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 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the polymeric hollow body" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Previously, claim 1 recites “a polymeric hollow profile” which appears to refer to the same feature. Therefore, the examiner suspects the intent of the applicant was to recite this portion of the claim as "the polymeric hollow profile" and will be examined on the merits as such. Claims 2-20 are included herein based upon their ultimate dependency from claim 1.
Claims 5 and 6 each recite the limitation "the polymeric layer" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Claim 3 is the first claim which introduces “the moisture barrier layer comprises at least one polymeric layer.” Therefore, the examiner expects the intent of the applicant was to have each of claims 5 and 6 depend from claim 3 and will be examined on the merits as such.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2018/0344053 (hereinafter “Schreiber”), and further in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2015/0123106 (hereinafter “Yasumoto”).Regarding claims 1 and 9 Schreiber teaches a spacer 13.1 for an insulating glass element (insulation glass unit) I, comprising: (i) a hollow profile 1 made from a polymeric fiber reinforced glass (polymeric hollow profile) comprising: (1) a first side wall 2.1 and a second side wall 2.2 arranged parallel thereto; (2) a glazing interior wall 3 connecting the side walls 2.1, 2.2 to one another; (3) an outer wall 4, opposite glazing interior wall 3, arranged substantially parallel to the glazing interior wall 3 and connecting the first and second side walls 2.1, 2.2 to one another; and (4) a hollow space (cavity) 5 enclosed by the first and second side walls 2.1, 2.2, the glazing interior wall 3, and the outer wall 4; and (ii) a gas- and vapor-tight barrier film (moisture barrier) 6 on the first side wall 2.1, the outer wall 4, and on the second side wall 2.2 of the polymeric hollow profile 1 (paragraphs [0033], [0035], [0087], [0088], and [0090] – [0130]; Figures 6-7; and claim 27). Schreiber does not explicitly teach the barrier film (moisture barrier) 6 comprises a first barrier layer and a directly adjacent second barrier layer which are both deposited via atomic layer deposition, the first barrier layer and the second barrier layer each have a thickness of at most 15 nm, the first barrier layer and the second barrier layer are based independently of one another on a nitride, oxidic, sulfidic or fluoridic compound. The term “directly adjacent” is interpreted as two layers which are provided in direct contact, contiguous, or without the presence of additional layers provided therebetween. This interpretation corresponds with the applicant’s use of such a term in the originally filed disclosure. See paragraphs [0014] and [0020] from the applicant’s disclosure as originally filed (US 2024/0240509). Yasumoto teaches an insulating layer (moisture barrier layer) having an excellent gas barrier property to prevent penetration of moisture and oxygen therethrough (paragraphs [0094] and [0174]). Yasumoto teaches the insulating layer can have a stacked-layer structure (including first and second barrier layers), include any of a silicon nitride film, a silicon oxynitride film, a silicon oxide film, a silicon nitride oxide film, and the like, and is formed by an ALD method (paragraphs [0093] – [0095]), which corresponds to all barrier layers are deposited via atomic layer deposition and are based independently of one another on a nitride, oxidic, sulfidic, or fluoridic compound. Yasumoto discloses a stacked-layer structure as a structure where adjacent layers are directly adjacent (in direct contact, contiguous, or without the presence of additional layers provided therebetween) to each other (Figure 17A and paragraph [0342]). Yasumoto also teaches the thickness of the insulating layer (moisture barrier layer) is preferably greater than or equal to 10 nm and less than or equal to 3000 nm (paragraph [0094]), corresponding to a thickness of each of the first and second barrier layers from the stacked-layer structure ranging from about 5-1500 nm, which overlaps the claimed range. Schreiber and Yasumoto are analogous inventions in the field of gas- and vapor-tight barrier films. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to substitute the barrier film (moisture barrier) 6 of Schreiber with the insulating layer of Yasumoto motivated by the desire to form a conventional barrier film for preventing the penetration of gas and vapor (moisture) therethrough, comprising an insulating layer having a stacked-layer structure being known in the art as being functionally equivalent and predictably suitable for use in forming such a barrier film.Regarding claim 2 In addition, Schreiber teaches the barrier layer 6 (corresponding to the first barrier layer from the combination of Schreiber and Yasumoto) is applied directly to the hollow profile (polymeric hollow profile) 1 (Figures 6-7).Regarding claims 3 and 16 In addition, Schreiber teaches the gas- and vapor-tight barrier or barrier film (moisture barrier) 6 has a film form and can be secured (attached) on the hollow profile (polymeric hollow profile) 1 with an adhesive (paragraphs [0037] and [0088]). Schreiber also teaches the barrier film (moisture barrier) 6 includes at least one polymeric layer (paragraph [0037]), which encompasses an embodiment requiring at least two polymeric layers.Regarding claim 4 In addition, Yasumoto teaches the insulating layer (moisture barrier) includes any of a silicon nitride film, a silicon oxynitride film, a silicon oxide film, a silicon nitride oxide film, and the like (does not comprise barrier layers based on an elemental metal) (paragraph [0093]).Regarding claim 5 In addition, Schreiber teaches the polymeric layer comprises polyethylene terephthalate, polyvinylidene chloride, polyamide, polyethylene, polypropylene, etc. (paragraph [0039]).Regarding claims 6 and 17 In addition, Schreiber teaches the thickness of the polymeric layer (one polymeric layer or all polymeric layers) is between 5 µm and 80 µm (paragraph [0037]), which encompasses the claimed ranges. Regarding claim 7 In addition, neither Schreiber nor Yasumoto teach a polymeric layer for the moisture barrier includes an ethylene vinyl alcohol (EVOH) material (Schreiber – paragraph [0039], and Yasumoto – paragraph [0093]).Regarding claims 8, 10 and 18 As previously disclosed Yasumoto teaches the insulating layer (moisture barrier) can have a stacked-layer structure (paragraph [0093]), which corresponds to an insulating layer (moisture barrier) having at least two layers directly adjacent to each other, which encompasses: the at least three barrier layers from claim 8; a third barrier layer and a fourth barrier layer directly adjoined to one another from claim 10; and the at least four barrier layers from claim 18.Regarding claim 11 In addition, Schreiber teaches the barrier layer 6 (corresponding to a barrier layer from the combination of Schreiber and Yasumoto) is exposed as an outer layer on the side of the interpane space 7 (side of the hollow profile 1 facing away from the hollow space (cavity) 5 (paragraph [0087] and Figures 6-7).Regarding claims 12 and 19 In addition, Yasumoto teaches the thickness of the insulating layer (a sum of thicknesses of all barrier layers) is preferably greater than or equal to 10 nm and less than or equal to 3000 nm (paragraph [0094]), which overlaps the claimed ranges.Regarding claims 13 and 20 In addition, Yasumoto teaches the insulating layer can have a stacked-layer structure (including first and second barrier layers), and a thickness of the insulating layer is preferably greater than or equal to 10 nm and less than or equal to 3000 nm (paragraphs [0093] – [0094]), corresponding to each of the layers (a thickness of the barrier layers (defined as each of the first and second barrier layers from claim 1)) of the insulating layer from the stacked-layer embodiment having a thickness ranging from about 5-1500 nm, which overlaps the claimed ranges.Regarding claim 14 In addition, Schreiber teaches the spacer 13.1 is used in an insulation glass element (unit) I, where the insulation glass element (unit) I at least comprising a first pane 11, a second pane 12, and the spacer 13.1 (according to claim 1) arranged peripherally between the first pane 11 and the second pane 12, wherein the first pane 11 is attached to the first side wall 2.1 by means of a primary sealant 27, the second pane 12 is attached to the second side wall 2.2 by means of a primary sealant 27, an inner pane interspace 8 is delimited by the glazing interior wall 3, the first pane 11 and the second pane 12, an outer pane interspace 7 is delimited by the moisture barrier 6 mounted on the outer wall 4 and by the first pane 11 and the second pane 12, a secondary sealant 28 is arranged in the outer pane interspace 7, wherein the secondary sealant 28 is in contact with the moisture barrier 6 (Figure 6, and paragraphs [0090] – [0121]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schreiber and Yasumoto as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2016/0069123 (hereinafter “Schreiber-2”).Regarding claim 15 The limitations for claim 14 have been set forth above. In addition, Schreiber does not explicitly teach a method of providing the insulation glass unit according to claim 14 as a building interior glazing, building exterior glazing and/or facade glazing. Schreiber-2 teaches a spacer I having a hollow profile for an insulating glazing unit (insulation glass unit) II, where the insulating glazing unit (insulation glass unit) II comprises: a first pane 5a, a second pane 5b, and the spacer I arranged peripherally between the first pane 5a and the second pane 5b, wherein the first pane 5a is attached to a first side wall, the second pane 5b is attached to a second side wall, interior of the insulating glazing unit (inner pane interspace) 8 is delimited by the glazing interior wall 1d, the first pane 5a and the second pane 5b, an outer insulating layer (outer pane interspace) 4 is delimited by an insulating layer (barrier) 2 mounted on an outer wall and by the first pane 5a and the second pane 5b (paragraphs [0039] and [0041] – [0060]; and Figures 1-2). Schreiber-2 teaches the object of the invention is to provide a spacer for an insulating glazing unit (insulation glass unit) that enables long-term insulating action, where an insulating glazing unit (insulation glass unit) is disclosed as being useful in a building exterior glazing, a building interior glazing, and/or façade glazing (paragraphs [0002] – [0004] and [0012]), which corresponds to a method of providing the insulation glass unit according to claim 14 as a building interior glazing, building exterior glazing and/or facade glazing. Schreiber and Schreiber-2 are analogous inventions in the field of insulating glass units. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to modify the insulating glass element of Schreiber with the process of incorporating the insulating glazing unit into a building or facade glazing of Schreiber-2 to make the insulating glass element of Schreiber useful in building/façade glazing applications.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN HANDVILLE whose telephone number is (571)272-5074. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday, from 9 am to 4 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, Veronica Ewald can be reached at (571) 272-8519. 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.
/BRIAN HANDVILLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783