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 of claims 1-62 in the reply filed on June 13, 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
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 16, 17, 50, and 62 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.
Claims 16 and 17 recite “in a middle 50% of the tube seal with respect to height.” That recitation is not clear.
Claim 17 recites “any concave portion.” The claim is not clear. The Examiner notes the claim was considered for examination purposes as reciting “any concave portions.”
Claim 50 recites “in a middle 50% of the tube seal with respect to height.” That recitation is not clear.
Claim 62 recites “the first substrate” in lines 16-17. The recitation is confusing. The Examiner notes the claim was considered for examination purposes as reciting “the first glass substrate.”
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.
Claim(s) 1-20, 30-34, 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nielsen et al. (WO 2020/141007 A1) (“Nielsen”).
With respect to claim 1, Nielsen discloses a vacuum insulating panel (abstr.) comprising a first glass substrate and a second glass substrate, a plurality of spacers provided in a gap between the first and second glass substrates, wherein the gap is at a pressure which is less than atmospheric pressure (p. 2, lines 1-5, p. 6, lines 1-5), an evacuation tube – element 6 - extending partly into a recess – elements 4a and 4b – in the first glass substrate, the recess comprising a first support surface – corresponding to element 5b in Fig. 4b – and a second support surface – corresponding to element having a diameter 2d (Fig. 4b), wherein the second support surface is configured to support the evacuation tube (p. 18, lines 1-31), a tube seal – element 3 - supported on the first support surface – surface corresponding to the horizontal or inclined part of element 5a - of the first glass substrate and surrounding a periphery of the evacuation tube as viewed from above (p. 18, lines 20-31, Figs. 4a and 4b), wherein about 50% of an outer peripheral sidewall of the tube seal is inclined and sloping upwardly away from the first support surface (Fig. 4b), wherein part of the outer peripheral sidewall of the tube seal forms an angle α in a range overlapping the range of from 30 to 75˚ with a lengthwise outer surface of the evacuation tube (Fig. 4b); and at a location proximate a base of the tube seal a part of an interior of the peripheral sidewall of the tube seal forms an angle ε which is in a range overlapping the range recited in claim 1; overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (Fig 4b).
Regarding claim 2, Nielsen teaches the panel of claim 1, wherein the tube seal comprises ceramic material (p. 4, lines 18), and wherein the tube seal contacts the evacuation tube (Fig. 4b). Regarding the tube seal being laser sintered, the claim defines the product by how the product is made, thus, claim 2 is a product-by-process claim. For purposes of examination, product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps only the structure implied by the steps (MPEP 2113). In the instant case the recited steps imply the structure of claim 2; the reference teaches the structure.
With respect to claims 3 and 4, Nielsen teaches the panel of claim 1. Fig. 4b of Nielsen shows that at the location proximate the base of the tube seal, an interior of the peripheral sidewall of the tube seal forms an angle ε within the ranges recited in claims 3 and 4, with the first support surface – element 4b – of the first glass substrate.
Regarding claim 5, Nielsen teaches the panel of claim 1, wherein part of the outer peripheral sidewall of the tube seal forms an angle α in a range overlapping the range of from 40 to 60˚ with a lengthwise outer surface of the evacuation tube (Fig. 4b);
As to claim 6, Nielsen teaches the panel of claim 1, wherein the first and second support surfaces are substantially parallel to each other (Fig. 4a).
With respect to claim 7, Nielsen teaches the panel of claim 1, wherein the recess comprises first, second, and third bores each extending partially through the first glass substrate, wherein the first support surface is at a bottom of the first bore, and the second support surface is at a bottom of the second bore (Fig. 4a and 4b).
Regarding claim 8, Nielsen teaches the panel of claim 7, wherein the first, second and third bores are substantially concentric (Figs. 4a and 4b).
As to claim 9, Nielsen teaches the panel of claim 7, wherein the first bore has a larger interior width than the second bore, and the second bore has a larger interior width than the third bore, and wherein the third bore extends all the way through the first glass substrate (Figs. 4a and 4b).
With respect to claim 10, Nielsen teaches the panel of claim 7, wherein the first bore has a larger interior width than the second bore, and the second bore has a larger interior width than the third bore, and wherein the third bore extends all the way through the first glass substrate, and wherein the tube does not extend all the way through the first glass substrate (Figs. 4a and 4b).
Regarding claim 11, Nielsen teaches the panel of claim 1, wherein the tube seal does not physically contact a first outer sidewall of the recess at an outer periphery of the first support surface (Figs. 4a and 4b).
As to claim 12, Nielsen teaches the panel of claim 1. Nielsen discloses the tube seal substantially bubble-shaped in Fig. 2c.
With respect to claim 13, Nielsen teaches the panel of claim, comprising a gap between a sidewall of the tube and a second outer sidewall of the recess which extends upwardly from the second support surface of the first glass substrate, wherein more than 30% of volume of the gap between the sidewall of the tube and the second outer sidewall is free of the seal material (Figs. 4a and 4b).
Regarding claim 14, Nielsen teaches the panel of claim 13, wherein more than 50% of volume of the gap between the sidewall of the tube and the second outer sidewall is free od the seal material and the second support surface contacts the evacuation tube (Figs. 4a and 4b).
As to claim 15, Nielsen teaches the panel of claim 13, wherein more than 70% of volume of the gap between the sidewall of the tube and the second outer sidewall is free of the seal material of the tube seal (Figs. 4a and 4b).
With respect to claim 16, Nielsen teaches the panel of claim 16, wherein part of the outer peripheral sidewall of the tube seal, in a middle 50% of the tube seal with respect to height, is convex in shape relative to the tube – Fig. 2c shows such an embodiment.
Regarding claim 17, Nielsen teaches the panel of claim 16, wherein the outer peripheral sidewall of the tube seal, in the middle 50% of the tube seal with respect to height does not contain any concave portions Fig. 2c).
As to claim 18, Nielsen teaches the panel of claim 1, wherein a part of the outer peripheral sidewall of the tube seal, in an upper 30% of the seal with respect to height forms an angle θ which is within the range recited in the claim, with the lengthwise outer surface of the evacuation tube (Figs. 4a and 4b).
As to claim 19, Nielsen teaches the panel of claim 1, wherein a part of the outer peripheral sidewall of the tube seal, in an upper 30% of the seal with respect to height forms an angle θ which is within the range recited in the claim, with the lengthwise outer surface of the evacuation tube (Figs. 4a and 4b).
With respect to claim 20, Nielsen teaches the panel of claim 1. In Nielsen the evacuation tube – element 6 – has a first end and a second end opposite the first end, and the tube seal is spaced apart from and does not contact each of the first end and the second end of the evacuation tube – the seal only contacts the sidewall of the tube (Figs. 4a and 4b).
With respect to claim 30, Nielsen teaches the panel of claim 1. Nielsen does not disclose the seal comprises lead (p. 7, line 19).
Regarding claim 31, Nielsen teaches the panel of claim 1, wherein the first and second glass substrates comprise tempered glass substrates (p. 4, line 5-6).
As to claim 32, Nielsen teaches the panel of claim 1, wherein the panel is configured for use in a window (p. 1, lines 10-13, p. 3, lines 10-11).
With respect to claim 33, Nielsen teaches the panel of claim 1, wherein the panel comprises an edge seal (p. 3, lines 19-21).
Regarding claim 34, Nielsen teaches the panel of claim 1, wherein the evacuation tube comprises glass (p. 4, lines 8-11).
As to claim 36, Nielsen teaches the panel of claim 1, wherein the evacuation tube comprises glass and an end of the tube is sealed (col. 4, lines 8-16, Figs. 4a and 4b).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nielsen, in view of Hogan et al. (US 2015/0218042 A1) (“Hogan”).
With respect to claim 21, Nielsen teaches the panel of claim 1, but is silent with respect to a primer layer located at least partially between at least the tube seal and the first glass substrate. Hogan discloses a vacuum insulating glass comprising a primer layer – element 15c - located between the tube seal – element 17b – and the glass substrate (0038, Fig. 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the panel of Nielsen a primer layer between the tube seal and the first glass substrate as including a primer layer in that location is known in the art of vacuum insulating panels.
Claim(s) 22-28, 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nielsen, in view of Gödeke et al. (US 10,153,389 B2) (“Gödeke”).
With respect to claim 22, Nielsen teaches the panel of claim 1. Nielsen is silent with respect to the composition of the seal. Nielsen specifies that the seal is a low melting point solder glass material (p. 4, lines 17-18). Gödeke discloses a seal for glass panes, the seal comprising 40-90 mol.% of TeO2, the range overlapping the recited range; overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05). Gödeke is silent with respect to the tellurium oxide comprising TeO4 and TeO4, and the proportion of TeO3 and TeO4 as recited in the claim, but since in Gödeke the seal is sintered (col. 5, lines 45-57), it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the final composition of the seal satisfies claim 21. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the tube seal of Nielsen of the composition of Gödeke, as the composition of Godeke is used for sealing a glass panel.
