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 § 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
With respect to applicant’s arguments, filed June 9, 2026 regarding the previous rejection under 35 USC 112(b), the examiner finds such arguments persuasive. Of note, applicant has argued that the features in claim 1 with respect to the weight of the suction hole sealing material are definite and not contradictory. As pointed out by applicant, the weight of the suction hole sealing material is 0.05 g or more but not more than the smaller of 5.00 g and Wmax, wherein the Wmax is chosen to prevent overheating and thermal shock of the glass plate around the suction hole. Examiner concurs that the explanation provided is persuasive and thus, the rejection has been withdrawn as noted.
With respect to the prior art rejection, however, examiner finds such arguments unpersuasive. Applicant argues that the secondary reference of Trpkovski, et al. has a different purpose to adjusting their amount of the sealing material. Applicant argues that the purpose in Trpkovski, et al. is to prevent the sealing material from leaking out and minimizing visual impact. In contrast, the instant application endeavors to keep the temperature rise quantity of the peripheral edge sealing material 5oC or less, the weight of the sealing material being controlled to be Wmax or less based on the position of the suction hole, the weight of the sealing material and the condition of thermal conductivity.
While the examiner concurs that Trpkovski, et al. may teach adjusting the sealing material for a different purpose, the reference still appreciates that the amount of the sealing material, the suction hole diameter and the position of the hole are variables which can be optimized to achieve a desired result and thus, while the reason for combining the references may differ from the problem which applicant wishes to address, the references are still properly combinable nonetheless.
With respect to the temperature rise and evaluating Wmax, examiner again 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 maintains that the sealant amount remains an optimizable quantity.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
Prosecution Insights