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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11 August 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 11 August 2026 has been entered.
Claims 24, 28-32, 34-37, and 41-43 remain pending in the application, wherein claims 24, 30-32, and 34 have been amended, claims 26-27 and 38-40 are newly canceled, and claim 43 stands as withdrawn.
The amended limitations were previously recited in dependent claim 27. Accordingly, no new matter has been introduced by these amendments.
Response to Arguments
The amendments have overcome the improper dependency previously set forth in the Office Action mailed 11 March 2026. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see p. 8-10, filed 11 August 2026, with respect to the prior art have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendments. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Varanasi in view of Gordon, as outline herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 24, 28-32, 34-37, and 41-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Varanasi et al. (US 2003/0215648, previously cited) in view of Gordon (US 4,419,386).
Claim 24: Varanasi teaches a solar control coated glass to form a glazing or window unit (i.e. a coated glazing) (paragraphs 0001-0002). The solar control glass transmits a significantly higher percentage of incident light than of total incident radiation energy (paragraph 0005) and comprises a glass substrate, typically a float glass which may be tinted or clear (paragraph 0017 (i.e. a transparent glass substrate). Varanasi teaches specific examples of multi-layer coating stack deposited on a clear float glass ribbon having an iridescence-suppressing layer of a tin oxide (i.e. corresponding to the instantly claimed first layer), a silicon dioxide coating (i.e. corresponding to the instantly claimed second layer), a fluorine doped tin oxide coating (i.e. corresponding to the instantly claimed third layer), and a titanium dioxide coating (i.e. corresponding to the instantly claimed fourth layer), in this sequence and without additional intervening layers (paragraphs 0024-0026). The layer thicknesses in Angstroms are disclosed in Table 1 (described by Varanasi in paragraph 0027). Varanasi teaches the titanium dioxide layer to be photocatalytic (paragraph 0020). Varanasi also discloses the tin oxide and silicon dioxide coatings (i.e. the first and second layers) to be an iridescence-suppressing layer (paragraph 0024). However, Varanasi does not teach the instantly claimed lower layer.
In a related field of endeavor, Gordon teaches glass structures bearing a thin, functional, inorganic coating such as tin oxide that reflects infra-red radiation (Col. 1, l. 9-24). Gordon discloses an inner coating that forms means for reducing haze on the coated glass and also reducing the iridescence of the glass structure (Col. 2, l. 54-61) by use of an intermediate iridescence-suppressing interlayer having a layer closer to the glass surface with a higher refractive index and a layer further from the glass surface having a lower refractive index (Col. 3, l. 1-24). Gordon teaches tin oxide as a high refractive index material with a refractive index of 2.0 (Table A) and silicon dioxide as a low refractive index material with a refractive index of 1.46 (Table B). Gordon further teaches including a haze-inhibiting layer of refractive index 1.45 deposited first on the glass (i.e. before the intermediate layers) (Col. 7, l. 35-62). More specifically, Gordon teaches that when the layer first deposited on soft glass is amorphous and consists of SiO2, Si3N4, or GeO2 or mixtures thereof, the coating is free of haze, no matter what the subsequent layers are, but if the initial layer contains large proportions of SnO2, etc., then haze formulation is likely (Col. 9, l. 25-42).
As Varanasi and Gordon both teach solar control coated glass (i.e. Gordon teaches this feature as reflecting infra-red radiation), they are analogous. More specifically, both Varanasi and Gordon teach an iridescence-suppressing layer of tin oxide followed by silicon dioxide (i.e. tin oxide is closest to the glass). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the coating of Varanasi to include a haze-inhibiting layer of SiO2 (i.e. as one of the specifically named compounds) as taught by Gordon because haze formation is likely when the first layer contains large proportions of SnO2 but the coating is free of haze when including the haze-inhibiting layer, and one would have had a reasonable expectation of success. It is noted that the refractive index of SiO2 (i.e. the material of the haze-inhibiting layer and the second layer) is 1.46 and the refractive index of SnO2 (i.e. the first layer) is 2.0 as taught by Gordon (Tables A and B), and these overlap the instantly claimed refractive indexes. The courts have held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where claimed ranges overlap, lie inside of, or are close to ranges in the prior art. See MPEP § 2144.05. It is noted that as of the writing of this Office Action, no demonstration of a criticality to the claimed ranges has been presented.
Claim 28: Gordon teaches the haze-inhibiting layer (i.e. the lower layer as outlined above) may be SiO2 (Col. 9, l. 25-42) (i.e. SiO2 is an oxide of a metalloid).
Claim 29: Gordon teaches the haze-inhibiting layer (i.e. the lower layer as outlined above) has an optical thickness of 0.14 relative to the total intermediate layer (Col. 7, l. 55-62), and teaches a specific example thickness of 10 nm in Example 2 (Col. 10, l. 62-67), which overlaps the instantly claimed thickness. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Claim 30: Varanasi teaches the layer of SnO2 (i.e. the first layer as outlined above) has a thickness ranging from 269 Å to 291 Å (i.e. about 26.9-29.1 nm) (Table 1), which overlaps the instantly claimed range. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Claim 31: Varanasi teaches the layer of SiO2 (i.e. the second layer as outlined above) has a thickness ranging from 182 Å to 227 Å (i.e. about 18.2-22.7 nm) (Table 1), which overlaps the instantly claimed range. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Claim 32: Varanasi teaches the layer of SnO2:F (i.e. the third layer as outlined above) has a thickness ranging from 2064 Å to 2738 Å (i.e. about 206.4-273.8 nm) (Table 1), which overlaps the instantly claimed range. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Claim 34: Varanasi teaches the layer of TiO2 (i.e. the fourth layer as outlined above) has a thickness ranging from 302 Å to 502 Å (i.e. about 30.2-50.2 nm) (Table 1), which overlaps the instantly claimed range. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Claims 35-36: Varanasi teaches a layer of SnO2 (i.e. the first layer as outlined above; i.e. tin dioxide) (paragraph 0024; Table 1).
Claim 37: Varanasi teaches the layer deposited on the SnO2 to be SiO2 (i.e. SiO2 is the second layer as outlined above; i.e. SiO2 is an oxide of a metalloid) (paragraph 0024; Table 1).
Claims 41-42: Varanasi teaches titanium oxide (i.e. the outermost layer as outlined above) to be hydrophilic (paragraph 0020), which is consistent with the instantly claimed static water contact angle, but does not specifically teach the instantly claimed limitations recited in instant claims 41 and 42. However, the limitations of claim 41 are a specific measurement of a material property and limitations of claim 42 describes a material property, and Varanasi teaches a coated glass article that is substantially identical to the instantly claimed coated glazing, as outlined above. As such, the instantly claimed limitations are considered to be present because substantially identical materials have substantially identical properties and functions. See MPEP § 2112.01.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIM S HORGER whose telephone number is (571)270-5904. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 AM - 4:00 PM EST.
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.
/KIM S. HORGER/Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights