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 without traverse of Group II, claims 36-44 in the reply filed on November 21, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 26-35 and 45 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Objections
Claim 36 objected to because of the following informalities: the step reference number (ii) is repeated and, therefore, the step reference number sequence is incorrect. Appropriate correction is required.
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 39 and 40 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c).
In the present instance, claims 39 and 40 recite the broad recitation "preferably", and the claims also recite a function or an object which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
For the purposes of compact prosecution, the examiner will consider these
limitations as reading on the narrower statement of the limitation, as the required feature of the claims.
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) 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwankhaus (US 2015/0360446 A1) IDS 12/21/2023.
Regarding Claim 36, Schwankhaus discloses a method of manufacturing a fire-resistant glazing (Fig. 1 abs, paragraph [0023] fire-resistant composite glass – 1) comprising the steps of:
(i) providing a first sheet of glazing material (Fig. 1 paragraph [0023] one of two first glass panes – 2.1) comprising a first major face, a second major face and at least one edge face (See Fig. 1 paragraph [0023] with a peripheral edge face; edge seal or sealing – 5);
(ii) arranging a primary sealant upon the first major face of the first sheet of glazing material proximate to the at least one edge face of the first sheet of glazing material (Figs. 1, 2 paragraphs [0011] [0024] [0030] where a primary layer prevents detachment of the glass and fire-resistant intermediate (intumescent) layer, made of polyethylene or paraffin wax, which acts as a sealant, primer layer – 6 present at boundary surface of glass pane facing fire-resistant intermediate layer);
(ii) providing a second sheet of glazing material (Fig. 1 paragraph [0023] one of two first glass panes – 2.2) comprising a first major face, a second major face and at least one edge face (See Fig. 1 paragraph [0023] with a peripheral edge face; edge seal or sealing – 5);
(iii) forming an assembly by arranging the first and second sheets of glazing material in a spaced-apart face-to-face arrangement with the first major faces of the first and second sheet of glazing material facing each other to form a cavity and wherein the edge faces of the first and second sheets of glazing material are substantially aligned to form a glazing edge (See Fig. 1 paragraph [0023] where the two first glass panes 2.1, 2.2 face each other to form a cavity and the edge faces of the first and second sheets are aligned with the spacer – 4 and edge seal or sealing – 5) ; and
(iv) providing an intumescent layer precursor solution in the cavity between the first and second sheets of glazing material (Fig. 1 abs, paragraphs [0008] [0023] fire-resistant intermediate layer can be a foaming/swelling fire-resistant layer; intermediate layer – 3 foams in the case of fire)
(vi) and Schwankhaus further discloses the weakening a portion of the primary sealant in at least one area (paragraphs [0013] [0014] primer layer being designed such that the adhesion reduces at conditions that prevail with a fire safety test).
But while Schwankhaus discloses a secondary sealant provided between the first and second sheets of glazing material and at least partially between the primary sealant and the glazing edge (Fig. 1 paragraph [0023] edge seal or sealing – 5), Schwankhaus is silent that this secondary seal is provided in a step (v) following step (iv) where the intumescent (fire-resistant) layer is provided.
However, this would be obvious to try as a step after the provision of the fire-resistant (intumescent) layer as a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success (MPEP § 2143 I. E.) This would be obvious to try especially with the motivation of effectively sealing the intumescent layer to the surrounding air (paragraph [0023]).
Moreover, the transposition of process steps where the processes are substantially equivalent in terms of function, manner and result, was held to not patentably distinguish the processes (MPEP § 2144.04 IV.C).
Claim(s) 37-44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwankhaus (US 2015/0360446 A1) IDS 12/21/2023 as applied to claim 36 above, and further in view of Suzuki (CN1898829A) with machine translation.
Regarding Claims 37 and 38, Schwankhaus does not disclose a step of weakening a portion of the primary sealant by applying an edge seal deteriorating solution to the primary sealant in at least one area nor a step of weakening a portion of the primary sealant and a step of weakening a portion of the secondary sealant in a co-located area.
Suzuki discloses, in an analogous art, the dismantlement or disassembly methods of fuel cells (abs) where these fuel cells have a sealing layer surrounding an electrode assembly with separators sandwiching the electrode assembly and bonded to the sealing layer (paragraphs [0031] [0067]). The disassembly involves the weakening of portions of the bonded electrodes by expansion and the separation of the sealing layer from the resin coatings of the partitions that bond the electrode assembly to the sealing layer, correlating to a primary sealant (Fig. 4 paragraph [0063]) and further includes the weakening of an edge seal correlating to a secondary sealant in at least one area (Fig. 7 paragraph [0068]). In the case of the secondary sealant, this can be accomplished by applying an edge seal deteriorating solution to the primary sealant in at least one area which is co-located to a secondary sealant (See Fig. 7(a)(b) paragraph [0070] solvents, surfactants).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the disclosure of Schwankhaus with the teaching of Suzuki whereby a method of manufacturing a fire-resistant glazing having a step of applying a primary sealant and secondary sealant between first and second sheets of glazing material and the glazing edge would further include a step of weakening portions of the primary sealant and secondary sealant with an edge seal deteriorating solution to the primary sealant in at least one area, as taught by Suzuki.
One with ordinary skill in the art would use this method step to weaken a portion of the primary sealant and/or a portion of the secondary sealant because a deteriorating solution applied to these sealants has the function of dissolving or softening the sealants (paragraph [0070]). This would enable the primary and second sealants to be designed such that the adhesion reduces at conditions that prevail with a fire safety test (Schwankhaus, paragraph [0013]).
Regarding Claim 39, the combination of Schwankhaus and Suzuki disclose all the limitations of claim 38 and Suzuki further discloses that the edge seal deteriorating solution comprises surfactant (paragraph [0070]) but Suzuki is silent as to the concentration of the surfactant in the edge seal deteriorating solution.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use an edge seal deteriorating solution comprising surfactant, from 0.01 % to 10 % surfactant, more preferably the edge seal deteriorating solution comprises from 1 to 5% surfactant,
since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to these ranges of surfactant concentrations for the purpose of dissolving the boundary between the sealant and the glazing material (paragraph [0016]). (MPEP § 2144.05 IIA).
Regarding Claim 40, the combination of Schwankhaus and Suzuki disclose all the limitations of claim 38 and Suzuki further discloses that the edge seal deteriorating solution comprises a solvent, preferably a polar protic solvent selected from the group consisting of methanol, ethanol, isopropanol, n-butanol and pentanol (Fig. 7(b) paragraph [0070] methanol., ethanol, butanol; function is to reduce the adhesion of the sealing layer – 8).
Regarding Claim 41, the combination of Schwankhaus and Suzuki disclose all the limitations of claim 38 and while Suzuki further discloses that a fluid (edge seal deteriorating solution) is supplied to the interface between the electrodes and sealants (Fig. 7(b) gas passages – 6g, 7g not limited to hot water), which can be considered an injection apparatus, as an alternative recited by the claim.
Regarding Claim 42, the combination of Schwankhaus and Suzuki disclose all the limitations of claim 38 and Suzuki further discloses that the edge seal deteriorating solution is applied onto a surface of the primary sealant orientated away from the cavity, and/or wherein the edge seal deteriorating solution is applied onto a surface of the primary sealant orientated towards the cavity (See Figs. 6(a), (b), paragraph [0067] liquid supplied to each gas passage – 6g, 7g raises the pressure inside the passage which can involve the sealing layer – 8 oriented towards or away from the cavity because it supplies pressure of the deteriorating solution around the sealant – see arrows).
Regarding Claim 43, Schwankhaus discloses all the limitations of claim 36, but does not disclose a step of weakening a portion of the secondary sealant by forming a groove parallel to the glazing edge in the surface of the secondary sealant.
Suzuki discloses a step of weakening a portion of the secondary sealant (Fig.(a) paragraph [0072] sealing layer – 8) which comprises forming a groove parallel to the glazing edge in the surface of the secondary sealant (Figs. 10 (a), (b) paragraph [0072] continuous or spaced grooves – 40 formed on the inner surface of the partitions 6, 7 along their periphery (parallel to the sealing layer – 8). The motivation to add this feature is that the groove can act as a fracture guide (See Fig. 10 (b) paragraphs [0011] [0072] fracture guide serves as the starting point to reduce the adhesion between the sealing layer (secondary sealant) and the electrode assembly (glazing edge) where groove is propagated in the sealing layer itself).
Regarding Claim 44, the combination of Schwankhaus and Suzuki disclose all the limitations of claim 43 and Suzuki further discloses the step of forming a groove parallel to the glazing edge in the surface of the secondary sealant comprises tooling the secondary sealant before, during or after curing (Fig. 10(b) paragraphs [0059] [0072] where the grooves are formed after curing and are propagated with the secondary sealant (sealing layer – 8).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WAYNE K. SWIER whose telephone number is (571)272-4598. The examiner can normally be reached M-F generally 8:30 am - 5:30 pm PST.
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, Abbas Rashid can be reached at 571-270-7457. 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.
/WAYNE K. SWIER/ Examiner, Art Unit 1748
/Abbas Rashid/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748