DETAILED ACTION
The claims 1-20 are pending and presented for the examination.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 08/31/2023, 11/15/2024, and 11/26/2025 are being considered by the examiner.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-7 and 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cid-Aguilar et al (US 8318054 B2) in view of Iida et al (US 2014/0154440 A1) and Zhang et al (CN 1746124 A).
Regarding claim 1, Cid-Aguilar et al teaches a dark green solar control mask comprising 0.71-1.50 wt% total iron expressed as Fe2O3, 0.0-1.0 wt% TiO2, 0.0004-0.015 wt% (4-150 ppm) CuO, and 0.0004-0.030 wt% (4-300 ppm) Cr2O3 (see Abstract). Cid-Aguilar et al teaches embodiments comprising CeO2 in amounts falling with the corresponding range of the instant claim (see Table 2). The thickness of the inventive glass is 1.6-5.0 mm, which overlaps and thus renders obvious the thickness range of the instant claim. Cid-Aguilar et al teaches embodiments wherein each of the three transmittance values falls below the maximum values of the instant claim (see i.e. Table 3, example 76). Further, the compositionally equivalent glasses taught by Cid-Aguilar et al as modified in view of the prior art as discussed below would necessarily have equivalent solar direct transmittance, infrared transmittance, and ultraviolet transmittance. It is well settled that when a claimed composition appears to be substantially the same as a composition disclosed in the prior art, the burden is properly upon the applicant to prove by way of tangible evidence that the prior art composition does not necessarily possess characteristics attributed to the CLAIMED composition. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed. Circ. 1990); In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980); In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 2109, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971).
Cid-Aguilar et al does not teach that the inventive glass comprises additives of Co2O3-, SrO, BaO, and ZrO2. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Cid-Aguilar et al in view of Iida et al in order to include SrO, BaO, and ZrO2 because Iida et al teaches a similarly composed solar control glass that can be a green glass, and teaches that said additives are known as advantageous in these types of glasses. Iida et al teaches that the inventive glass contains equivalent amounts of Fe2O3 and TiO2 to those taught by Cid-Aguilar et al, and teaches that inclusion of SrO and BaO additives leads to improved melting properties (see paragraph 0335). The SrO and BaO components are taught to be present in ranges overlapping those of the instant claims (see paragraph 0012). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have selected from the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05. One of ordinary skill would have had motivation to include SrO and BaO as taught by Iida et al in the Cid-Aguilar et al glass because of the aforementioned improvements in melting properties. Iida et al further teaches that the inventive glass comprises ZrO2 in an amount overlapping the corresponding range of the instant claim. Iida et al teaches that the ZrO2 component increases the ion exchange rate; as the ion exchange processing of the Iida et al glasses lead to increased strength properties, one of ordinary skill would thus have had motivation to also use it with the Cid-Aguilar et al glasses, and so would have also been motivated to include the Iida ZrO2 component therewith. As above, the overlapping range for this component taught by Iida et al renders obvious the corresponding range of instant claim 1. It would have been obvious to one to further modify Cid-Aguilar et al in view of Zhang et al in order to include the Co2O3 additive taught therein. Zhang et al teaches a green glass that is solar absorbing, and that is compositionally similar to that taught by Cid-Aguilar et al. Zhang et al teaches that the inventive glass comprises a Co2O3 component in an amount of 4-20 ppm (see Abstract), and that this is an advantageous additive because it is a weak IR absorber, which can help reduce the reduction of total iron dosage and glass ratio, and allow for adjusting the color of the glass. These would have been seen as beneficial improvements by one of ordinary skill in the art, and as such one would have had motivation to include the Co2O3 component taught by Zhang et al in the Cid-Aguilar glass. Each limitation of instant claim 1 is therefore met by the teachings of the prior art of record, and the claim is obvious and not patentably distinct.
Regarding claim 2, Cid-Aguilar et al teaches 4-150 ppm CuO. Per MPEP 2144.05, overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
Regarding claim 3, Zhang et al teaches 4-20 ppm Co2O3.
Regarding claim 4, Cid-Aguilar et al teaches that the base glass comprises 70-75 wt% SiO2, 12-15 wt% Na2O, 5-12 wt% CaO, 3-4.2 wt% MgO, 0-2 wt% Al2O3, and 0-2 wt% K2O. Each of said ranges substantially overlaps and thus renders obvious the corresponding range of the instant claim 4, and the claims is therefore obvious and not patentably distinct over the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 5, Cid-Aguilar et al teaches solar direct transmittance of 45% or less. The transmittance and specifically IR transmittance of a glass is compositionally dependent, with the additives taught by Cid-Aguilar et al, Iida et al, and Zhang et al discussed above added to impart preferred absorption properties that include absorption in the IR range. As such, the equivalently composed glass taught by Cid-Aguilar et la in view of Iida et al and Zhang et al would necessarily have an equivalent IR transmittance of 30% or less. It is well settled that when a claimed composition appears to be substantially the same as a composition disclosed in the prior art, the burden is properly upon the applicant to prove by way of tangible evidence that the prior art composition does not necessarily possess characteristics attributed to the CLAIMED composition. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed. Circ. 1990); In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980); In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 2109, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971).
Regarding claim 6, Cid-Aguilar et al teaches a visible light transmittance of greater than 70% (see Table 1).
Regarding claim 7, Cid-Aguilar et al teaches a redox ratio of 0.15-0.50 (see column 8, lines 26-32).
Regarding claim 10, Cid-Aguilar et al teaches 0-1.0 wt% TiO2, and thus values of 0.1 wt% or less are rendered obvious by the prior art teaching. Cid-Aguilar teaches embodiments wherein CeO2 content is 0.4 wt% or 0.6 wt% (see Table 2). Thus, embodiments falling within the scope of Cid-Aguilar are taught and suggested wherein the aforementioned CeO2 contents would be 5-40 times greater than the low TiO2 values falling within the inventive range, and the further limitations of claim 10 are therefore met by the teachings of the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 11, the CuO content is 4-150 ppm and that of Cr2O3 is 4-300 ppm. As such, routine optimization of these overlapping ranges would lead to embodiments wherein the CuO/Cr2O3 ratio falls within 5-60.
Regarding claim 12, the Iida et al BaO and SrO ranges are such that routine optimization by one of ordinary skill in the art would lead to embodiments having a majority BaO, and further to where the BaO/SrO ratio is 5-60.
Regarding claim 13, Iida et al teaches 0-1% BaO and 0-5% ZrO2. As such, embodiments can be produced from these overlapping ranges wherein a BaO/ZrO2 ratio is 2-8, and routine optimization and experimentation with said overlapping ranges would lead a skilled artisan to such embodiments.
Regarding claim 14, Iida et al teaches ZrO2 in a range that overlaps and thus renders obvious the range of instant claim 14.
Regarding claim 15, Cid-Aguilar et al teaches that the inventive glasses can be free of NiO.
Regarding claim 16, Cid-Aguilar et al teaches that the inventive glass is formed by a float process (see column 9, lines 33-37).
Regarding claim 17, Cid-Aguilar et al teaches that the inventive glass is used for vehicle window applications, and thus a vehicle comprising a body and a window formed of the glass is rendered obvious by said Cid-Aguilar et al teachings. As discussed above, Cid-Aguilar et al in view of Iida et al and Zhang et al teaches a glass meeting each limitation of claim 1 and also the same limitations found in instant claim 17. As such, said claim 17 is obvious and not patentably distinct over the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 18, Cid-Aguilar et al teaches embodiments wherein the L* color index falls within the instantly claimed range (see Table 1).
Regarding claim 19, Cid-Aguilar et al teaches embodiments wherein the a* color index falls within the instantly claimed range (see Table 1).
Regarding claim 20, Cid-Aguilar et al teaches embodiments wherein the b* color index falls within the instantly claimed range (see Table 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art, either alone or in combination, fails to teach or suggest a solar dark green glass meeting each limitation of instant claim 1, and wherein the glass further has the TiO2 content and TiO2/CeO2 ratio features of instant claims 8 or 9.
Conclusion
10. No claim is allowed.
11. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOAH S WIESE whose telephone number is (571)270-3596. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 7:30am-4:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amber Orlando can be reached on 571-270-3149. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NOAH S WIESE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
NSW30 January 2026