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 I, claims 1-8 mad 15-16 in the reply filed on 04/03/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 9-14 and 17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 04/03/2026.
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.
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) 1-6, 8, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pallotta et al. (US 2015/0140354).
Regarding claim 1, Pallotta et al. teaches a coated article comprising a glass substrate and a low emissivity coating, wherein the low emissivity coating (paragraph [0001]) comprises dielectric coatings alternating with silver coatings (Fig. 2 Embodiment, paragraphs [0045] and [0054]), wherein the thicknesses of the dielectric coatings and second silver layer are in angstroms and clearly meet the claimed ranges and ratio. While the thickness ratio of the third silver layer to first silver layer is approximately 1.10 (120/109 = 1.10), it is apparent, however, that the instantly claimed ratio and that taught by Pallotta et al. are so close to each other that the fact pattern is similar to the one in In re Woodruff , 919 F.2d 1575, USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) or Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed.Cir. 1985). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the ratio disclosed in the present claims is but an obvious variant of that disclosed in Pallotta et al., and thereby one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 2 and 15, Pallotta et al. teaches wherein the first silver coating (Ag (layer 9)) has a thickness of 5-25 nm (50-250 Å), wherein the second silver coating (Ag (layer 19)) has a thickness of 6-16 nm, wherein the third silver coating (Ag (layer 29)) has a thickness of 5-25 nm (paragraph [0045]).
Regarding claim 3, Pallotta et al. teaches wherein the thickness of first dielectric coating is between 5-105 nm (thickness ranges of SixNy (layer 3) + TiOx (layer 5) + ZnAlOx (layer 7)), wherein the thickness of second dielectric coating is between 33-145 nm, wherein the thickness of third dielectric coating is between 11-180 nm, wherein the thickness of fourth dielectric coating is between 1-150 nm (paragraph [0045]), wherein thicknesses are calculated excluding NiCrOx layers, i.e. blocking layers.
Regarding claim 4, given that Pallotta et al. teaches wherein the thickness of the second silver coating is from 60-160 Å and the thickness of the second silver coating is from 50-250 Å, a ratio of the thicknesses would be between 0.24 and 3.2.
Regarding claim 5, Pallotta et al. teaches wherein each dielectric coating comprises titanium oxide, silicon nitride, silicon nitride, and silicon nitride, respectively (paragraph [0045]).
Regarding claim 6, Pallotta et al. teaches wherein each silver coating is located below and/or above and in contact with a NiCrOx layer (paragraph [0045]), i.e. blocking layer.
Regarding claim 8, given that Pallotta et al. teaches a material comprising materials and structure identical those presently claimed, the material of Pallotta et al. would necessarily have an interior and exterior light reflection and light transmission as presently claimed, absent evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claim 16, note that because claim 5 is in the form of an alternative group, and Pallotta et al. teaches oxide and nitride layers, it is not required that Pallotta et al. meet the further limitation of the non-selected groups via subsequent dependent claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHENG HUANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7387. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday from 7 AM to 5 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Callie Shosho, can be reached at 571-272-1123. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHENG YUAN HUANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights