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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 March 4, 2026 has been entered.
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.
Claims 1 and 3 – 8 is/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.
As written, applicant has now amended claim 1 to recite the following:
“Wmax being a weight of the suction hole sealing material with which a temperature rise of the peripheral edge sealing material is 5oC or less at a time of an application of the suction hole sealing material to the suction hole”
The metes and bounds of claim 1 are now unclear. Further in the claim, Wmax is simply recited as the upper limit weight of the suction hole sealing material. In addition, claim 1 requires that the suction hole sealing material has a weight of 0.05 g or more and 5.00 g or less. Thus, it would appear that each of these claimed feature(s) which define the weight of the suction hole sealing material are redundant. It would seem that the weight of the sealing material cannot exceed 5.00 g, its maximum amount. However, the upper limit of the suction hole sealing material is defined as Wmax as well and further defined in the newly-added feature. Applicant is encouraged to clarify which of these is intended and what the scope of the weight of the sealing material is.
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.
The factual inquiries 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(s) 1 and 3 – 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atsushi, et al. (WO 2019/093323 A1 – English translation citations below) in view of Trpkovski, et al. (US 6,916,392).
With respect to claim 1, Atsushi, et al. teach a depressurized multilayered glass panel comprising: a pair of opposing glass plates (item 1A and 1B; see also abstract – thickness of 0.3 mm or more, 0.5mm or more or ideally, 1 mm or more); a plurality of space holding members arranged in a gap formed between the pair of glass plates (item 2 – figure 2; page 2 of translation); a peripheral edge sealing material configured to seal the gap of a peripheral edge of the pair of glass plates (item 3 – figure 2; page 2 of translation); and a suction hole sealing material configured to seal a suction hole penetrating through a front and a back in one of the pair of glass plates in a state where the gap is depressurized via the suction hole, wherein a center of the suction hole is provided at a position away from an edge of the pair of glass plates (item 4 – figure 2; page 2 of translation).
Atsushi, et al. however fail to specifically teach wherein the center of the suction hole is provided at a position away from an edge of the pair of glass plates by 15 mm or less and an upper limit of a weight of the suction hole sealing material is Wmax calculated according to Equation below:
[Math. 1]
Wmax = K x In(A/B) x H x C x D/(N x AT), wherein Wmax (g) is an upper limit weight of the suction hole sealing material, K is a correction coefficient, A (mm) is a distance from the center of the suction hole to the edge of the glass plate, B (mm) is a radius of the suction hole, H (mm) is a height of the suction hole, C (W/mm-K) is thermal conductivity of the glass plate. D (°C) is a temperature difference permissible between an inner diameter side of the suction hole and the edge of the glass plate when the suction hole sealing material is charged into the suction hole, N (J/g-K) is specific heat of the suction hole sealing material, and ΔT (°C) is a temperature difference between the suction hole sealing material and the peripheral edge sealing material when the suction hole sealing material is charged into the suction hole. Atsushi, et al. also fails to teach the weight of the suction hole sealing material of 0.05 g or more and 5.00 g or less or specifically, that the dissolution temperature of the peripheral edge sealing material is 250oC or less.
With respect to the dissolution temperature, the examiner turns, initially to applicant’s specification and the only mention of the dissolution temperature is paragraph 0032; however, there is no material discussed relative to the dissolution temperature recited. The material for the edge sealing material is identified in the specification, paragraph 0038 which states the following:
“The peripheral edge sealing material has a melting point of 200oC or more…As the peripheral edge sealing material, solder..for example, such as a solder with a composition of 91.2Sn-8.8Zn (eutectic point temperature: 198oC) added with Ti, is used to seal the peripheral edge 3 of the pair of glass plates TA, 1B. However, the peripheral edge sealing material 11 (solder) is not limited thereto, and the peripheral edge 3 of the pair of glass plates 1A, 1Bmay be sealed using a sealant which is a metal material containing at least one material selected from the group consisting of Sn, Cu, In, Bi, Zn, Pb, Sb, Ga, and Ag and has a melting point of 250°C or less.” Thus, it would follow that the material(s) or equivalents thereof with the melting point as recited would be expected to have the dissolution temperature as recited.
Based on this, the examiner notes that Atsushi, et al. teach the same species of materials for the sealing material. Per page 4 of the reference, Atsushi, et al. teach that the “a solder with a composition of 91.2Sn-8.8Zn (eutectic point temperature: 198oC) is used. However, the suction hole sealing material is not limited thereto and at least one [material] selected from the group consisting of Sn, Cu, In, Bi, Zn, Pb, Sb, Ga, and Ag whose melting point of 250°C or less [may be used].”
Therefore, the examiner contends that because the materials in Atsushi, et al. are equivalent to that identified in applicant’s specification, the dissolution temperature as recited is expected.
Regarding the weight of the sealing material and its position, Trpkovski, et al. teach a method of producing and servicing insulating glass units. The IG unit is comprised of two glass panes between which an insulating space is formed. One of the panes includes a hole through which gas is flowed through (column 11, lines 50 – 55). The hole is then sealed post filling. The hole size is preferably small such that sealant does not flow beyond the inner side of the hole and down the inner surface of the pane. The hole size can include a diameter of 0.0625 in or less [1.58 mm]. In addition, in many cases, the hole is positioned near the corner of the pane (column 12, lines 10 – 13). The hole may be formed about ½ inch or ¾ inch [12.7 mm – 19.05 mm] which encompasses the range of 15mm or less. This position is ideal in order to minimize visible impact of the hole (column 12, lines 15 – 18).
In addition, with respect to the amount of sealant, while Trpkovski, et al. do not teach a specific amount, as noted above, the reference teaches that the amount is chosen to be a small amount, which should not flow beyond the inside of the hole (column 11, lines 60 – 65). Based on this teaching, the diameter of the hole and the thickness of the pane [i.e., 3mm per Atsushi], the examiner contends that the amount of sealant is an optimizable value. The amount may be chosen in order to plug the hole in the glass pane, while also ensuring that visible impact is minimized. The sealant should not project beyond the surface of the pane, which also ensures no damage to the sealant during washing (column 17, lines 55 – 60).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to choose an amount of sealing material and determine the position of the suction port away from the edge of the glass plates by 15 mm less per the teachings of Trpkovski, et al. for the purpose of 1) positioning the suction port in the corner to reduce its visible impact and 2) ensuring that the sealant amount plugs the hole, while again, reducing any visible impact to the panes themselves.
Furthermore, while both Atsushi, et al. and Trpkovski, et al. is/are silent with respect to the upper limit Wmax, the examiner notes that Wmax is limited by the distance of the hole, its dimensions and the sealing material type and weight. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to determine Wmax based on the teachings in Atsushi, et al. combined with Trpkovski et al. to allow for the dimension, position and amount of sealing material for the suction port in order to maintain the integrity of the VIG unit.
With respect to claims 3 – 4, Atsushi, et al. in view of Trpkovski, et al. teach wherein the suction hole sealing material has a width in a plate surface direction of the pair of glass plates of 5 mm or more and 25 mm or less (page 6 of English translation of Atsushi, et al.); wherein the peripheral edge sealing material has the width in the plate surface direction of the pair of glass plates of 3 mm or more and 12 mm or less (page 5 of English translation of Atsushi, et al.).
With respect to claim 5 – 6, Atsushi, et al. in view of Trpkovski, et al. teach wherein the peripheral edge sealing material has a melting point of 200°C or more (page 4 of English translation of Atsushi, et al. – the edge sealing material having a melting temperature of 250oC or less includes and encompasses the range of 200oC or more); wherein the pair of glass plates is formed in a rectangular shape, and the suction hole is arranged in a corner portion close to two sides of the one of the pair of glass plates (figure 7 of Atsushi, et al.).
With respect to claims 7 – 8, Atsushi, et al. in view of Trpkovski, et al. teach wherein the pair of glass plates is formed in a rectangular shape, and the suction hole is arranged in a vicinity of a center along one side of the one of the pair of glass plates (figure 7 of Atsushi, et al.) The examiner notes that that “the vicinity of a center along one side” may be construed to mean the center area close to a corner of the glass plate (as written, the “vicinity” has not been defined with respect to a reference point on the glass plate and thus, such may be any point along the side of the plate itself); wherein the suction hole sealing material is in contact with another plate surface of the one of the pair of glass plates (figure 2 of Atsushi, et al.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 4, 2026 have been fully considered. With respect to Abe, et al., Applicant argues that Abe, et al. do not teach that the suction hole sealing material is a metal material consisting of a single metal or metal alloy as claimed. Examiner finds these arguments persuasive as Abe, et al. teach a glass frit (for example a lead-based frit); however, as recited in newly-amended claim 1, Abe, et al. fail to teach or render obvious a metal material consisting of a single metal or metal alloy. Therefore, the rejection(s) over Abe, et al. have been withdrawn.
Applicant then argues that the second set of rejections over the combination of Atsushi, et al. in view of Cooper, et al. are also improper as Atsushi, et al. fail to teach the amount of sealant material and fails to teach or render obvious any idea of evaluating the temperature rise of the edge sealing material. Applicant then argues that Cooper, et al. fail to remedy the deficiencies in Atsushi, et al. Specifically, turning to Cooper, et al., Cooper, et al. teach a pump-out port diameter of 30 mm which is larger than that which applicant intends – per applicant’s specification, the suction hole diameter Sw is 1mm or more and 10 mm or less (paragraph 0054). With respect to the teaching(s) in Cooper, et al., examiner finds these arguments persuasive; however, maintains the validity of Atsushi, et al. as a primary reference. Based on an updated search, examiner has now cited Atsushi, et al. in combination with Trpkovski, et al.
With respect to the temperature rise and evaluating Wmax, examiner first notes that the claim is directed to a product, comprised of 1) 2 glass panes, 2) a plurality of space holding members or spacers, 3) an edge sealing material, and a 4) suction hole sealing material and suction hole. The properties which are described in the claim – the dissolution temperature, the temperature rise and Wmax are all dependent on the type of sealing material, dimensions of the suction hole, and weight of the sealing material. Examiner contends that Atsushi, et al. is still pertinent as it teaches the VIG unit, with a suction hole and metal sealant. Trpkovski, et al. teach the position of the suction hole which overlaps the range as recited – Trpkovski, et al. even teach that the suction hole is positioned to minimize visible impact of the hole. With respect to the amount of sealant, Trpkovski, et al. teach that the sealant amount of kept small such that it does not flow within the inner side of the hole. Based on these teachings combined with Atsushi, et al., the examiner contends that the sealant amount remains an optimizable quantity.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIA VERONICA EWALD whose telephone number is (571)272-8519. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri ~9am-5:30pm 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, Srilakshmi Kumar can be reached at 571-270-7769. 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.
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783