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 .
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.
Claims 26 and 27 are 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.
Each of claims 26 and 27 recites “sash frame”. As known in the art, sash frame is a particular structure. The specification as filed mentions only fenestration frame and sash, but not sash frame. As such, sash frame is not supported by the specification as filed.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 26 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Each of claims 26 and 27 recites “sash frame”. In particular, each of the claims recite that the “glazing unit frame is a sash frame that supports the glazing unit frame to define a sash of the fenestration unit”. Such a recursive recitation is indefinite, because Applicant defined the glazing unit to be the sash frame, which is called “item X” for purpose of discussion. The recitation is thus parsed as the item X is an item X that supports the item X to define a sash. This recursive recitation is thus wholly incomprehensible, and for purpose of prior art rejection, only the presence of a sash is required.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
All prior art rejections below are as evidenced by NPL by Karazi et al, which discloses that soda lime glass is the most popular glass (composition) based on the soda-lime silicate system, wherein typical composition of soda lime glass is by definition free of B2O3. (Karazi § 5.1).
Claims 1-4, 6-8, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over EP 3798402 A1 (referenced below using its machine translation, “EP ‘402”, both of record) per se or alternatively further evidenced by or in view of WO 2018/020191 A1 (referenced below using its machine translation, “WO ‘191”).
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over EP 3798402 A1 (referenced below using its machine translation, “EP ‘402”, both of record) in view of WO 2018/020191 A1 (referenced below using its machine translation, “WO ‘191”).
Considering claims 1, 3, 4, and 8, EP ‘402 discloses an insulated glazing unit (IGU) used in a window (viz. fenestration unit), the IGU having first and second glass panes forming opposing exterior surfaces of the IGU and at least a middle glass pane located between the first and second exterior glass panes, wherein there is a sealed air gap between both the first glass pane and the middle glass pane and another sealed air gap between the second glass pane and the middle glass pane. (EP ‘402 ¶¶ 0021-0024 and 0042; and Figs. 2, reproduced infra). EP ‘402 is analogous art, for it is directed to the same field of endeavor as that of the instant application (IGUs).
PNG
media_image1.png
441
649
media_image1.png
Greyscale
EP ‘402 discloses that all three glass panes are made of soda lime glass (viz. soda lime silicate glass), with the middle glass pane 1) having a thickness less than that of each of the first and second exterior glass panes and 2) having a perimeter less than that of each of the first and second exterior glass panes. (Id. ¶¶ 0021-0022 and 0042). Specifically, the middle pane has thickness of 0.5 mm to 8 mm. (Id. ¶ 0022). This range overlaps the claimed range of 0.2 to 1.2 mm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. (See In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90, In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, and In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379; MPEP § 2144.05).
As shown in Fig. 2 of the reference, each spacer has respective base, respective ends thereof connected to respective spacer sidewalls attached to respective primary sealants 10. In particular, sidewalls of spacer 6.1 are adhered to the first glass pane and the middle glass pane via respective sealants, and sidewalls of spacer 6.2 are adhered to the second glass pane and the middle glass pane via respective sealants. In both cases, the sealants do not extend peripherally beyond the respective bases, leaving the exterior peripheral surfaces of the bases free of the respective primary sealants.
EP ‘402 expressly states that triple-paned IGUs have been incorporated into a window by attaching minor surfaces of an IGU to a window frame (viz. a glazing unit frame). (EP ‘402 ¶¶ 0003, 0004, and 0041; and Fig. 1). However, the reference notes that in traditional designs, the minor surface 23 of the central pane of the IGU contacts the window frame and is thus disadvantageous. (Id. ¶¶ 0003, 0004, and 0041) Furthermore, the reference expressly states that its central pane has a smaller longitudinal dimension as to overcome the drawbacks associated with conventional designs. (Id. ¶ 0005). It is thus clear that given that one major drawback with conventional design is due to stress generated when the central pane directly contacts a window frame, and that the inventive design expressly prevents such direct contact, such an improvement is advantageous when the inventive triple-paned IGU of EP ‘402 is surrounded by a window frame so that it can form a window. EP ‘402 thus renders obvious claims 1, 3, 4, and 8.
Furthermore, Saint Gobain Glass, the Applicant of EP ‘402, expressly shows how such a frame looks like for a triple-paned IGU. (WO ‘191 pg. 4 ¶ 1 to pg. 5 ¶ 5 and pg. 8 ¶ 2; and Figs. 1, 2, and 10, with Fig. 10 reproduced infra). WO ‘191 thus provides further evidence that framing of a triple-paned IGU in a window frame to construct a window is well-known, and as such, viewed in the context of EP ‘402, EP ‘402 reads on claims 1, 3, 4, and 8. Alternatively, it would have been obvious, to a person of ordinary skill at the time of the claimed invention, to have used the sash (viz. window frame) of WO ‘191 to frame the IGU of EP ‘402 for the advantages mentioned in WO ‘191. (Id. pg. 2 ¶ 2).
PNG
media_image2.png
377
786
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Considering claim 2, EP ‘402 suggests that the two exterior panes can have respective thicknesses that are the same. (EP ‘402 ¶¶ 0022 and 0042).
Considering claim 6, EP ‘402 further discloses the possibility of two middle panes, each of which 1) having a respective thickness less than that of each of the first and second exterior glass panes and 2) having a respective perimeter less than that of each of the first and second exterior glass panes. (Id. ¶ 0027).
Considering claim 7, EP ‘402 discloses the provision of metallic coatings as part of each spacer. (Id. ¶ 0023).
Considering claim 11, as the primary sealants located on the respective sidewalls arms of the spacer are not differentiated, and as the figures identify both as element “10”, it is clear that the two sealants are of the same type of material.
Considering claim 27, the window frame structure in WO ‘191 includes both a sash frame 17 and a sash 12. (WO ‘191 pg. 5 ¶ 1 and Fig. 1).
Claims 7 and 9; and claims 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over EP 3798402 A1 (referenced below using its machine translation, “EP ‘402”) and optionally over WO 2018/020191 A1 (referenced below using its machine translation, “WO ‘191”), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of WO 2021/259676 A1 (referenced below using its English-language counterpart publication U.S. 2023/0175314 A1, “Roes”).
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over EP 3798402 A1 (referenced below using its machine translation, “EP ‘402”, both of record) in view of WO 2018/020191 A1 (referenced below using its machine translation, “WO ‘191”) and further in view of WO 2021/259676 A1 (referenced below using its English-language counterpart publication U.S. 2023/0175314 A1, “Roes”).
The following is an alternate rejection of claim 7.
Considering claims 7 and 9, EP ‘402 differs from the claimed invention, as it is silent re: 1) the provision of a fill opening and 2) the provision of body of the spacer being made of metal. However, such a spacer is known in the art of IGUs, with one example of which taught in Roes. (Roes ¶¶ 0100-0102 and Fig 3, reproduced infra).
PNG
media_image3.png
468
559
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As shown in Fig. 3 of Roes and as expressly mentioned in the reference, the sealants (items 6) are located only on respective pane-contacting sides of the spacer, and these sealants are not present on an edge of the spacer that defines a periphery of the overall IGU. Furthermore, the reference clearly teaches the presence of passage 18.1 that enables the passage of gas therethrough. (Id. ¶ 0102 and Fig. 3).
Roes also teaches that its spacer is a multicomponent spacer having a reinforcing profile 5.2, the reinforcing profile having the topography recited in various claims (including a base portion and arms extending from respective opposing ends of the base portion) and made of a metallic material such as aluminum or stainless steel. (Id. ¶ 0041). The combination of items 5.1 and 5.2 or item 5.2 per se reads on the claimed spacer.
It would have been obvious, to a person of ordinary skill at the time of the claimed invention, to have utilized the IGU spacer taught in Roes, as this spacer saves space and is effective at stiffening the edge region of an IGU. (Id. ¶ 0011). Furthermore or alternatively, given that the filling of insulating gases (e.g. noble gases) is essential to the operation of an IGU, and given that Roes teaches a spacer assembly that allows for the efficient filing of such gases, it would have been obvious, to a person of ordinary skill at the time of the claimed invention, to have utilized the spacer of Roes in the IGU of EP ‘402.
EP ‘402 in view of Roes renders obvious claims 7 and 9.
Considering claims 21-25, claim 21 combines the recitations of claims 1, 4, and 9. As discussed in ¶¶ 7-9 and 17-20 above, the combination of EP ‘402 and Roes renders obvious all limitations recited. Claims 22-25 respectively recite limitations of claims 2, 3, 6, and 11, and EP ‘402 and Roes renders obvious all limitations recited in these claims as well.
Considering claim 26, the window frame structure in WO ‘191 includes both a sash frame 17 and a sash 12. (WO ‘191 pg. 5 ¶ 1 and Fig. 1).
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 3798402 A1 (referenced below using its machine translation, “EP ‘402”) and optionally over WO 2018/020191 A1 (referenced below using its machine translation, “WO ‘191”), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. 2016/0002098 A1 (“Sternchuss”).
Considering claims 13-15, EP ‘402 differs from the invention of claims 13-15, as although it broadly discloses application of coatings onto any of the glass panes of its IGU, it does not disclose the specific coatings as required.
However, each of the coatings recited in claims 13-15 is at least separately known in the art of IGUs. Specifically, Sternchuss teaches a triple-paned IGU having low-e coatings based on ITO on both exterior surfaces of the IGU (which maps to the claimed first and second outer surfaces) and at least one low emissivity coating on at least two (and possibly three) interior surfaces of the IGU. (Sternchuss ¶¶ 0092-0093). It would have been obvious, to a person of ordinary skill at the time of the claimed invention, to have applied the coatings taught in Sternchuss onto the glass panes in the IGU of EP ‘402, for various benefits pertaining to lower thermal transmission. (Id. ¶ 0008).
With no value assigned to scratch resistance, the ITO-based low-e coating of Sternchuss is considered to possess some amount of scratch resistance, in particular as it has a crystalline titanium oxide outermost layer. (Id. ¶¶ 0049-0052 and 0067-0074). This reads on claim 14.
Furthermore, as Sternchuss teaches presence of low-e coatings on both surfaces 2 and 5 (mapping onto the first and second inner surfaces of claim 15). (Id. ¶ 0093). Thus, limitation of claim 15 is met.
Lastly, Sternchuss teaches that face 3 of an IGU may be coated with a low-e coating. (Id. ¶ 0093). With the ITO-based low-e coating mentioned in Sternchuss having tin oxide, and with silver-based low-e coating utilizing dielectric layers (wherein dielectric layer based on tin oxide is a well-known material), either reads on claim 13.
Response to Arguments
In view of amendments to the claims, all previously instated rejections and objections have been withdrawn.
New lines of rejections have been instated above. It is noted that contrary to Applicant’s allegations, EP ‘402 does indeed disclose a window frame (reading on glazing unit frame).
Concluding Remarks
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 Zheren Jim Yang whose telephone number is (571)272-6604. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10:30 - 7:30 ET.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached on (571)270-1547. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Z. Jim Yang/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781