DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 4-7, 9, 11-17, 19-26, 29-32 are pending.
Claims 26 and 29-30 are allowed.
Claims 2-3, 8, 10, 18, 27-29 are cancelled.
Claims 1, 4-7, 9, 11-17, 19-25 and 31-32 are rejected herein.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-7, 9, 11-17, 20-22, 24-25 and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mathew et al (“Mathew”) (US 2018/0173071) in view of Weng et al (“Weng”) (US 2019/0084874).
Re claim 1, Mathew discloses a window ([0005]; Fig. 4a) comprising:
a first transparent panel (402a; [0006]) comprising an exterior-facing first surface (Fig. 4A, S1) and an opposing second surface (Fig. 4A, S2),
a second transparent panel (402b; [0006]) comprising an interior-facing fourth surface (S4) and an opposing third surface (S3),
wherein the first transparent panel (402a) and the second transparent panel (402b) are spaced apart from one another (Fig. 4A) by a gap (between S2 and S3),
wherein the first surface (S1) comprises a pattern (405; [0083]) comprising a plurality of markings ([0102] disclosing laser etching; Fig. 3B-3H) spaced at (Fig. 3B-3H) the first surface (S1), wherein the pattern (Fig. 3B-3H) is spaced over the entire area (Fig. 3A-3H) of the first surface (S1), wherein each of the plurality of markings (Fig. 3B-3H) comprise an abrasion ([0102] disclosing laser etching), thereby leaving a visible marking (Fig. 3B-3H) at the first surface (S1),
wherein the abrasions ([0102] disclosing laser etching) are laser-induced markings ([0102] disclosing laser etching) formed after the gap is sealed by applying a laser beam ([0102] disclosing laser etching) to the first surface (S1; see also [0012] disclosing that the pattern may be etched onto glass) to remove at least a portion of ([0102] disclosing laser etching) of the first surface (S1; see [0012]) of the first transparent panel (402a) or produce microcracks beneath ([0102] disclosing laser etching) the first surface (S1) in the first transparent panel (402a) without damaging the other sections of the window (Fig. 3B-3H),
but fails to disclose the gap sealed closed by an edge connecting the first transparent panel and the second transparent panel, wherein the laser beam has an energy density of from 0.5 J/cm2 to 10 J/cm2 at a location of a marking formed by the laser beam.
However, Weng discloses the gap (17) sealed closed by an edge (15) connecting the first transparent panel (1) and the second transparent panel (30).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the window of Mathew with the gap sealed closed by an edge connecting the first panel and the second panel as disclosed by Weng in order to maintain spacing between the first and second panels ([0026] disclosing 15 as a sealing spacer).
In addition, Weng discloses wherein the laser beam ([0033]) has an energy density of from 0.5 J/cm2 to 10 J/cm2 (Claim 32; [0033]) at a location of a marking (150) formed by the laser beam ([0033]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the window of Mathew wherein the laser beam has an energy density of from 0.5 J/cm2 to 10 J/cm2 at a location of a marking formed by the laser beam as disclosed by Weng in order to allow ablation to occur with partial removal but without significant damage to the substrate and without significant haze in the patterned areas ([0033]). In addition, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456.
The language “wherein the abrasions are laser-induced markings formed after the gap is sealed by applying a laser beam to the first surface to remove at least a portion of material of the first surface or produce microcracks beneath the first surface without damaging the other sections of the window, wherein the laser beam has an energy density of from 0.5 J/cm2 to 10 J/cm2 at a location of a marking formed by the laser beam” is considered product-by-process; therefore, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. See M.P.E.P. §2113. The patentability of the product does not depend on its method of production. If the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the same prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Re claim 4, Mathew as modified discloses the window of claim 1, wherein the abrasions ([0102] disclosing laser etching) are formed by removing at least a portion of ([0102] disclosing laser etching) of the first surface (S1; see also [0012] disclosing that the pattern may be etched onto glass) of the first transparent panel (402a).
The language “formed by removing at least a portion of the first surface of the first transparent panel” is considered product-by-process; therefore, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. See M.P.E.P. §2113. The patentability of the product does not depend on its method of production. If the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the same prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Re claim 5, Mathew as modified discloses the window of claim 1, wherein the abrasions are formed by producing microcracks beneath the first surface of the first transparent panel.
The language “formed by producing microcracks beneath the first surface of the first transparent panel” is considered product-by-process; therefore, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. See M.P.E.P. §2113. The patentability of the product does not depend on its method of production. If the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the same prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Re claim 6, Mathew as modified discloses the window of claim 1, wherein the first surface (S1) is an uncoated surface or a coated surface (Fig. 4D adding 425).
Re claim 7, Mathew as modified discloses the window of claim 2, wherein the laser- induced markings are formed by at least one of the following: a carbon dioxide laser, a yttrium aluminum garnet (YAG) laser, a frequency doubled YAG laser, a fiber laser, a diode laser, an excimer laser, and/or any combination thereof (as this language is considered product by process).
The language “wherein the laser- induced markings are formed by at least one of the following: a carbon dioxide laser, a yttrium aluminum garnet (YAG) laser, a frequency doubled YAG laser, a fiber laser, a diode laser, an excimer laser, and/or any combination thereof” is considered product-by-process; therefore, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. See M.P.E.P. §2113. The patentability of the product does not depend on its method of production. If the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the same prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Re claim 9, Mathew as modified discloses the window of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of markings (Fig. 3B-3H) scatter incident electromagnetic radiation ([0045] disclosing scattering of UV light, UV being a known type of electromagnetic radiation).
Re claim 11, Mathew as modified discloses the window of claim 1, wherein the gap (between S2 and S3) comprises a gas denser than air ([0079] disclosing argon, a gas with denser than air).
Re claim 12, Mathew discloses the window of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the gap is evacuated to produce a vacuum.
However, Weng discloses wherein the gap (17) is evacuated to produce a vacuum ([0027]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the window of Mathew wherein the gap is evacuated to produce a vacuum as disclosed by Weng in order to allow increase thermal properties of the window, as evacuated glazings are extreme well-known and common in the art.
Re claim 13, Mathew discloses the window of claim 12, but fails to disclose further comprising a plurality of supports arranged in the gap to connect the first transparent panel and the second transparent panel.
However, Weng discloses further comprising a plurality of supports (15, [0027] disclosing plural 15) arranged in the gap (17) to connect the first transparent panel (1) and the transparent second panel (30).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the window of Mathew further comprising a plurality of supports arranged in the gap to connect the first transparent panel and the second transparent panel as disclosed by Weng in order to seal the gap to allow for evacuation of the gap or filling with a gas ([0027]).
Re claim 14, Mathew discloses the window of claim 13, Weng discloses wherein at least a portion of the plurality of markings (150) are formed between locations (Fig. 2) in which the plurality of supports (15) contact the first transparent panel (1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the window of Mathew wherein at least a portion of the plurality of markings are formed between locations in which the plurality of supports contact the first transparent panel as disclosed by Weng in order to distribute marking about an entirety of the panel instead of just edges thereof.
Re claim 15, Mathew discloses the window of claim 13, Weng discloses wherein at least a portion of the plurality of markings (150) are formed at locations (Fig. 3) in which the plurality of supports (15) contact (Fig. 3) the first transparent panel (1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the window of Mathew wherein at least a portion of the plurality of markings are formed at locations in which the plurality of supports contact the first transparent panel as disclosed by Weng in order to distribute marking about an entirety of the panel including edges thereof.
Re claim 16, Mathew as modified discloses the window of claim 1, wherein the first transparent panel (402a) is a component of a building ([0077] disclosing a building) integrated photovoltaic (BIPV) component ([0142]).
Re claim 17, Mathew as modified discloses the window of claim 1, wherein the window (Fig. 4A) is arranged in a frame ([0083]) of an architectural structure ([0077] disclosing a building) with the exterior-facing first surface (S1) arranged as an exterior surface ([00134]) of the architectural structure ([0077] disclosing a building).
Re claim 19, Mathew as modified discloses the window of claim 1, wherein the plurality of markings (Fig. 3B-3H) are not formed by chemical etching unassisted by any photon enhanced reaction ([0111] disclosing laser etching).
Re claim 20, Mathew discloses the window of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the plurality of markings exhibit a 20 gloss value of less than 1.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the window of Mathew wherein the plurality of markings exhibit a 20 gloss value of less than 1 in order to reduce glare, provide visual clarity, and enhanced aesthetics. In addition, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456.
Re claim 21, Mathew as modified discloses the window of claim 1, wherein the pattern (Fig. 3B-3H) is spaced over (Fig. 4A) the entire area of the first surface (S1) such that there is no four square inch area ([0056]-[0058]) of the first surface (S1) without a marking of the plurality of markings (Fig. 3B-3H).
Re claim 22, Mathew as modified discloses the window of claim 1, wherein the first transparent panel (402a) comprises glass and/or plastic (402a; [0093]).
Re claim 24, Mathew as modified discloses an architectural structure ([0077] disclosing a building) comprising the window (Fig. 4A) of claim 1 (per the above).
Re claim 25, Mathew as modified discloses the architectural structure of claim 24, comprising a building ([0077] disclosing a building) comprising an opening ([0077] discloses exposing to the outside and inside environments which necessarily requires an opening), wherein the window (Fig. 4A) is mounted in the opening ([0077]) with the exterior-facing first surface (S1) arranged as an exterior surface ([0077]) of the building ([0077]).
Claim(s) 5, 7 is/are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mathew et al (“Mathew”) (US 2018/0173071) in view of Weng et al (“Weng”) (US 2019/0084874) and Mathew et al (“Mathew 2”) (US 2019/0294016).
Re claim 5 in the alternative, Mathew as modified discloses the window of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the abrasions are formed by producing microcracks beneath the first surface of the first transparent panel.
However, Mathew 2 discloses wherein the abrasions ([0102]) are formed by producing microcracks ([0173]) beneath the first surface (S1) of the first transparent panel ([0173]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Mathew wherein the abrasions are formed by producing microcracks beneath the first surface of the first transparent panel as disclosed by Mathew 2 in order to provide optimal “first-surface” effectiveness, maintained visibility and light, and to utilize “green” manufacturing.
The language “formed by removing at least a portion of material of the first surface” is considered product-by-process; therefore, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. See M.P.E.P. §2113. The patentability of the product does not depend on its method of production. If the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the same prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Re claim 7 in the alternative, Mathew as modified discloses the window of claim 2, but fails to disclose wherein the laser- induced markings are formed by at least one of the following: a carbon dioxide laser, a yttrium aluminum garnet (YAG) laser, a frequency doubled YAG laser, a fiber laser, a diode laser, an excimer laser, and/or any combination thereof.
However, Mathew 2 discloses wherein the laser-induced markings (Fig. 3AB-3H; [0102]) are formed by at least one of the following: a carbon dioxide laser ([0171]), a yttrium aluminum garnet (YAG) laser ([0171]), a frequency doubled YAG laser, a fiber laser, a diode laser, an excimer laser, and/or any combination thereof.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Mathew wherein the laser- induced markings are formed by at least one of the following: a carbon dioxide laser, a yttrium aluminum garnet (YAG) laser, a frequency doubled YAG laser, a fiber laser, a diode laser, an excimer laser, and/or any combination thereof as disclosed by Mathew 2 in order to utilize high-precision, non-contact etching delivering high-contrast marks at high speeds.
Re claim 31, Mathew as modified discloses a method (Fig. 1-4A) of preventing bird collisions (Abstract) with an architectural substrate ([0077] disclosing a building), comprising: installing ([0077] disclosing use with the building) the window (Fig. 4A) of claim 1 (see above) in an opening ([0077] discloses exposing to the outside and inside environments which necessarily requires an opening) of an architectural substrate ([0077] disclosing a building) with the exterior-facing first surface (S1) arranged as an exterior surface ([0077]) of the architectural substrate ([0077] disclosing a building).
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mathew et al (“Mathew”) (US 2018/0173071) in view of Weng et al (“Weng”) (US 2019/0084874) and Agrawal et al (“Agrawal”) (US 2023/0007876).
Re claim 23, Mathew as modified discloses the window of claim 1, but fails to disclose further comprising at least one side light positioned to emit light at a side of the first transparent panel between the first surface and the second surface.
However, Agrawal discloses further comprising at least one side light (13) positioned to emit light (Fig. 1) at a side (of 18/24) of the first transparent panel (18/24) between the first surface and the second surface (Mathew: S1/S2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the window of Mathew with further comprising at least one side light positioned to emit light at a side of the first transparent panel between the first surface and the second surface as disclosed by Agrawal in order to allow more light to enter the building, as sidelites (side lights) are extremely well-known and common in the art.
Claim(s) 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mathew et al (“Mathew”) (US 2019/0294016) in view of Weng et al (“Weng”) (US 2019/0084874) and Collins et al (“Collins”) (US 5,664,395).
Re claim 32, Mathew as modified discloses the window of claim 1, but fails to disclose further comprising a pump out tube and a pump out cavity cut out from the second surface and/or the third surface, wherein the pump out tube and the pump out cavity are configured to evacuate the gap after the edge has been formed to seal the gap.
However, Collins discloses further comprising a pump out tube (8) and a pump out cavity (11) cut out from (as this language is product by process) the second surface and/or the third surface (left surface of 2), wherein the pump out tube (8) and the pump out cavity (11) are configured to evacuate (Col 1 lines 26-35) the gap (between 2 and 3) after (Col 1 lines 26-35) the edge (4) has been formed to seal the gap (between 2 and 3).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the window of Mathew with further comprising a pump out tube and a pump out cavity cut out from the second surface and/or the third surface, wherein the pump out tube and the pump out cavity are configured to evacuate the gap after the edge has been formed to seal the gap as disclosed by Collins in order to provide a low pressure space, providing a thermally insulting glass panel (Abstract).
The language “cut out from the second surface and/or the third surface” and “after the edge has been formed to seal the gap” is considered product-by-process; therefore, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. See M.P.E.P. §2113. The patentability of the product does not depend on its method of production. If the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the same prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 26 and 29-30 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Regarding claim(s) 26, see Applicant’s 8/6/26 Remarks Pages 8-12.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections 35 USC 103: Applicant’s arguments with respect to all claims have been considered and are partially persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments concerning claim 26 are persuasive, as indicated above. Claims 26 and 29-30 are thus allowed.
With respect to claim 1, the only argument presented therein is the last paragraph of Applicant’s arguments. The arguments all pertain to the order of process of steps outlined in claim 26 and/or the unexpected results per the claimed order of process. As discussed above, the order of process (particularly, the last clause of claim 1) is directed to product by process limitations. Because claim 1 is directed to a product, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. See M.P.E.P. §2113. The patentability of the product does not depend on its method of production. If the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the same prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In addition, the Mathew discloses etchings/abrasions formed directly into the surface of the transparent panel, as is outlined in the above rejection.
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 KYLE WALRAED-SULLIVAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8838. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Brian Mattei can be reached at (571)270-3238. 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.
KYLE WALRAED-SULLIVAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3635
/KYLE J. WALRAED-SULLIVAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Prosecution Insights