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.
Claim 11 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.
Claim 11 is rejected because it is unclear whether or a not a terminal is actually being positively recited in the claim or whether this is a conditional claim. Note specifically, that the claim never positively recites the presence of a terminal such as with the language “further comprises a terminal, wherein the terminal is joined via the lead-free solder layer, and wherein said terminal has a peel strength…”. Instead, the claim only merely recites “wherein a terminal joined” and then proceeds to recite properties when treated. As such, the scope is not yet clear of whether or not the prior art needs to teach a terminal joined with the properties or whether the claim is just conditional wherein the prior art only needs to have the claimed features when treated as claimed when a terminal is joined via the lead-free solder as claimed.
For examination, the claim will be interpreted as conditional wherein the prior art only needs to have the claimed features when treated as claimed when a terminal is joined via the lead-free solder as claimed.
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.
1. Claim(s) 1-2, 9-12 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furuhashi (USPub20190002338).
Regarding claim 1: Furuhashi et al. teach a glass for vehicles comprising the following (Figures, Abstract, 0018-0019, 0041).
PNG
media_image1.png
300
554
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The ceramic color layer is a sintered layer (0019, 0042) comprising a glass frit and pigment (0024-0025) wherein the glass frit can comprise bismuth (Bi) (see 0030).
Regarding the claimed limitation of a Bi/Ag mass ratio in an outermost surface of the conductive layer, the following is noted.
Furuhashi’s conductive layer, which necessarily includes in the outermost surface, comprises both Ag and a glass frit (0041, 0043) and regarding the frit, it can be similar to the frit mentioned for the ceramic color layer (i.e. a frit comprising Bi) (see 0046). As such, Furuhashi’s conductive layer, which necessarily includes in the outermost surface, can comprise both Ag and Bi.
Further, Furuhashi teaches that the content of the Ag in the conductive layer composition can be 85-99mass% (0044) which will provide for ratios overlapping that claimed (MPEP 2144.05). For instance, in instances with Furuhashi’s conductive layer comprising 99mass% Ag, the Bi of the frit would necessarily have to be ≤1mass% of the composition which provides for Bi/Ag (1/99=0.01) ratios of ≤0.01.
Regarding claim 2: Given that Furuhashi never discloses any oxygen migration occurring in their conductive layer thickness, one skilled in the art would conclude no migration to occur falling within the range of less than 75%.micron migration.
Alternatively, in the instance Applicants argue against the above assertion, the following is noted. Initially, Furuhashi’s conductive layer, including the surface, including a glass frit as laid out above will necessarily have at least some oxygen from said frit. As discussed previously, Furuhashi’s conductive layer can have a Ag content of 85-99mass% and note that in instances comprising 99mass% Ag, any oxygen from the added frit would necessarily have to be less than the remaining 1mass%. Given that the conductive layer is taught to have a thickness of 7-8micron (0048), taking the product of the <1% oxygen and the thickness of 7-8microns will provide for a value falling within the range claimed.
Regarding claim 9: The glass frit in the ceramic color layer preferably has a softening point overlapping the range claimed (0031) (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 10: Given that Furuhashi’s glass meets that claimed, one skilled in the art would reasonably conclude the same properties (MPEP 2112).
Regarding claim 11: Note that claim 11 is not considered to require a terminal or properties thereof when treated as claimed for reasons previously set forth, but instead, claim 11 is considered a conditional limitation limitations wherein the prior art only needs to have the claimed features when treated as claimed when a terminal is joined via the lead-free solder. In the instant case, given that Furuhashi’s glass meets that claimed, one skilled in the art would reasonably conclude the same properties to result when treated under the same conditions if a terminal was joined (MPEP 2112).
However, it is noted for the record that Furuhashi does actually teach that a terminal 15 is joined via the Pb-free solder layer 14 (see 0019 and Figures) and regarding the properties when treated as claimed, again, given that Furuhashi’s glass meets that claimed, one skilled in the art would reasonably conclude the same properties to result when treated under the same conditions (MPEP 2112).
Regarding claim 12: The Pb-free solder layer comprises 95% or more Sn (see 0051).
Regarding claim 15: The claim language “being used for a laminated glass for a windshield” is intended use and it has been held by the courts that as long as the prior art is capable of such use, the claim is met. In the instant case, as Furuhashi’s glass meets that claimed, one skilled in the art would conclude that is can be used in the manner claimed (MPEP 2112).
2. Claim(s) 3-8, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furuhashi (USPub20190002338) as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Chiba (USPN6,287,996).
Regarding claims 4, 5-6, 8, 14: While Furuhashi does not explicitly disclose the features required by claims, it is noted that they do not exclude such features either and instead, only generally teach a ceramic color layer comprised of glass frit and heat-resistant pigment for use on vehicle window glass.
