two dielectric coatings is located (i) in contact with the substrate (ref. #10/30) and (ii) in contact with a first functional metal layer of the at least one functional metal layer (ref. #140) or a blocking layer (ref. #130) in contact with the first functional metal layer (fig. 1).
The first dielectric coating consists of (a) an intermediate coating (ref. #122) and (b) one or more dielectric layers (ref. #126 and #128) comprising zinc tin oxide and aluminum doped zinc oxide (para. [0082] and [0083]). The intermediate coating comprises silicon nitride (para. [0085]).
Reymond fails to teach that the intermediate coating consists of two layers.
You discloses a multilayer solar control coating (col. 3, lines 16-19).
The multilayer coating comprises a transparent substrate (ref. # 10, col.2, line 62) coated with a stack comprising at least one functional metal layer comprising silver (ref. #12, col. 4, lines 22-24) and at least two dielectric coatings (ref. #14a-14c and #14d-14f) so that each functional metal layer is placed between two dielectric coatings (fig. 1). You further discloses that the multilayer coating comprises a barrier layer (ref. #20) between the first dielectric coating and substrate (fig. 4). The barrier layer is select from silicon oxide or silicon oxynitride (col. 9, lines 3-7). Barrier layers improve heat resistance, moisture resistance, and wear resistance while not deteriorating optical performance (col.6, lines 59-62).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add a barrier layer between the silicon nitride layer and substrate of Reymond as taught by You to improve heat resistance, moisture resistance, and wear resistance while not deteriorating optical performance.
The combination of Reymond and You discloses the intermediate coating is located directly in contact with the substrate and consists of two different layers comprising silicon. The two different layers comprising silicon are composed of different chemical elements, silicon nitride and silicon oxide or silicon oxynitride. The first layer of the two different layers of the intermediate coating comprises silicon is a layer based on silicon oxide in direct contact with the substrate or a layer based on silicon oxynitride in direct contact with the substrate (You, fig. 4, col. 9, lines 3-7).
Regarding Applicant’s claim 2-3,19 and 22, Reymond and You fail to disclose the intermediate coating has a thickness greater than or equal to 10 nm or less than or equal to 50 nm. Reymond and You also fail that the sum of thicknesses of all the oxide-based layers present in the first dielectric coating located in contact with the substrate is greater than 50% of a total thickness of the first dielectric coating or the sum of thicknesses of all the oxide-based layers present in each dielectric coating of the at least two dielectric coatings that is located above [[a]] the first functional metal layer of the at least one functional metal layer is greater than 50% of the total thickness of the dielectric coating.
You further teaches that the thicknesses of the dielectric layers may be adjusted to implement various optical performances and each layer may be about 5 nm to about 30 nm (col.6, lines 35-39).
However, where in the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges in thickness involve only routine skill in the art, absence a showing of criticality. MPEP 2144.05 II A.
Regarding Applicant’s claim 4, Reymond discloses wherein a thickness of at least one functional metal layer is from 5 to 20 nm (para. [0037]).
Regarding Applicant’s claims 14-17, Reymond discloses that the one or more dielectric layers of the firs dielectric coating located between the substrate and the first functional metal layer comprises a layer of zinc oxide (para. [0083]) and a layer of zinc tin oxide (para. [0082]). The zinc oxide layer is deemed to comprises at least 80% by weight of zinc relative to the weight of all the elements other than oxygen, since the layer only contains zinc oxide. The zinc tin oxide layer is deemed to comprises at least 20% by weight of tin relative to the total weight of zinc and tin, since the layer only contains zinc tin oxide.
Claims 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reymond et al. (US PG Pub. 2011/0300319) in view of You et al. (WO 2019/112320) as applied to claims 1-5, 7-10, 13-17, 19 and 22 above, and further in view of Moens et al. (WO 2012/013787). See English translation of WO 2012/013787 for the prior at discussion.
Reymond and You are relied upon as described above.
The combination of Reymond and You teaches that the second layer of the two different layer of the intermediate coating is silicon nitride.
Reymond and You fail to disclose the second layer of the two different layer of the intermediate coating is based on silicon oxynitride or o silicon oxide.
Moens discloses an interference-colored coating which contributes to the optical properties of the material, e.g. solar properties (para. [0007] and [0008]). The panel comprises a glass sheet (ref. #1, figure 3), adhesion improving coating comprising a transparent dielectric material (ref. #7, figure 3), a first transparent coating of a dielectric material (ref. #2, figure 3), semi-transparent functional coating (ref. #3, figure 3), a second transparent coating of a dielectric material (ref. #4, figure 3), etc. The first transparent coating of a dielectric material comprises at least one oxide or nitride or one oxynitride, most preferably silicon oxide, silicon nitride or silicon oxynitride, which provides a good protective barrier for the semi-transparent functional coating during tempering and provided the panel with improved resistance to tempering (para. [0039]).
Therefore, since Moens discloses silicon oxide, silicon nitride or silicon oxynitride were art-recognized equivalents for dielectric layers at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute the silicon nitride of second layer of the two different layers of the intermediate coating for silicon oxide or silicon oxynitride. MPEP 2144.06 II
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in the response October 9, 2025 regarding the §103 rejection of over Lorenzzi et al. (US PG Pub. 2018/0194675) in view of Moens et al. (WO 2012/013787) of record have been considered but are moot since the rejections have been withdrawn.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alicia Chevalier whose telephone number is (571)272-1490. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30 - 5:00.
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, Srilakshmi Kumar can be reached at (571) 272-7769. 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.
/Alicia Chevalier/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1788 01/12/2026