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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 8/25/25 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Examiner acknowledges the remarks and amendments filed on 8/25/25. Claims 1, 23, 24, 27, 28, 33, 36, 41, 45, 63, 67, 68, 73, 76, 80, and 84 have been amended. Claims 1-84 are pending.
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) 1-84 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lezzi WO_2017019837_A1 and in view of Li “Glass forming region and bonding mechanism of low-melting V2O5-TeO2-Bi2O3 glass applied in vacuum glazing sealing”.
1. Regarding Claims 1-14, 27-56, 68-82, and 84, Lezzi discloses a vacuum insulating panel (1500) useable in a window (paragraph 00125) comprising:
a first glass substrate; a second glass substrate; a plurality of spacers (50) provided in a gap between at least the first and second glass substrates, wherein the gap is at pressure less than atmospheric pressure; a seal (4421) provided at least partially between at least the first and second substrates; and wherein at least one of the glass substrates is tempered, has compressive stress at a center of the glass substrate as viewed from above in a surface compression region of at least about 13,000 psi for both edge and entirety (inclusive of corners) of the glass sheet (paragraph 0093), and has tension stress at the center of the glass as viewed from above in a central tension region of at least about 6,500 psi. (see paragraphs 0084-0098, Fig. 6 and 35).
2. Lezzi does not disclose using the claimed ceramic materials for its seal.
3. Li discloses vacuum insulating panel comprising:
a first glass substrate; a second glass substrate; a plurality of spacers provided in a gap between at least the first and second glass substrates, wherein the gap is at pressure less than atmospheric pressure; a seal provided at least partially between at least the first and second substrates, the seal comprising a first seal layer and a primer seal layer; but fails to show that, for at least one location of the seal, the first seal layer has a
first thickness; wherein, for the at least one location of the seal, the first thickness of the first seal layer is less than a thickness of the primer seal layer; and wherein the first seal layer comprises from about 40-70 wt.% tellurium oxide, and the second seal layer comprises from about 1-40 mol% bismuth oxide and contains at least three times more boron (B) than bismuth (Bi) (Fig. 1 and Table 1). Li discloses its invention leads to excellent thermal and sound insulation properties useable in buildings, household appliances, and solar applications (Abstract).
4. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the seal, of Lezzi, by using the two seal layers, as disclosed by Li. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated in doing so in order to balance firing and crystallization.
5. Regarding Claims 15-20, 57-62 Lezzi in view of Li suggests that the difference between the edge and the rest of the sheet (center or corner) can be a difference of 2 MPa (Lezzi: paragraph 0093).
6. Regarding Claims 21 and 22, Lezzi in view of Li suggests a ratio of 2:1 or more (Lezzi: paragraph 00112).
7. Regarding Claims 23, 63, Lezzi in view of Li suggests its seal having a low thermal conduction (Lezzi: paragraph 00198).
8. Regarding Claims 24-26, 64-67, Lezzi in view of Li does not explicitly disclose the claimed values. However, the Examiner respectfully submits that these can be modified based on end-user product specifications as is routinely done in the art by one of ordinary skill. Applicants have not indicated how these claimed values result in unexpected and surprising properties.
9. Regarding Claim 83, Lezzi in view of Li suggests a DOL that suggests the claimed value (Lezzi: paragraph 00197).
10. Regarding Claims 37-39, 76-78, Lezzi in view of Li further include bismuth oxide (Lezzi: paragraph 0146).
11. Regarding Claims 40, 41, 43, 79, 80, Lezzi in view of Li doesn’t suggest the thickness relationship, particle size, and density of its sealing layers. However, the Examiner respectfully submits that this would ultimately depend on the degree of sealing required in the end product.
12. Regarding Claims 42, 81, Lezzi in view of Li suggests a lead-free glass (Li: paragraph 0143).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to all claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does 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 TAHSEEN KHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1140. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays-Saturdays 08:00AM-10:00PM.
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 5712701547. 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.
/TAHSEEN KHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781 March 7, 2026