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 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 3-8 and 10-14 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.
Claim 1 already states that the fire-resistant glass portion contains a fire rated glass panel. It is not clear how this fire rated glass panel is related to various subsequently introduced fire-rated glass panes located in the fire-resistant glass portion found in the dependent claims. For claim interpretation, any reasonable interpretation reads on the claimed interpretation.
Claim 17 is 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.
It is unclear how fire rated glass in claim 17 is related to the fire rated glass panel already introduced in claim 1. For claim interpretation, any reasonable interpretation reads on the claimed interpretation.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. As claim 1 already introduced a fire-rated glass panel, the pane of fire rated glass introduced in claim 10 is redundant.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-9 and 11-14 are objected to because claims 2, 11, and 13 separately introduces respective “a sealed chamber” that are in fact different, such differences leading to confusion when a claim recites two such sealed chambers. For clarity and consistency, Applicant is required to call these sealed chambers first, second, and third sealed chambers, which respectively correspond to a sealed chamber within the insulating portion, a sealed chamber between the insulating and fire-resistant portions, and a sealed chamber within the fire-resistant portion.
Claim 14 is objected to for a typographical error.
Claim 16 is objected to, because Applicant uses both comprise/comprising and “comprised of”. It is required that the former be uniformly adopted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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 1-8, 10, and 11; claim 18; and claims 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. 2024/0026730 A1 (“Mathy”), whose disclosure is fully supported by its foreign priority document EP 20213236.1 filed on 10 December 2020.
Considering claims 18 and 19-21, Mathy discloses a fire resistant vacuum insulating glazing having a vacuum insulating glazing (VIG) portion and an intumescent glazing unit portion, wherein the VIG portion comprises two glass panes (labeled GP1 and GP2) spaced apart by a hermetically sealed vacuum space, and wherein the intumescent glazing unit portion comprises two glass panes (labeled GP3 and GP4) that together sandwich a layer of intumescent material. (Mathy ¶¶ 0045-0051 and 0057-0062; and Figs. 1b and 2b, both reproduced infra). Mathy discloses that VIG exhibits superior insulation properties and that the intumescent material confers flame resistance. (Id. ¶¶ 0016, 0062, and 0094). As such, the intumescent glazing unit portion reads on the claimed fire-resistant glass portion, and the VIG portion reads on the claimed insulating portion.
PNG
media_image1.png
582
510
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
633
503
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The limitation “fire rated glass” is interpreted broadly, because Applicant has not set forth a minimum threshold for rating required. Furthermore, an object can have a rating of “fail” for a certain characteristic and still have a rating for that characteristic; in which case, such glass would simply have a rating of “fail”. Lastly, each of the glass panes in the intumescent glazing unit portion (at times up to four panes) is adjacent to at least one intumescent material with fire suppression capabilities, and Mathy in general states that fire resistant glazings (including the ones used in its inventive embodiments) passes fire resistant standards used in the EU such as EN-1363, EN-1364, and EN-1634. (Id. ¶¶ 0002, 0179, and 0258).
Furthermore, even were there an actual threshold required (which there is not, as none is recited), the glass panes used in the intumescent glazing unit portion would still be deemed fire rated by virtue of the composite pane having two panes of glass sandwiching an intumescent material reading on “one pane of fire-rated glass”, as in the case shown in Fig. 2b of the reference. In which case, totality of GP3 and GP4 sandwiching an intumescent material (in the situation illustrated in Fig. 2b) maps onto the claimed one (or more) pane of fire-rated glass, as glass pane under BRI does not preclude composite pane/panels.
Panes GP1 and GP2 map onto the two panes of glass in the insulating portion and define (along with bond seal 5) a sealed vacuum chamber. Pane GP3 per se or totality of panes GP3 and GP4 defines in conjunction with pane GP2 another sealed chamber “Sp” that is filled with insulating gas (and mapping onto the second sealed chamber). (Id. ¶ 0163).
Mathy thus anticipates claims 18-21.
Considering claims 1 and 2, discussion of Mathy in ¶¶ 11-14 above shows that at least the composite pane (constituted of panes GP3 and GP4 sandwiching an intumescent material) read on the claimed fire rated glass panel, as glass panel under BRI does not preclude composite pane/panels.
PNG
media_image3.png
575
523
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Considering claims 3-8, 10, and 11, it is abundantly clear that at least the configurations shown in Figs. 2a and 2b of Mathy (having a fire-rated composite pane constituted of panes GP3 and GP4 sandwiching an intumescent material) read on claims 3-8, 10, and 11, with the reference clearly showing an internal space (labeled “Sp”) separating the VIG portion (mapping onto the insulating portion) from the intumescent glazing unit portion, said internal space delimited by a peripheral spacer 9 and filled with argon. (Id. ¶ 0163).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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)(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.
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.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Mathy, as applied to claim 1 above.
Considering claim 17, Mathy is analogous art, for it is directed to the same field of endeavor as that of the instant application (fire resistant IGUs). The sole limitation not addressed by Mathy in relation to claim 1 is that re: the specific fire rating. However, like units for measuring a particular property, each of the claimed ratings is merely one particular assessment rubric. Mathy otherwise discloses that its fire resistant VIG meets the requirement of standards used in the EU. (Id. ¶ 0002, 0179, and 0258). Furthermore, the arrangement of the various constituent layers in the fire resistant VIG of Mathy is substantially similar to that of the Instant Application, including an insulating portion made of a VIG subunit, the VIG subunit spaced from a fire resistant portion by an argon-filled space. As such, being of substantially similar construction and also designed to meet fire resistant requirements, the fire resistant VIG is considered to intrinsically possess or alternatively be readily modified to meet any of the standards listed.
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.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mathy, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. 2004/0053057 A1 (“Hashibe”) as evidenced by, inter alia, press release from Nippon Electric Glass, company profile of TGP, product data sheet on FireLite® from TGP, and GB 2289076 A.
Claims 1-8, 10, 11, 16, and 17; claim 18; and claims 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mathy in view of Hashibe as evidenced by, inter alia, press release from Nippon Electric Glass, company profile of TGP, product data sheet on FireLite® from TGP, and GB 2289076 A.
Considering claim 16, Mathy differs from the claimed invention as it does not disclose usage of ceramic material in its intumescent glazing portion.
However, in the art of fire resistant glazing, it is known to use crystallized glass for glass plates forming a fire protection glazing. (Hashibe ¶ 0013). It is noted that crystallized glass is also known as glass ceramic, and it is formed due to devitrification (viz. crystallization) of certain portions of a glass. As such, the crystallized glass of Hashibe reads on the limitation of ceramic. Person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use crystallized glass for the panes constituting the intumescent glazing portion of Mathy, as crystallized glass exhibits low thermal expansion and is more resistant toward heat and flame. (Id. ¶ 0013).
Considering claims 1-8, 10, 11, 16, and 17; claim 18; and claims 19-21, it is noted that the following rejection effectively follows the rejection set forth at ¶¶ 27-29 of the Non-Final Office Action of 19 November 2025 (“NFOA”). Though not conceded that fire rated glass requires a special type of glass, solely for completeness, Mathy (as discussed in ¶¶ 14-20 above) as modified by Hashibe (re: usage of crystallized glass) also reads on claims 3-8, 10, 11, and 17; claim 18; and claims 19-21. Specifically, the exemplary fireproof crystallized glass mentioned in Hashibe is FireLite®, as evidenced by its usage in the working example 1 of Hashibe. (Hashibe ¶ 0024). It is noted that the assignee of Hashibe is Nippon Electric Glass, which has held registration of the FireLite® mark since the late 1980s and has sold such crystallized glass since by the mid-1990s, if not earlier. (See company profile of TGP and GB 2289076 A). Furthermore, Nippon Electric Glass indicates TGP as primary sales agent for FireLite® in North America. (See press release from Nippon Electric Glass). The product data sheet for FireLite® from TGP indicates that this crystallized glass passes various fire ratings such as UL 9, UL 10C, and NFPA 257.
Thus, even were “fire-rated” in the various claims considered to necessarily require satisfying various standards (which is not conceded as the claims are not phrased as such), Mathy as modified by Hashibe (using fireproof crystallized glass, in particular FireLite®) reads on even this unduly narrow interpretation of fire-rated pane/panel, with individual ones of panels (e.g. GP3 or GP4) reading on fire-rated glass pane/panel.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mathy per se or Mathy and Hashibe, as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of U.S. 2005/0008796 A1 (“Kriltz”).
Considering claim 12, Mathy is analogous art, for it is directed to the same field of endeavor as that of the instant application (fire resistant glazing). Mathy differs from the claimed invention as it does not disclose its internal space “Sp” to be a vacuum space.
However, in the art of fire resistant glazing, it is known that distinct portions of a multi-paned fire resistant glazing can be separated by a spacing that contains either gas such as argon or alternatively be evacuated (as to form a vacuum). (Kriltz abs. and ¶ 0022). Person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to evacuate the internal space in the fire resistant VIG of Mathy, as Kriltz is considered to have demonstrated this is a configuration known in the art for fire resistant glazing. This rationale for supporting a finding of obviousness, where one reference demonstrates that a particular material is suitable for a particular intended use, is considered appropriate under the guidelines set forth in MPEP 2144.07. Alternatively, Kriltz is considered to have demonstrated that a space filled with argon is functionally equivalent to a space that is evacuated, and under the guidelines set forth in MPEP 2144.06, this straight-forward substitution would have been obvious.
Claims 1, 2, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2021/073903 A1 (“Mathy ‘903”) in view of Hashibe and as evidenced by, inter alia, press release from Nippon Electric Glass, company profile of TGP, product data sheet on FireLite® from TGP, and GB 2289076 A.
Considering claims 1, 2, 13, and 14, it is noted that the following rejection effectively follows the rejection set forth at ¶¶ 30 and 31 of the NFOA. Mathy ‘903 discloses a fire resistant vacuum insulating glazing having a first vacuum insulating glazing (VIG) portion and a second VIG portion comprising an intumescent glazing unit, wherein the first VIG portion comprises two glass panes (labeled GP1 and GP2) spaced apart by a hermetically sealed vacuum space, and wherein the second VIG portion comprises an intumescent glazing portion (labeled as GPiu) forming a VIG with pane GP2b. (Mathy ‘903 pg. 18 line 1 – pg. 19 line 6 and Fig. 7, reproduced infra). Mathy ‘903 discloses that VIG exhibits superior insulation properties and that the intumescent material confers flame resistance. (Id. pg. 1 line 12-19 and pg. 3 line 24 – pg. 4 line 6). As such, the first VIG portion reads on the claimed insulating portion, and the second VIG portion (which comprises intumescent material) reads on the claimed fire-resistant glass portion. Furthermore, as shown in the figure, there is a vacuum space located between panes forming the fire resistant second VIG portion.
PNG
media_image4.png
404
349
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Though not conceded that fire rated glass requires a special type of glass, solely for completeness, Mathy ‘903 as modified by Hashibe reads on claims 1, 2, 13 and 14. The rationale for the modification is found in Hashibe, which teaches that crystallized glass exhibits low thermal expansion and is more resistant toward heat and flame. (Hashibe ¶ 0013). Person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use crystallized glass (and in particular FireLite®) for at least panes Gpiu and GP2b (which constitute the intumescent glazing portion of Mathy ‘903), as crystallized glass exhibits low thermal expansion and is more resistant toward heat and flame. As discussed in ¶ 31 above, such crystallized glass materials pass various fire testing.
Response to Arguments
In view of amendments to the claims, the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 12 has been withdrawn.
Not all claim objections are withdrawn, as at least the issue re: consistent naming of sealed chamber has not been addressed by Applicant.
The rejection of claims 18 and 19-21 over Mathy per se is maintained, because Applicant’s interpretation of a fire-rated pane/panel is unduly narrow. (See pg. 6 ¶ 4+ of response filed 19 March 2026). Furthermore, Examiner instated in the NFOA a separate rejection over Mathy and Hashibe, wherein the latter expressly teaches a crystallized glass material that reads on even Applicant’s unduly narrow interpretation of a fire-rated pane/panel. (See NFOA ¶¶ 26-29). Applicant has not even addressed this rejection (or any other rejection) utilizing Hashibe. As such, at least all rejections relying upon Hashibe are maintained.
Similar findings apply for the rejection of claims 13, and 14 over Mathy ‘903 and Hashibe, which were instated at ¶¶ 30 and 31 of the NFOA and the rationale of which now applicable to claims 1, 2, 13, and 14.
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 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 at (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 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.
/Z. Jim Yang/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights