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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 June 4, 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 2-11, 13, and 16-21 are pending in the current application.
Claims 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 16, 18, 20, and 21 are amended in the current application.
Claims 1, 12, 14, and 15 are canceled in the current application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks and amendments filed on May 19, 2026 and entered on June 4, 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant requests withdrawal of the claim objections set forth in the previous office action.
The claim objections set forth in the previous office action are withdrawn due to the present claim amendments.
Applicant requests withdrawal of the rejections under 35 USC 112(b) set forth in the previous office action.
The rejections under 35 USC 112(b) set forth in the previous office action are withdrawn due to the present claim amendments.
Applicant argues Lorenzzi, Krisko, and Nunez-Regueiro do not disclose, teach, or suggest the invention of claim 16 specifically comprising a single functional metal layer based on silver as the only functional metal layer of the stack.
This is not persuasive for the following reasons. New grounds of rejection are established below as necessitated by the present claim amendments, where Lorenzzi is no longer relied upon. Therefore, all arguments pertaining to Lorenzzi are considered moot. Imran is newly applied in combination with Nunez-Regueiro and Krisko, and teaches that it is well known and well within the abilities of those skilled in the art to form and utilize low-E coating stacks for any suitable application supported by a substrate comprising at least one dielectric coating layer, a single infrared reflecting layer formed of silver, and another dielectric layer (Imran, Abstract, [0001], [0013]-[0015], [0021], [0028]-[0035], Fig 3).
Applicant argues Krisko discloses a stack having two silver-based films.
This is not persuasive for the following reasons. Note that while Krisko does not disclose all the features of the presently claimed invention, Krisko is used as a teaching reference, and therefore, it is not necessary for this secondary reference to contain all the features of the presently claimed invention, In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973), In re Keller 624 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). Rather this reference teaches a certain concept, and in combination with the other applied prior art establishes a prima facie case of obviousness over the presently claimed invention. Krisko is not relied upon for its total stack, but rather is only utilized for its transparent base of silicon dioxide directly formed onto a glass substrate (such as on Nunez-Regueiro’s glass substrate) to yield a glazed unit exhibiting low emissivity, desirable coating properties, and excellent durability to tempering (Krisko, [0007]-[0010], [0049]).
Applicant argues that the present invention exhibits unexpected improvements that distinguish it over the applied prior art of record.
This is not persuasive for the following reasons. Whether the unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the "objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support." In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range. In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1036, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP 716.02(d). In the present application, the claims are not sufficiently commensurate in scope with the inventive examples of the specification as originally filed. For example, Table 3 of the specification as originally filed discloses Inventive Examples 1-4 all specifically consisting of a first dielectric coating of a TiOx layer, a SnZnO layer, and a ZnO layer; a first blocking layer of NiCr; a functional metal layer consisting of silver; a second blocking layer of NiCr; a second dielectric coating of a ZnO layer, a SnZnO layer, and a SiO2 layer; and a glass substrate; where the SiO2 layer has a thickness ranging from 12-14.8 nm. Whereas present claim 16 much more broadly recites a device comprising a transparent substrate and a stack comprising a dielectric coating, at least one functional metal layer based on silver, another dielectric coating, a layer based on silicon oxide having thickness of greater than or equal to 12 nm. Present claim 16 does not restrict the number of layers in the device, does not specify specific composition or structure of any dielectric coating sub-components, does not require or mention the inclusion of any blocking layers, does not specify the layer based on silicon oxide layer consists of SiO2, does not specify the transparent substrate is formed of glass, and does not establish the criticality of the thickness of the layer based on silicon oxide being fully commensurate with the inventive data range of 12-14.8 nm. Therefore, the present claims are not sufficiently commensurate in scope with the inventive examples, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to reasonably conclude that all embodiments that fall within the scope of claim 16 would necessarily achieve the unexpected improvements asserted by Applicant.
Moreover, the nonobviousness of a broader claimed range can be supported by evidence based on unexpected results from testing a narrower range if one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to determine a trend in the exemplified data which would allow the artisan to reasonably extend the probative value thereof. In re Kollman, 595 F.2d 48, 201 USPQ 193 (CCPA 1979). See MPEP 716.02(d), I. However, in the present application, based on the limited variety and scope of inventive examples 1-4, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine a trend in the exemplified data which would allow the artisan to reasonably extend the probative value thereof.
In view of the foregoing, when all of the evidence is considered, the totality of the rebuttal evidence of nonobviousness fails to outweigh the evidence of obviousness.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 16, 2-11, 13, and 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nunez-Regueiro et al. (US 2012/0090246 A1), in view of Krisko et al. (US 2004/0071985 A1), and in view of Imran et al. (US 2017/0044054 A1).
Independent claim 16 is addressed and rejected first herein for the purposes of clarity and continuity.
Regarding Claims 16 and 17, Nunez-Regueiro teaches a freezer (cooling device) comprising a freezer door formed with two insulating glass units (i.e., glazed units) having a low emissivity coating structure 30 formed on a glass substrate with silver layers 9/19 sandwiched between dielectric layers (i.e., a material comprising a substrate coated with a stack) (Nunez-Regueiro, Abstract, [0001], [0015], [0024]-[0025], Fig 2). Nunez-Regueiro teaches the freezer is a refrigerated area that includes the freezer door to reduce the amount of heat entering the refrigerated area, this structure yields a refrigerated area delimited by one or more walls and the freezer door to insulate the refrigerated environment (Nunez-Regueiro, [0001]-[0007], [0038]-[0045], Fig 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
742
560
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Nunez-Regueiro - Figure 2
PNG
media_image2.png
569
552
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Nunez-Regueiro - Figure 3
Nunez-Regueiro remains silent regarding the stack specifically comprising a layer based on silicon oxide having a thickness of greater than or equal to 12 nm located directly in contact with the glass substrate.
Krisko, however, teaches a glass substrate unit for use as a glazing comprising a low-emissivity coating stack (Krisko, Abstract, [0001], [0007], [0014], Fig 4). Krisko teaches a transparent glass substrate 10, a transparent base 20 of silicon dioxide deposited directly over the substrate 10 having a thickness of 200 angstroms or less (20 nm or less), an inner coat 30 of a dielectric coating material, a first infrared-reflective layer 50 of a silver-based material, a first high absorption blocker layer 80, a middle coat layer 190 of a dielectric coating material, a second infrared-reflective layer 150 of a silver-based material, a second high absorption blocker layer 180, and an outer coat layer 130 of a dielectric coating material (Krisko, [0017], [0040]-[0051], Fig 2). Krisko’s transparent base 20 of silicon dioxide thickness range of 20 nm or less overlaps the claimed range of 12 nm or more, and therefore, renders obvious the claimed range (MPEP 2144.05).
PNG
media_image3.png
690
685
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Krisko – Figure 2
Since Nunez-Regueiro and Krisko both disclose glazed units having similar low-E layer structures comprising silver and Nunez-Regueiro teaches including a Si-rich type layer directly on a glass substrate (Nunez-Regueiro, [0025]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added Krisko’s transparent base of silicon dioxide directly onto Nunez-Regueiro’s glass substrate to yield a glazed unit exhibiting low emissivity, desirable coating properties, and excellent durability to tempering as taught by Krisko (Krisko, [0007]-[0010], [0049]).
Modified Nunez-Regueiro remains silent regarding a material that comprises a stack as recited by claim 16 having a single functional metal layer based on silver as the only functional metal layer of the stack.
Imran, however, teaches a low-E coating stack 60 for any suitable application supported by a substrate 1 comprising at least one dielectric layer 40/7 comprising zinc oxide that can be doped by other metals, a single infrared reflecting layer 9 formed of silver, and another dielectric layer 13 comprising zinc oxide that can be doped by other metals (Imran, Abstract, [0001], [0013]-[0015], [0021], [0028]-[0037], Fig 3).
PNG
media_image4.png
620
563
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Imran – Figure 3
Since modified Nunez-Regueiro and Imran both disclose glazed units having similar low-E layer structures comprising silver, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized Imran’s stack comprising a single infrared reflecting layer formed of silver as Nunez-Regueiro’s stack to yield a glazed unit exhibiting thermal stability, reduced structural changes during heat treatments, improved stress control, and improved overall performance as taught by Imran (Imran, [0005], [0013]-[0015]).
Regarding Claim 2, modified Nunez-Regueiro teaches the transparent base 20 of silicon dioxide deposited directly over the substrate has a thickness of 200 angstroms or less (20 nm or less) (Krisko, [0049]-[0051], Fig 2). Modified Nunez-Regueiro’s transparent base 20 of silicon dioxide thickness range of 20 nm or less overlaps the claimed range of 14 nm or more, and therefore, renders obvious the claimed range (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Nunez-Regueiro teaches the transparent base 20 of silicon dioxide deposited directly over the substrate has a thickness of 200 angstroms or less (20 nm or less) (Krisko, [0049]-[0051], Fig 2). Modified Nunez-Regueiro’s transparent base 20 of silicon dioxide thickness range of 20 nm or less overlaps the claimed range of 12 nm or more and 60 nm or less, and therefore, renders obvious the claimed range (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding Claim 4, modified Nunez-Regueiro teaches an embodiment comprising a dielectric coating layer 7 located above the substrate and below a functional metal layer 9 consisting solely of a ZnO layer (Imran, [0005], [0015], [0028], Fig 3). Modified Nunez-Regueiro’s ZnO layer is formed of an equimolar ratio of zinc and oxygen, where this yields a zinc content of 100 mass% relative to all elements other than oxygen. Modified Nunez-Regueiro’s zinc content falls within the claimed range of at least 80% by mass, and therefore, satisfies the claimed range (MPEP 2131.03).
Regarding Claim 5, modified Nunez-Regueiro teaches an embodiment comprising a dielectric coating layer located above the functional metal layer 9 that can have zinc oxide-based layers that can be doped with other metals and a layer of SnZnO (Imran, [0005], [0015], [0028]-[0037]). Modified Nunez-Regueiro’s SnZnO layer is formed of an equimolar ratio of tin (atomic mass of 118.71 gmol), zinc (atomic mass of 65.38 gmol), and oxygen, where this yields a tin mass% of (118.71/[118.71+65.38])*100 = 64.48 mass% relative to all elements other than oxygen. Modified Nunez-Regueiro’s tin content falls within the claimed range of at least 20% by mass, and therefore, satisfies the claimed range (MPEP 2131.03)
Regarding Claims 6 and 7, modified Nunez-Regueiro’s teaches the stack comprises a dielectric coating layer 7 (below the functional metal layer 9) that is a zinc oxide layer (Imran, [0005], [0015], [0028], Fig 3). Modified Nunez-Regueiro teaches dielectric coating layer 13 (above the functional metal layer 9) and dielectric coating layer 40 (below the functional metal layer 9) include zinc oxide-based layers that can be doped with other metals (such as Sn), and that can include SnZnO layers (i.e., zinc-tin oxide-based layers) (Imran, [0005], [0013], [0023], [0028]-[0037], Fig 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected and to have tried dielectric coating embodiments having zinc oxide layers and zinc oxide layers doped with tin oxide from the finite options disclosed by Nunez-Regueiro to reduce structural changes, improve stress control, and improve overall performance with a predictable and reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2143; Imran, [0015], [0030]-[0037]).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Nunez-Regueiro teaches the dielectric coating layer between the functional metal layer 9 and the substrate 1 can be formed of all oxide layers, and therefore, has a total thickness of 100% of oxide layers (Imran, [0028]-[0039], Fig 3). Modified Nunez-Regueiro’s thickness value falls within the claimed range of greater than 50%, and therefore, satisfies the claimed range (MPEP 2131.03).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Nunez-Regueiro teaches an embodiment comprising a dielectric coating layer located above the substrate 1 and below the functional metal layer 9 consisting solely of a ZnO layer and a ZnO+metal(s) layer (Imran, [0021], [0028]-[0037], Fig 3).
Regarding Claim 10, modified Nunez-Regueiro teaches coatings can be formed by sputter-deposited materials using a magnetron sputtering chamber by a magnetic-field assisted cathode sputtering process (Nunez-Regueiro, [0039]; Imran, [0005], [0011], [0013], [0015]; Krisko, [0013], [0061]-[0071]).
Regarding Claim 11, modified Nunez-Regueiro teaches the stack comprises the transparent base of silicon dioxide deposited directly over the substrate, a dielectric coating on the transparent base of silicon dioxide comprising dielectric layers that include a zinc oxide layer that can be doped with other metals 40 (such as a SnZnO layer) and a zinc oxide layer 7; a functional metal layer 9 made of silver; and another dielectric coating comprising dielectric layers that include a zinc oxide layer that can be doped with other metals 13 (such as a ZnCuAl oxide layer and a SnZnO layer); and an optional overcoat layer 50 (i.e., a protective layer) (Krisko, [0049]-[0051], Fig 2; Imran, [0021], [0028]-[0039], Fig 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected and to have tried dielectric coating embodiments having zinc oxide layers and zinc oxide layers doped with tin oxide from the finite options disclosed by Nunez-Regueiro to reduce structural changes, improve stress control, and improve overall performance with a predictable and reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2143; Imran, [0015], [0030]-[0037]).
Regarding Claim 13, modified Nunez-Regueiro teaches an article coated with the stack can be tempered, heat bent, and/or strengthened (Imran, Abstract, [0001], [0017]).
Regarding Claim 18, modified Nunez-Regueiro teaches a method of making a freezer door (i.e., a cooling device) comprising providing a glazed unit as discussed above for claims 16 and 17 as a constituent unit (Nunez-Regueiro, Abstract, [0001]-[0007], [0015], [0024]-[0025], [0038]-[0045], Claims 13-20, Fig 3).
Regarding Claim 19, modified Nunez-Regueiro teaches coatings can be formed by sputter-deposited materials using a magnetron sputtering chamber by a magnetic-field assisted cathode sputtering process (Nunez-Regueiro, [0039]; Imran, [0005], [0011], [0013], [0015]; Krisko, [0013], [0061]-[0071]).
Regarding Claim 20, modified Nunez-Regueiro teaches the dielectric coating layer between the functional metal layer 9 and the substrate 1 can be formed of all oxide layers, and therefore, has a total thickness of 100% of oxide layers (Imran, [0028]-[0039], Fig 3). Modified Nunez-Regueiro’s thickness value falls within the claimed range of greater than 90%, and therefore, satisfies the claimed range (MPEP 2131.03).
Regarding Claim 21, modified Nunez-Regueiro teaches the stack comprises the transparent base of silicon dioxide deposited directly over the substrate, a dielectric coating on the transparent base of silicon dioxide comprising dielectric layers that include a zinc oxide layer that can be doped with other metals 40 (such as a SnZnO layer) and a zinc oxide layer 7; a functional metal layer 9 made of silver; and another dielectric coating comprising dielectric layers that include a zinc oxide layer that can be doped with other metals 13 (such as a ZnCuAl oxide layer and a SnZnO layer); and an optional overcoat layer 50 (i.e., a protective layer) (Krisko, [0049]-[0051], Fig 2; Imran, [0021], [0028]-[0039], Fig 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected and to have tried dielectric coating embodiments having zinc oxide layers and zinc oxide layers doped with tin oxide from the finite options disclosed by Nunez-Regueiro to reduce structural changes, improve stress control, and improve overall performance with a predictable and reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2143; Imran, [0015], [0030]-[0037]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELI D STRAH whose telephone number is (571)270-7088. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am - 7 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, Aaron Austin can be reached at 571-272-8935. 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.
/Eli D. Strah/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights