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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of species B, claim 5, in the reply filed on February 13, 2026, is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the species are not patentably distinct. This is not found persuasive because each of the species includes mutually exclusive ranges for the amount of B2O3. Applicant has not shown any evidence of these being obvious variants of each other. Additionally, the prior art (see Gross below) does not teach the limitations of all three species, further evidence of nonobvious variants.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 1-3, 5, 7-14, 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0127302 Gross et al in view of US 2018/0029924 Inoue et al.
Regarding claim 1, Gross teaches a glass plate 347a (paragraph 0141) comprising, in terms of molar percentage based on oxides (paragraph 0206):
60% ≤ SiO2 ≤ 74% (paragraph 0207),
7% ≤ A12O3 ≤ 18% (paragraph 0208),
3% ≤ B2O3 ≤ 16% (paragraph 0210),
1.5% ≤MgO ≤ 6.5% (paragraph 0214),
0.0% ≤ CaO ≤ 5% (paragraph 0215),
0.5% ≤ SrO ≤ 2% (paragraph 0218),
0.5% ≤ BaO ≤ 6.5% (paragraph 0219),
0.0% ≤ ZnO ≤ 2% (paragraph 0217),
5% ≤ LiO ≤ 11% (paragraph 0211),
0% ≤ Na2O ≤ 6% (paragraph 0212),
0% ≤ K2O ≤ 1% (paragraph 0213),
5% ≤ R2O ≤ 18% (paragraphs 0211-0213),
0.5% ≤ RO ≤ 6.5% (paragraph 0219),
“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.
Gross does not explicitly teach the glass viscosity and related T2 and T12 temperatures, but does teach that several of the oxides contribute to the viscosity of the glass (paragraphs 0208, 0214, 0215, 0230). Since the instant specification is silent to unexpected results, the specific glass viscosity and temperatures are 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 temperatures 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, T2 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 T2 and 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.
Gross does not teach the iron amount, the dielectric constant or the loss tangent. Inoue teaches a glass article including 0 mol% to 1 mol% Fe2O3 (paragraph 0061). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the iron oxide content of Inoue in the product of Gross because this is a coloring component (paragraph 0061) and may provide for smooth walls (paragraph 0062).
Inoue also teaches that several of the oxides contribute to the dielectric constant and loss tangent (paragraph 0053 R2O). Therefore, these same oxide compounds that are present in Inoue would also alter the dielectric constant and loss tangent in Gross.
Since the instant specification is silent to unexpected results, dielectric constant and loss tangent 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 dielectric constant and loss tangent 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 dielectric constant and loss tangent 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 dielectric constant and loss tangent 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, Gross teaches that the glass plate has an average thermal expansion coefficient at 0°C to 300°C of 40 x 10-7/K or more (Table 2, examples 1-27). “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, while the taught range of 0°C to 300°C is not identical to the claimed range of 50°C to 350°C, the significant overlap suggests that the CTE in both ranges would be the same or substantially similar.
Regarding claim 3, Gross teaches that 0% ≤ Al2O3-B2O3 ≤ 15% (paragraphs 0208 – 0210).
Regarding claim 5, Gross teaches that 3% ≤ B2O3 ≤ 16% (paragraph 0210). “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 range of 3-16 mol% reads on the claimed range of 5-15 mol%.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, neither Gross nor Inoue teaches the visible light transmittance or the solar transmittance, but does teach that several of the oxides contribute to 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 Gross would also alter the visible light transmittance or the solar transmittance.
Since the instant specification is silent to unexpected results, the specific 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 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 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 visible light transmittance or the solar transmittance to obtain the desired physical and optical 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 neither Gross nor Inoue teaches 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 9, Gross does not explicitly teach the T12. Gross does teach that several of the oxides contribute to the viscosity of the glass (paragraphs 0208, 0214, 0215, 0230). Since the instant specification is silent to unexpected results, the specific glass viscosity and temperatures are 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 temperatures 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 10, neither Gross nor Inoue explicitly teaches the dielectric constant. Inoue teaches that several of the oxides contribute to the dielectric constant (paragraph 0053 R2O). Therefore, these same oxide compounds that are present in Inoue would also alter the dielectric constant in Gross.
Since the instant specification is silent to unexpected results, dielectric constant 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 dielectric constant 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 dielectric constant 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 dielectric constant 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 11-14, Gross in view of Inoue teaches:
5 mol% ≤ Li2O ≤ 11 mol% (Gross paragraph 0211),
0 mol% ≤ MgO ≤ 6.5 mol% (Gross paragraph 0214),
60 mol% ≤ SiO2 ≤ 74 mol% (Gross paragraph 0211),
0 mol% ≤ Fe2O3 ≤ 1 mol% (Inoue paragraph 0061).
“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.
Regarding claim 21, Gross in view of Inoue teaches a window glass for a vehicle, comprising the glass plate according to claim 1 (paragraph 0249).
Regarding claim 22, Gross in view of Inoue teaches a glass for architectural use, comprising the glass plate according to claim 1 (paragraph 0249). Please note that “window glass for a 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 “a window glass for a building” is only the intended use and therefore is not considered a limitation.
Claims 15-17 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0127302 Gross et al in view of US 2018/0029924 Inoue et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of WO 2019/130284 Mannheim Astete.
Regarding claim 15, Gross and 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 Gross because this allows for greater glazing applications.
Regarding claims 16 and 17, Gross in view of Inoue teaches many of the limitations above with respect to claims 7 and 8. Neither Gross nor Inoue teaches 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 Gross because this is common today (page 1, line 34 – page 2, line 2).
Regarding claim 23, Mannheim Astete teaches a window glass for a vehicle comprising the laminated glass according to claim 15 (page 1, lines 6-8).
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0127302 Gross et al in view of US 2018/0029924 Inoue et al and WO 2019/130284 Mannheim Astete as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of WO 2007/020791 Yaoita et al.
Regarding claims 18-20, Gross in view of 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 Gross because this is common today (page 1, line 34 – page 2, line 2).
None of Gross, Inoue or 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 Gross in view of Inoue and Mannheim Astete because this prevents malfunction of IR sensing devices and decrease in performance of televisions and radios (paragraph 0002).
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