As Chiba, who similarly teaches a ceramic color layer comprised of glass frit and heat-resistant pigment for use on vehicle window glass, teaches that making such a layer with a composition according to their invention allows for a ceramic color layer with which the underlying glass will not deteriorate, or less likely to decrease (col. 2, lines 40-45), it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify Furuhashi to include their ceramic color layer having a composition according to that of Chiba in order to obtain a color layer with which the underlying glass will not deteriorate, or less likely to decrease.
Note that Furuhashi’s color layer having a composition according to Chiba can include a composition such as that shown below (Chiba, claim 3),
PNG
media_image2.png
322
200
media_image2.png
Greyscale
which provides for overlap with that of claim 14 and allows for SiO2/Bi2O3 ratios overlapping that of claim 4 (MPEP 2144.05).
Further, Furuhashi’s color layer having a composition according to Chiba will allow for the addition of fillers (see Chiba abstract) which can be cordierite, zircon, etc. (Chiba Col. 5, lines 56-58) meeting claims 5 and 6.
Even further, Furuhashi’s color layer having a composition according to Chiba will have a glass frit with a thermal expansion at 50-350oC being 40x10-7/oC to 120x-7/oC (Chiba Col. 4, lines 43-46) overlapping the range of claim 8 (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 7: Furuhashi’s color layer should have a thickness of 10-25micron (Furuhashi 0076-0078) overlapping the range claimed (MPEP 2144.05).
The limitation that the color layer surface has a certain content relationship after treating it under the conditions claimed is a conditional limitation wherein the prior art does not actually have to teach the content or treatment but instead, only needs to have the resulting content relationship when treated as claimed.
In the instant case, as noted previously, it would have been obvious to modify Furuhashi’s color layer with the composition according to Chiba which can have a frit composition as laid out above. As the composition overlaps that used by Applicants’ (see Applicants’ claim 14 for instance), one skilled in the art would reasonably conclude resulting content relationships to result following treatment conditions as claimed (MPEP 2112).
Regarding claim 3: Note initially that the claim language that conductive layer comprises a crystallized region “derived from” the glass frit is a product by process limitation. Specifically, while the limitation does require the final conductive layer to have a crystallized region, the manner in which it is derived is a process limitation and it has been held by the courts that in such instances, as long as the prior art teaches the features of the final product, it will meet the claim regardless of how it is made (i.e. derived from the glass frit in the underlying layer).
In the instant case, as previously discussed, Furuhashi’s conductive layer comprises both Ag and a glass frit and Furuhashi indicated the frit can be similar to the frit used for the ceramic color layer.
As it was discussed above that it would have been obvious to modify Furuhashi’s color layer frit composition to that according to Chiba and such frits can be crystalline (Chiba, claim 4), using similar frit in Furuhashi’s conductive layer would provide for crystalline frit (i.e. crystallized region) therein as claimed.
Also note that in the instance Applicants argue that the claimed “derived from the glass frit” of the color layer limitation required the conductive layer crystallized region to be of the same composition as the color layer glass frit, note again that the modification above provides Furuhashi with the same crystallized frit (i.e. the same composition) in both the underlying color layer and conductive layer. Regardless of whether the feature is obtained by a different process such as merely adding an additional separate frit to the conductive layer rather than it being “derived from” another frit is irrelevant as the final product features are still met.
3 Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furuhashi (USPub20190002338) as applied to claim 1 above in view of
Regarding claim 13: Furuhashi teaches using a flux with the solder layer (0064) but just does not teach the solder layer being formed with halogen-free flux. However, Furuhashi does not exclude such a feature and instead, only generally teaches a Pb-free solder between an underlying Ag containing conductive layer and an overlying terminal to be used on vehicle window glass.
As Saimi, who similarly teaches a Pb-free solder between an underlying Ag containing conductive layer and an overlying terminal to be used on vehicle window glass, discloses that their Pb-solder containing a paste-form flux such as a polymer rosin, which the Examiner notes that halogen does not appear to be required (see 0037-0040), allows for deterioration of the stress of the glass being prevented and strong bonding between the underlaying conductor layer and overlying electronic terminal (see 0042-0043), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of invention to modify Furuhashi to include their Pb-solder containing a paste-form flux according to Furuhashi to allow for deterioration of stress of the glass to be prevented and for strong bonding between the underlaying conductor layer and overlying terminal.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAUREN ROBINSON COLGAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3474. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 9AM to 5PM.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-0604. 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.
LAUREN ROBINSON COLGAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1784
/LAUREN R COLGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784