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 6, 2025 is acceptable and a RCE has been established. An action on the RCE follows.
Claims 1-17 are pending in the application, claims 13-15 are withdrawn from consideration.
WITHDRAWN REJECTIONS
The 35 U.S.C. §103 rejection over Lorenzzi et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2018/0194675), made of record in office action mailed June 5, 2025 has been withdrawn.
REJECTIONS
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 17 now recites the “first dielectric coating consisting of … a layer of silicon nitride and a layer of titanium nitride” which is deemed to be new matter. Claim 1 claims “a titanium nitride layer located in contact with one of the two blocking layers and separated from the one of the at least one silver-based functional layer by said one of the two blocking layers.” Thus, the titanium nitride layer can be above or below the functional layer. Thus, when the titanium nitride layer is on the same side of functional layer with the “first dielectric coating,” that side of the stack will have two (2) titanium nitride layers. The instant specification does not disclose an embodiment with two (2) titanium nitride layers will be on the same side.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-9, 11, 12 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Reymond et al (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2011/0300319).
Regarding Applicant’s claims 1 and 2, Reymond discloses a material comprising a transparent substrate (ref. #10/30, para. [0068]) coated with a stack (fig. #4).
The stack comprises the following layers in order: a dielectric layer (ref. #122, para. [0069]), a titanium nitride layer (ref. #123, para. [0039] and [0123]), blocking layer (ref. #130, para. [0070]), silver-based functional metallic layer (ref. #140, para. [0068]), blocking layer (ref. #150, para. [0070]), a titanium nitride layer (ref. #165, para. [0039] and [0129]) and a dielectric layer (ref. #168, para. [0069]).
The blocking layers are chosen from metallic layers based on a metal or a metal alloy of one or more elements chosen from titanium or nickel (para. [0046]).
Reymond discloses that each dielectric layer is made of a material having an n/k ratio, over the whole visible wavelength range from 380 nm to 780 nm of equal to or greater than 5, wherein n denotes a real refractive index of the material at a given wavelength and k represents an imaginary part of the refractive index at a given wavelength, the n/k ratio being calculated at a given wavelength which is identical for n and for k.
Regarding Applicant’s claims 3 and 4, Reymond discloses the titanium nitride layer has a thickness greater than or equal to 2 nm and between 5 and 15 nm (0.5-10 nm, para. [0040]).
Regarding Applicant’s claim 6, Reymond discloses the two blocking layers each have a thickness of between 0.1 and 5.0 nm (0.2-2.5 nm, para. [0046]).
Regarding Applicant’s claims 7 and 17, Reymond discloses the first and second dielectric layers consist of silicon nitride doped with aluminum (para. [0085]).
Regarding Applicant’s claims 8 and 9, the sum of thicknesses of all layers comprising silicon and/or aluminum in each dielectric coating of the at least two dielectric coatings is deemed to be greater than 50% of a total thickness of the dielectric coating, since the dielectric coating is deemed to only comprise the silicon nitride layer 122 or 166. The sum of thicknesses of all oxide-based layers in each dielectric coating of the at least two dielectric coatings is less than 20% of a total thickness of the dielectric coating, since the dielectric coating does not comprise an oxide based layer.
Regarding Applicant’s claims 11-12, Reymond discloses the transparent substrate coated with the stack is bent and/or tempered (para. [0054]). The transparent substrate is made of glass (para. [0068]).
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.
Claims 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reymond et al (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2011/0300319).
Reymond is relied upon as described above.
Reymond fails to disclose wherein the one of the two blocking layers in contact with the titanium nitride layer has a thickness less than a thickness of the other one of the two blocking layers which is not in contact with the titanium nitride layer.
Since the instant specification is silent to unexpected results, the thicknesses of the blocking layers are not considered to confer patentability to the claims. Furthermore, 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).
Claims 10 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reymond et al. (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2011/0300319) as applied to claims 1-4, 6-9, 11, 12 and 17above, and further in view of Lorenzzi et al. (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2018/0194675).
Reymond is relied upon as described above.
Regarding Applicant’s claim 10, Reymond discloses the coating furthest from the transparent substrate comprises a protective layer based on an oxide (ref. #168, para. [0071])
Reymond fails to disclose that the protective layer is based on an oxide of titanium, zirconium, hafnium, silicon, zinc and/or tin and mixtures thereof.
Lorenzzi discloses a similar glazing coating for solar protection (para. [0001]). Lornzzi also discloses that the coating furthest from the transparent substrate comprises a protective layer which is chosen from a layer based on titanium, zirconium, hafnium, zinc and/or tin and mixtures thereof, which is/are in metallic, oxidized or nitride form (para. [0141]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use one of the specific oxides from Lorenzzi as the protective oxide layer in Reymond, since they are well known materials for protective layers in solar protection glazings.
Reymond further fails to that the glass substrate is soda-lime-silica glass.
Lorenzzi further discloses that the glass is made of soda-lime-silica glass, which is extra-clear glass (para. [0170]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use soda-lime-silica glass as the glass substrate in Reymond as taught by Lorenzzi in order to provide an extra-clear glass.
ANSWERS TO APPLICANT’S ARGUMENTS
Applicant’s arguments in the response filed October 6, 2025 regarding the previous rejections of record have been considered but are moot since the rejections have been withdrawn.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. You et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,161,780) and Misra et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,053,164) disclose similar solar control glazing coatings.
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 1/9/2026