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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 26, 2026, has been entered.
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.
Claims 1-8, 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0029924 Inoue et al.
Regarding claim 1, Inoue teaches a glass plate (figure 1) comprising, in terms of molar percentage based on oxides:
45% ≤ SiO2 ≤ 68% (paragraph 0028),
3% ≤ A12O3 ≤ 20% (paragraph 0034),
2% ≤ B2O3 ≤ 20% (paragraph 0030),
0% P2O5 (where because of Inoue’s silence regarding P2O5, the examiner is taking the position that it is not present),
2% ≤MgO ≤ 15% (paragraph 0043),
1% ≤ CaO ≤ 15% (paragraph 0045),
1% ≤ SrO ≤ 15% (paragraph 0047),
0% ≤ BaO ≤ 15% (paragraph 0049),
0% ≤ ZnO ≤ 9% (paragraph 0041),
0% ≤ Li2O ≤ 2% (total with Na2O and K2O, paragraph 0053),
0% ≤ Na2O ≤ 2% (total with Li2O and K2O, paragraph 0053),
0% ≤ K2O ≤ 2% (total with Na2O and Li2O, paragraph 0053)
0% ≤ R2O ≤ 2% (paragraph 0053),
0% ≤ Fe2O3 ≤ 1% (paragraph 0061),
6% ≤ RO ≤ 25% (paragraph 0051),
0% ≤ B2O3-A12O3 ≤ 17% (paragraphs 0030 and 0034),
0.12% ≤ A12O3/RO ≤ 3.3% (paragraphs 0034 and 0051), and
0.1% ≤ TiO-2 ≤ 5% (paragraph 0039),
wherein the glass plate has an average thermal expansion coefficient at 50°C to 350°C of 10 to 70 x 10-7/K (paragraph 00023).
“In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists,” (MPEP 2144.05 Section I). Therefore, absent evidence of criticality, the taught ranges of oxides reads on the claimed ranges of the oxides.
Inoue teaches a lower limit of 0.1 for TiO2. Since the claimed upper limit of TiO2 is close to the prior art lower limit, the examiner takes the position that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected that the glass plate’s performance in the prior art range of 0.1 to 5 mol% TiO2 would have been the same as, or similar to, the performance in the claimed range. “[A] prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties.” MPEP 2144.05 Section I.
Inoue does not explicitly teach the glass viscosity and related T12 temperature, but does teach that several of the oxides contribute to the viscosity of the glass paragraphs 0028 SiO2, 0030 B2O3 and 0051 RO and that components may be varied (paragraph 0123), including eliminated. Since the instant specification is silent to unexpected results, the specific glass viscosity and T12 is not considered to confer patentability to the claims. As the physical and optical characteristics are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters of the method and composition, the precise viscosity and T12 would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed viscosity and T12 cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the viscosity of the glass plate and related T12 to obtain the desired physical and performance characteristic (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223). See MPEP 2144.05 Section II.
Regarding claim 2, Inoue does not explicitly teach the glass viscosity and related T12 temperature, but does teach that several of the oxides contribute to the viscosity of the glass paragraphs 0028 SiO2, 0030 B2O3 and 0051 RO and that components may be varied (paragraph 0123), including eliminated. Since the instant specification is silent to unexpected results, the specific T12 is not considered to confer patentability to the claims. As the physical and optical characteristics are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters of the method and composition, the precise T12 would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed T12 cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the T12 of the glass plate to obtain the desired physical and performance characteristic (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223). See MPEP 2144.05 Section II.
Regarding claims 3-7, Inoue does not teach the glass viscosity and related T12 temperature, the dielectric constant dielectric loss tangent, visible light transmittance or the solar transmittance, but does teach that several of the oxides contribute to the viscosity of the glass (paragraphs 0028 SiO2, 0030 B2O3 and 0051 RO), oxides contribute to the dielectric constant and loss tangent (paragraph 0053 R2O) and the visible and solar light transmittance (paragraphs 0039 TiO2, 0041 ZnO and 0058 CeO2), and that components may be varied (paragraph 0123), including eliminated. Therefore, these same oxide compounds that are present in Inoue would also alter the glass viscosity and related T12 temperature, the dielectric constant dielectric loss tangent, visible light transmittance or the solar transmittance.
Since the instant specification is silent to unexpected results, the specific glass viscosity and T12, the dielectric constant, dielectric loss tangent, visible light transmittance or the solar transmittance is not considered to confer patentability to the claims. As the physical and optical characteristics are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters of the method and composition, the precise viscosity and T12, the dielectric constant dielectric loss tangent, visible light transmittance or the solar transmittance would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed viscosity and T12, the dielectric constant dielectric loss tangent, visible light transmittance or the solar transmittance cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the viscosity of the glass plate and related T12, the dielectric constant dielectric loss tangent, visible light transmittance or the solar transmittance to obtain the desired physical and performance characteristic (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223). See MPEP 2144.05 Section II.
Please note that in claims 5 and 6, Inoue does not teach the measuring conditions. However, the method of measuring the visible and solar light transmittance is not considered to structurally limit the claim. Note that Applicant has not provided evidence that the claimed method of measuring results in a structural difference between Applicant’s glass plate and that of the prior art; see MPEP 2113. As such, is considered to render obvious the claimed transmittance regardless of the measuring technique.
Regarding claim 8, Inoue teaches all of the overlapping mol% of oxides with respect to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 16, Inoue teaches a glass comprising the glass plate of claim 1 (figure 1). Inoue does not explicitly teach use as a window in a building. However, the limitation “window glass for building” is deemed to be a statement with regard to the intended use and are not further limiting in so far as the structure of the product is concerned. “If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction.” Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02 Section II. Therefore, in article claims, a claimed intended use should result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. In this case, the preamble requires “window glass for building,” but is only the intended use and therefore is not considered a limitation beyond “glass.”
Regarding claim 20, Inoue teaches the overlapping Al2O3 amount with respect to claim 1 above (paragraph 0034).
Claims 9-12, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0029924 Inoue et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of WO 2019/130284 Mannheim Astete.
Regarding claim 9, Inoue teaches the glass plate but does not teach thermal strengthening. Mannheim Astete teaches a glazing where a glass plate may be thermally strengthened (page 6, lines 15-24). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the thermal strengthening of Mannheim Astete in the product of Inoue because this glass is stronger than annealed glass and breaks in to small beads with dull edges (page 6, lines 15-24).
Regarding claim 10, Inoue teaches the glass plate but does not teach use in a laminate. Mannheim Astete teaches a laminated glass comprising:
a first glass plate;
a second glass plate; and
an interlayer sandwiched between the first glass plate and the second glass plate,
wherein at least one of the first glass plate and the second glass plate is the glass plate according to claim 1 (page 1, line 34 – page 2, line 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the laminate structure of Mannheim Astete in the product of Inoue because this allows for greater glazing applications.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Inoue teaches many of the limitations above with respect to claims 5 and 6. Neither Inoue does not teach the thickness of the glass. Mannheim Astete teaches that the first glass plate, the second glass plate, and the interlayer have a total thickness of 4.5 mm (page 1, line 34 – page 2, line 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the laminate thickness of Mannheim Astete in the product of Inoue because this is common today (page 1, line 34 – page 2, line 2).
Regarding claims 17 and 18, Mannheim Astete teaches a window glass for a vehicle comprising the glass plate of claim 1 and the laminated glass according to claim 10 (page 1, lines 6-8).
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0029924 Inoue et al in view of WO 2019/130284 Mannheim Astete as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of WO 2007/020791 Yaoita et al.
Regarding claims 13-15, Inoue teaches the glass plate, and Mannheim Astete teaches the laminate. Mannheim Astete further teaches that the first glass plate, the second glass plate, and the interlayer have a total thickness of 4.5 mm (page 1, line 34 – page 2, line 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the laminate thickness of Mannheim Astete in the product of Inoue because this is common today (page 1, line 34 – page 2, line 2).
Neither Inoue nor Mannheim Astete teach the radio wave transmission loss. Yaoita teaches a laminated glazing that is transparent to radio waves (paragraph 0028), suggesting total transmission and minimal loss. Yaoita does not explicitly teach this for different angles of incidence. However, Examiner is taking the position that Yaoita’s silence suggests that this is the case for all angles of incidence.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the radio wave transmission of Yaoita in the product of Inoue in view of Mannheim Astete because this prevents malfunction of IR sensing devices and decrease in performance of televisions and radios (paragraph 0002).
Claims 1-8, 10-12 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2018/199299 Maeda et al (cited by US 2020/0031708).
Regarding claim 1, Maeda teaches a glass plate (paragraph 0001) comprising, in terms of molar percentage based on oxides:
55% ≤ SiO2 ≤ 75% (paragraph 0131),
0% ≤ A12O3 ≤ 9% (paragraph 0132),
0% ≤ B2O3 ≤ 15% (paragraph 0133),
0% ≤ P2O5 ≤ 5% (total amount in combination with other compounds, paragraph 0574),
0% ≤MgO ≤ 15% (paragraph 0134),
0% ≤ CaO ≤ 20% (paragraph 0135),
0% ≤ SrO ≤ 15% (paragraph 0136),
0% ≤ BaO ≤ 15% (paragraph 0137),
0% ≤ ZnO ≤ 5% (total amount in combination with other compounds, paragraph 0574),
0% ≤ Li2O ≤ 0.1% (paragraph 0138),
1.2% ≤ Na2O ≤ 15.6% (paragraph 0139),
3.5% ≤ K2O ≤ 12.5% (paragraph 0140)
4.7% ≤ R2O ≤ 19.5% (paragraph 0144),
0.001% ≤ Fe2O3 ≤ 5% (paragraph 0142),
0% ≤ RO ≤ 20% (paragraph 0145),
0% ≤ B2O3-A12O3 ≤ 15% (paragraphs 0132 and 0133),
0% ≤ A12O3/RO ≤ 9% or more (paragraphs 0132 and 0145), and
0.001% ≤ TiO-2 ≤ 5% (paragraph 0143),
wherein the glass plate has an average thermal expansion coefficient at 50°C to 350°C of 35 to 120 x 10-7/K (paragraph 0058).
“In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists,” (MPEP 2144.05 Section I). Therefore, absent evidence of criticality, the taught ranges of oxides reads on the claimed ranges of the oxides.
Maeda does not explicitly teach the glass viscosity and related T12 temperature, but does teach that several of the oxides contribute to the viscosity of the glass: paragraphs 0080 SiO2 and Al2O3, 0082 Al2O3, 0090 MgO and CaO, 0106 R2O and B2O3 and 0111 ZrO. Since the instant specification is silent to unexpected results, the specific glass viscosity and T12 is not considered to confer patentability to the claims. As the physical and optical characteristics are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters of the method and composition, the precise viscosity and T12 would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed viscosity and T12 cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the viscosity of the glass plate and related T12 to obtain the desired physical and performance characteristic (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223). See MPEP 2144.05 Section II.
Regarding claim 2, Maeda does not explicitly teach the glass viscosity and related T12 temperature, but does teach that several of the oxides contribute to the viscosity of the glass: paragraphs 0080 SiO2 and Al2O3, 0082 Al2O3, 0090 MgO and CaO, 0106 R2O and B2O3 and 0111 ZrO. Since the instant specification is silent to unexpected results, the specific T12 is not considered to confer patentability to the claims. As the physical and optical characteristics are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters of the method and composition, the precise T12 would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed T12 cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the T12 of the glass plate to obtain the desired physical and performance characteristic (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223). See MPEP 2144.05 Section II.
Regarding claims 3-7, Maeda does not teach the glass viscosity and related T12 temperature, the dielectric constant dielectric loss tangent, visible light transmittance or the solar transmittance, but does teach that several of the oxides contribute to the viscosity of the glass: paragraphs 0080 SiO2 and Al2O3, 0082 Al2O3, 0090 MgO and CaO, 0106 R2O and B2O3 and 0111 ZrO, oxides contribute to the dielectric constant and loss tangent (paragraph 0078) and the visible (paragraph 0069, Fe2O3 and TiO2) and solar light transmittance (paragraph 0073, Fe2O3 and TiO2).
Therefore, these same oxide compounds that are present in Maeda would also alter the glass viscosity and related T12 temperature, the dielectric constant dielectric loss tangent, visible light transmittance or the solar transmittance.
Since the instant specification is silent to unexpected results, the specific glass viscosity and T12, the dielectric constant, dielectric loss tangent, visible light transmittance or the solar transmittance is not considered to confer patentability to the claims. As the physical and optical characteristics are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters of the method and composition, the precise viscosity and T12, the dielectric constant dielectric loss tangent, visible light transmittance or the solar transmittance would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed viscosity and T12, the dielectric constant dielectric loss tangent, visible light transmittance or the solar transmittance cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the viscosity of the glass plate and related T12, the dielectric constant dielectric loss tangent, visible light transmittance or the solar transmittance to obtain the desired physical and performance characteristic (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223). See MPEP 2144.05 Section II.
Please note that in claims 5 and 6, Maeda does not teach the measuring conditions. However, the method of measuring the visible and solar light transmittance is not considered to structurally limit the claim. Note that Applicant has not provided evidence that the claimed method of measuring results in a structural difference between Applicant’s glass plate and that of the prior art; see MPEP 2113. As such, is considered to render obvious the claimed transmittance regardless of the measuring technique.
Regarding claim 8, Maeda teaches most of the overlapping mol% of oxides with respect to claim 1 above.
Maeda teaches a lower limit of 4.7% for R2O. Since the claimed upper limit of R2O (3.0%) is close to the prior art lower limit of 4.7%, the examiner takes the position that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected that the glass plate’s performance in the prior art range would have been the same as, or similar to, the performance in the claimed range. “[A] prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties.” MPEP 2144.05 Section I.
Regarding claim 10, Maeda teaches a laminated glass comprising:
a first glass plate;
a second glass plate; and
an interlayer sandwiched between the first glass plate and the second glass plate,
wherein at least one of the first glass plate and the second glass plate is the glass plate according to claim 1 (paragraph 0589).
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Maeda teaches many of the limitations above with respect to claims 5 and 6. Maeda further teaches that the first glass plate, the second glass plate, and the interlayer have a total thickness of 4.7 mm (paragraph 0641).
Regarding claims 16, 17 and 18, Maeda teaches a window glass for a building or vehicle comprising the glass plate of claim 1 and the laminated glass according to claim 10 (paragraph 0001).
Regarding claim 19, Maeda teaches the overlapping TiO2 amount with respect to claim 1 above (paragraph 0143).
Regarding claim 20, Maeda teaches the overlapping Al2O3 amount with respect to claim 1 above (paragraph 0132).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2018/199299 Maeda et al (cited by US 2020/0031708) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of WO 2019/130284 Mannheim Astete.
Regarding claim 9, Maeda teaches the glass plate but does not teach thermal strengthening. Mannheim Astete teaches a glazing where a glass plate may be thermally strengthened (page 6, lines 15-24). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the thermal strengthening of Mannheim Astete in the product of Maeda because this glass is stronger than annealed glass and breaks in to small beads with dull edges (page 6, lines 15-24).
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2018/199299 Maeda et al (cited by US 2020/0031708) in view of WO 2007/020791 Yaoita et al.
Regarding claims 13-15, Maeda teaches the laminate with the first glass plate, the second glass plate, and the interlayer having a total thickness of 4.7 mm (paragraph 0641). Maeda does not teach the radio wave transmission loss. Yaoita teaches a laminated glazing that is transparent to radio waves (paragraph 0028), suggesting total transmission and minimal loss. Yaoita does not explicitly teach this for different angles of incidence. However, Examiner is taking the position that Yaoita’s silence suggests that this is the case for all angles of incidence.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the radio wave transmission of Yaoita in the product of Maeda because this prevents malfunction of IR sensing devices and decrease in performance of televisions and radios (paragraph 0002).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Yale have been considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejection over Inoue and Maeda do not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Megha M Gaitonde whose telephone number is (571)270-3598. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 am to 5 pm.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at 571-270-1547. 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.
/MEGHA M GAITONDE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights