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 § 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, 6, 7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pesce et al. (US 2013/0089684 A1) in view of Lee et al. (US 2020/0024185 A1).
Claim 1: Pesce teaches a triple glazing comprising three glass sheets (1, 2, 3) that trap between them, in enclosed spaces, gas-filled cavities (4, 5), most frequently filled with argon chosen for its low thermal conductivity coefficient, wherein the triple glazing further comprises low emissivity layers (6, 7, 8) (Fig. 3, [0005], [0040], [0041] and [0047]). The glass sheet 1 meets the claimed first substrate, glass sheet 3 meets the claimed second substrate and low emissivity layer 6 meet the claimed first coating.
Pesce teaches the low emissivity layer 6 comprises a set of reflective/silver and dielectric layers [0041] but does not teach the layers as recited in current claims. However, Lee teaches a laminated system 300 comprising a substrate and a highly reflective layer (Fig. 3 and abstract), wherein the substrate is a glass substrate [0020] and the highly reflective layer comprises a high refractive index layer 320 [0021], a low refractive index layer 330 [0022] and a high refractive index layer 340 [0021]. The high refractive index layer 320 meets the claimed first layer, the low refractive index layer 330 meets the claimed second layer and the high refractive index layer 340 meets the claimed third layer. Lee teaches the high refractive index layers 320 and 340 each comprise titanium oxide, zirconium oxide or niobium oxide [0051] and the low refractive index layer 330 comprises silicon oxide [0052], wherein the types of materials included as the materials of each high refractive index layer may be different from each other [0053].
Pesce and Lee are analogous art because they are from the same filed of endeavor that is the laminated glass art. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the highly reflective layer of Lee with the invention of Pesce, and the motivation for combining would be, as Lee suggested, to control transparency, soft color and reflection effect [0011].
Claims 2, 3 and 11: Pesce teaches a triple glazing comprising three glass sheets (1, 2, 3) that trap between them, in enclosed spaces, gas-filled cavities (4, 5), most frequently filled with argon chosen for its low thermal conductivity coefficient, wherein the triple glazing further comprises low emissivity layers (6, 7, 8) (Fig. 3, [0005], [0040], [0041] and [0047]). The glass sheet 1 meets the claimed first substrate, glass sheet 3 meets the claimed second substrate and low emissivity layer 6 meet the claimed first coating.
Pesce teaches the low emissivity layer 6 comprises a set of reflective/silver and dielectric layers [0041] but does not teach the layers as recited in current claims. However, Lee teaches a laminated system 300 comprising a substrate and a highly reflective layer (Fig. 3 and abstract), wherein the substrate is a glass substrate [0020] and the highly reflective layer comprises a high refractive index layer 320 [0021], a low refractive index layer 330 [0022] and a high refractive index layer 340 [0021]. The high refractive index layer 320 meets the claimed first layer, the low refractive index layer 330 meets the claimed second layer and the high refractive index layer 340 meets the claimed third layer. Lee teaches the high refractive index layers 320 and 340 each comprise titanium oxide, zirconium oxide or niobium oxide [0051] and the low refractive index layer 330 comprises silicon oxide [0052], wherein the types of materials included as the materials of each high refractive index layer may be different from each other {instant claim 3} [0053].
With respect to instant claims 2 and 11, Lee teaches the thickness of the low refractive index layer 330 is 3-100 nm or less [0048] and the thickness of each of the high refractive index layers 320 and 340 is 6-180 nm [0049], wherein these thickness values overlap with the claimed invention.
Pesce and Lee are analogous art because they are from the same filed of endeavor that is the laminated glass art. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the highly reflective layer of Lee with the invention of Pesce, and the motivation for combining would be, as Lee suggested, to control transparency, soft color and reflection effect [0011].
Claim 6: Glass sheet 3 of Pesce meets the claimed third substrate.
Claim 7: Low emissive layer 7 of Pesce meets the claimed first functional coating and low emissive layer 8 of Pesce meets the claimed second functional coating.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pesce et al. (US 2013/0089684 A1) and Lee et al. (US 2020/0024185 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Veerasamy (US 2021/0222486 A1).
Pesce and Lee teach the claimed invention as set forth above.
Claims 4 and 5: Pesce does not teach any of the low emissivity layers are patterned. However, Veerasamy teaches a UV reflecting coating in a window unit, wherein the UV reflecting coating may be entirely or partially patterned (abstract). Veerasamy does not teach having both entirely patterned UV reflecting coating and partially patterned UV reflecting coating {instant claim 5}. It would have been obvious to a person or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine separately taught prior art components which perform the same function; it is logical that they would produce the same effect and supplement each other. In re Crockett, 126 USPQ 186.
Pesce and Veerasamy are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor that is the glazing art. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teaching of Veerasamy, (i.e., having both entirely patterned coating and partially patterned coating) with the invention of Pesce, and the motivation would be, as Veerasamy suggested, so that the UV reflection differs across different areas of the glazing/window thereby making the glazing/window unit more visible to birds which can see UV radiation and detect that pattern (abstract).
Claims 8, 10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pesce et al. (US 2013/0089684 A1) and Lee et al. (US 2020/0024185 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rouby et al. (US 2013/0344317 A1).
Pesce and Lee teach the claimed invention as set forth above.
Claim 8: Pesce does not teach any of the glass sheet are tempered. However, Rouby teaches a glazing comprising a glass substrate made of thermal tempered glass (abstract and [0011]). Pesce and Lee are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor that is the glazing art. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the tempered glass of Rouby with the invention of Pesce, and the motivation for combining would be et enhance safety and durability.
Claims 10 and 13: Pesce does not teach any of the glass sheet are a soda lime glass. However, Rouby teaches a glass substrate in a glazing (abstract), wherein the glass is a soda lime glass [0013] comprising less than 0.02% of iron oxide [0018] and has a redox ratio of between 0 and 0.9 [0019]. Pesce and Lee are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor that is the glazing art. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the soda lime glass of Rouby with the invention of Pesce, and the motivation for combining would be, as Rouby suggested, to control the light transmission properties of the glazing ([0018] and [0019]).
Claims 9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pesce et al. (US 2013/0089684 A1) and Lee et al. (US 2020/0024185 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nakamura et al. (US 6,153,127).
Pesce and Lee teach the claimed invention as set forth above.
Claim 9 and 12: Pesce does not teach the UV light transmittance of any of the glass sheets without any coating. However, Nakamura teaches use of raw, uncoated or non-colored soda lime glass as a base material for a laminated glass, wherein the base soda lime glass has a UV ray transmittance of 72.6% or 84.7% {instant claim 12} (abstract, col. 8, lines 2-7 and col. 9 lines 26-29). Pesce and Nakamura are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor that is the laminated glass art. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the raw, uncoated or non-colored soda lime glass base material of Nakamura with the invention of Pesce, and the motivation for combining would be cost effectiveness and high-volume availability.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BETELHEM SHEWAREGED whose telephone number is (571)272-1529. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 7am-4:30pm.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at 571-272-1291. 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.
BS
November 19, 2025
/BETELHEM SHEWAREGED/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1785