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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 8-11, 14-17 and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Regarding claim 8, the applicant claims “the second lite is removable without disturbing the window controller” and the applicant argues that Para. 0009 of the specification teaches “In some cases, the notch or cutout is shaped such that the window controller may pass through the notch or cutout when the IGU is installed in a frame”. The Examiner points out that Para. 0009 does not describe the claimed subject matter (the second light is removable and only describes the window controller may pass through the notch or cutout when the IGU is installed) in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Therefore, the claimed “the second lite is removable without disturbing the window controller” has not been considered and is rendered moot.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 8-11, 14-17 and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schulz et al. (US 6,055,089; already of record) in view of Snyker et al. (US 2013/0241299).
Regarding claim 8, Schulz discloses, an insulated glass unit (IGU) (Figs. 1-4) comprising:
a first lite (11);
a second lite (12);
wherein the first lite and the second lite are positioned substantially parallel to and aligned with one another (see annotated Figs. 1-2 below);
an electrochromic device (17) coupled to the first lite;
a window controller (19, 35, 43) coupled to the first lite (see Fig. 1 below); and
a photovoltaic cell (18) coupled to the window controller, the electrochromic device, and the first lite (see 19), wherein the window controller is positioned between a plane formed by the first lite and a plane formed by the second lite (see Figs. 1-4).
PNG
media_image1.png
773
592
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Schulz does not explicitly disclose the second lite having a notch, and the window controller is positioned in the notch of the second lite, wherein the notch is configured to permit passage of the window controller.
Snyker teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in an insulated glass unit (IGU) (Fig. 14) that it would have been desirable to make the second lite (1012) having a notch (see annotated Fig. 14 below), and the window controller (1010, 1080) is positioned in the notch of the second lite (see Fig. 14), wherein the notch is configured to permit passage of the window controller (the Examiner interprets that the notch allows the wire from window controller (1010) to go across/past (passage) the second lite (1012) to be connected to the controller (1080)).
PNG
media_image2.png
692
762
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the second lite having a notch, and the window controller is positioned in the notch of the second lite as taught, wherein the notch is configured to permit passage of the window controller by the insulated glass unit (IGU) of Snyker in the insulated glass unit (IGU) of Schulz since Snyker teaches it is known to include these features in an insulated glass unit (IGU) for the purpose of providing an inexpensive insulated glass unit (IGU) with reduced wiring errors.
Regarding claim 9, Schulz in view of Snyker discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Schulz further discloses, a cover (see 35 of Fig. 4) proximate the window controller, wherein the cover can be opened to access the window controller.
Regarding claim 10, Schulz in view of Snyker discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Schulz further discloses, the cover (see 35 of Fig. 4) extends into a viewable area of the electrochromic device.
Regarding claim 11, Schulz in view of Snyker discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Schulz further discloses, a photovoltaic cell (18), wherein both the photovoltaic cell and the electrochromic device are positioned between a plane formed by the first lite and a plane formed by the second lite.
Regarding claim 14, Schulz in view of Snyker discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Schulz further discloses, a photovoltaic cell (18) coupled to the window controller (19, 35, 43).
Regarding claim 15, Schulz in view of Snyker discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Schulz further discloses, the electrochromic device has a first width and the first lite has a second width (see 11, 17).
Regarding claim 16, Schulz in view of Snyker discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Schulz further discloses, the first width is the same as the second width (see 11, 17).
Regarding claim 17, Schulz in view of Snyker discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Schulz further discloses, a spacer (15, 16) between the first lite and the second lite.
Regarding claim 19, Schulz in view of Snyker discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Schulz further teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in an IGU (FIG. 14) that it would have been desirable to make the window controller (1010, 1080) is positioned between the plane formed by the first lite (1013) and the plane formed (see annotated Fig. 14 above) by the second lite (1012), wherein second lite comprises a notch (see annotated Fig. 14 above) positioned on the plane formed by the second lite (see annotated Fig. 14 above), and wherein the window controller can be accessed through the notch (see annotated Fig. 14 above).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the above mentioned limitations as taught by the insulated glass unit (IGU) of Snyker in the insulated glass unit (IGU) of Schulz since Snyker teaches it is known to include these features in an insulated glass unit (IGU) for the purpose of providing an inexpensive insulated glass unit (IGU) with reduced wiring errors.
Regarding claim 20, Schulz in view of Snyker discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Schulz further teaches, in a different embodiment from the same field of endeavor that in an IGU that it would have been desirable to make the photovoltaic cell is disposed on the first lite (see 74, 75 of Fig. 9) for the purpose of providing a reliable IGU.
Regarding claim 21, Schulz in view of Snyker discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Schulz further discloses, the photovoltaic cell is disposed on the second lite (see 18 of Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 22, Schulz in view of Snyker discloses and teaches as set forth above, but does not explicitly disclose the window controller is removably coupled to the first lite. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the window controller is removably coupled to the first lite for the purpose of providing a window controller that is easily replaced.
Regarding claim 23, Schulz in view of Snyker discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Snyker further teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in an insulated glass unit (IGU) (Fig. 14) that it would have been desirable to make the notch is disposed at an edge of the second lite (see Fig. 14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the above mentioned limitations as taught by the insulated glass unit (IGU) of Snyker in the insulated glass unit (IGU) of Schulz since Snyker teaches it is known to include these features in an insulated glass unit (IGU) for the purpose of providing an inexpensive insulated glass unit (IGU) with reduced wiring errors.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant’s arguments that Snyker or Schulz does not explicitly disclose “the second lite is removable without disturbing the window controller” and Para. 0009 of the specification teaches “In some cases, the notch or cutout is shaped such that the window controller may pass through the notch or cutout when the IGU is installed in a frame”. The Examiner points out that Para. 0009 does not describe the claimed subject matter (the second light is removable and only describes the window controller may pass through the notch or cutout when the IGU is installed) in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Therefore, the claimed “the second lite is removable without disturbing the window controller” has not been considered and is rendered moot.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 DAWAYNE A PINKNEY whose telephone number is (571)270-1305. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Pinping Sun can be reached at 571-270-1284. 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.
/DAWAYNE PINKNEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 08/15/2026
Prosecution Insights