With respect to claim 23, Nielsen teaches the panel of claim 1. Nielsen is silent with respect to the composition of the seal. Nielsen specifies that the seal is a low melting point solder glass material (p. 4, lines 17-18). Gödeke discloses a seal for glass panes, the seal comprising 40-90 mol.% of TeO2, the range overlapping the recited range; overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the tube seal of Nielsen of the composition of Gödeke, as the composition of Gödeke is used for sealing a glass panel.
Regarding claim 24, Nielsen and Gödeke teach the panel of claim 22. Gödeke is silent with respect to the percentage of tellurium in the tube seal in a form of TeO3, but since in Gödeke the seal is sintered (col. 5, lines 45-57), it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the final composition of the seal satisfies claim 24.
As to claim 25, Nielsen and Gödeke teach the panel of claim 22. Gödeke is silent with respect to the percentage of tellurium in the tube seal in a form of TeO4, but since in Gödeke the seal is sintered (col. 5, lines 45-57), it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the final composition of the seal satisfies claim 25.
With respect to claim 26, Nielsen and Gödeke teach the panel of claim 22. Gödeke is silent with respect to the ratio of TeO4 : TeO3 in the seal as recited in the claim, but since in Gödeke the seal is sintered (col. 5, lines 45-57), it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the final composition of the seal satisfies claim 26.
Regarding claim 27, Nielsen teaches the panel of claim 1, but is silent with respect to the tube seal comprising tellurium oxide and vanadium oxide, and wherein the seal comprises more tellurium oxide than vanadium oxide by wt. %. Gödeke discloses a seal for glass panes, the seal comprising 5-58 mol.% of vanadium oxide and 40-90 mol.% of TeO2, the ranges suggesting more tellurium oxide than vanadium oxide in the seal. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the tube seal of Nielsen of the composition of Gödeke, as the composition of Gödeke is used for sealing a glass panel.
As to claim 28, Nielsen and Gödeke teach the panel of claim 27. Gödeke is silent with respect to the vanadium oxide comprising VO2 and V2O5, and wherein more V in the seal is in a form of VO2 than V2O5, but since in Gödeke the seal is sintered (col. 5, lines 45-57), it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the final composition of the seal satisfies claim 28.
With respect to claim 35, Nielsen teaches the panel of claim 1. Nielsen is silent regarding the tube seal comprising a layer comprising an oxide of Te that directly contacts the first glass substrate with no primer layer located therebetween. Nielsen is silent with respect to the composition of the seal. Nielsen does not disclose a primer layer between the first glass substrate and the seal.
Nielsen specifies that the seal is a low melting point solder glass material (p. 4, lines 17-18). Gödeke discloses a seal for glass panes, the seal comprising an oxide of tellurium TeO2 (abstr., col. 6, lines 20-23). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the tube seal of Nielsen of a layer comprising the composition of Gödeke, as the composition of Gödeke is used for sealing a glass panel.
Claim(s) 37-51, 56-60 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nielsen et al. (WO 2020/141007 A1) (“Nielsen”).
With respect to claim 37, Nielsen discloses a vacuum insulating panel (abstr.) comprising a first glass substrate and a second glass substrate, a plurality of spacers provided in a gap between the first and second glass substrates, wherein the gap is at a pressure which is less than atmospheric pressure (p. 2, lines 1-5, p. 6, lines 1-5), an evacuation tube – element 6 - extending partly into a recess – elements 4a and 4b – in the first glass substrate, the recess comprising a first support surface – corresponding to element 5b – and a second support surface – corresponding to width d2 (Fig. 4b), wherein the evacuation tube is positioned over the second support surface (Figs. 4a and 4b), a tube seal – element 3 - supported on the first support surface – surface corresponding to the horizontal part of element 5a - of the first glass substrate and surrounding a periphery of the evacuation tube as viewed from above (p. 18, lines 20-31, Fig. 4b), the tube seal contacting the evacuation tube (Fig. 4b), wherein a part of an outer peripheral sidewall of the tube seal is inclined and forms an angle α in a range overlapping the range of from 30 to 75˚ with a lengthwise outer surface of the evacuation tube (Fig. 4b); wherein the evacuation tube – element 6 – comprises a first end and a second end opposite the first end, and the tube seal is spaced apart from and does not contact the first end of the evacuation tube and is spaced apart and does not contact the second end of evacuation tube – the seal only contacts the sidewall of the tube (Figs. 4a and 4b).
Regarding claim 38, Nielsen teaches the panel of claim 37, wherein the tube seal comprises ceramic material (p. 4, lines 18). Regarding the tube seal being laser sintered, the claim defines the product by how the product is made, thus, claim 38 is a product-by-process claim. For purposes of examination, product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps only the structure implied by the steps (MPEP 2113). In the instant case the recited steps imply the structure of claim 38; the reference teaches the structure.
As to claim 39, Nielsen teaches the panel of claim 37, wherein the first end of the evacuation tube is farther from the gap than is the second end of the evacuation tube (Fogs. 4a and 4b). Regarding the tube seal being spaced apart from the first end of the evacuation tube by at lest about 0.3 mm and from the second end of the evacuation tube by at least about 0.5 mm, Nielsen does not provide the specific ranges, however, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the distances of the ends of the tube from the tube seal in order to ensure a secure connection of the tube, the seal and the first glass substrate.
As to claim 40, Nielsen teaches the panel of claim 37, wherein at a location proximate a base of the tube seal an interior of the peripheral sidewall of the tube seal forms an angle ε with the first support surface of the first glass substrate which is in a range overlapping the range recited in claim 40; overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (Fig 4b).
Regarding claim 41, Nielsen teaches the panel of claim 37, wherein part of the outer peripheral sidewall of the tube seal forms an angle α in a range overlapping the range of from 40 to 60˚ with a lengthwise outer surface of the evacuation tube (Fig. 4b);
As to claim 42, Nielsen teaches the panel of claim 37, wherein the first and second support surfaces are substantially parallel to each other, and wherein the second support surface contacts the evacuation tube (Fig. 4a).
With respect to claim 43, Nielsen teaches the panel of claim 37, wherein the recess comprises first, second, and third bores each extending partially through the first glass substrate, wherein the first support surface is at a bottom of the first bore, and the second support surface is at a bottom of the second bore (Fig. 4a and 4b).
Regarding claim 44, Nielsen teaches the panel of claim 43, wherein the first, second and third bores are substantially concentric (Figs. 4a and 4b).
With respect to claim 45, Nielsen teaches the panel of claim 43, wherein the first bore has a larger interior width than the second bore, and the second bore has a larger interior width than the third bore, and wherein the third bore extends all the way through the first glass substrate, and wherein the tube does not extend all the way through the first glass substrate (Figs. 4a and 4b).
Regarding claim 46, Nielsen teaches the panel of claim 37, wherein the tube seal does not physically contact a first outer sidewall of the recess at an outer periphery of the first support surface (Figs. 4a and 4b).
As to claim 47, Nielsen teaches the panel of claim 37. Nielsen discloses the tube seal substantially bubble-shaped in Fig. 2c.
With respect to claim 48, Nielsen teaches the panel of claim 37, comprising a gap between a sidewall of the tube and a second outer sidewall of the recess which extends upwardly from the second support surface of the first glass substrate, wherein more than 30% of volume of the gap between the sidewall of the tube and the second outer sidewall is free of the seal material (Figs. 4a and 4b).
Regarding claim 49, Nielsen teaches the panel of claim 48, wherein more than 50% of volume of the gap between the sidewall of the tube and the second outer sidewall is free of the seal material and the second support surface contacts the evacuation tube (Figs. 4a and 4b).
With respect to claim 50, Nielsen teaches the panel of claim 37, wherein part of the outer peripheral sidewall of the tube seal, in a middle 50% of the tube seal with respect to height, is convex in shape relative to the tube – Fig. 2c shows such an embodiment.
As to claim 51, Nielsen teaches the panel of claim 37, wherein a part of the outer peripheral sidewall of the tube seal, in an upper 30% of the seal with respect to height, forms an angle θ which is within the range recited in the claim, with the lengthwise outer surface of the evacuation tube (Figs. 4a and 4b).
With respect to claim 56, Nielsen teaches the panel of claim 37. Nielsen does not disclose the seal comprises lead (p. 7, line 19).
Regarding claim 57, Nielsen teaches the panel of claim 37, wherein the first and second glass substrates comprise tempered glass substrates (p. 4, line 5-6.
As to claim 58, Nielsen teaches the panel of claim 37, wherein the panel is configured for use in a window (p. 1, lines 10-13, p. 3, lines 10-11).
With respect to claim 59, Nielsen teaches the panel of claim 37, wherein the panel comprises an edge seal (p. 3, lines 19-21).
Regarding claim 60, Nielsen teaches the panel of claim 1, wherein the evacuation tube comprises glass, and one end of the tube is sealed (p. 4, lines 8-16, Fig. 4a and 4b).
Claim(s) 52-55 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nielsen, in view of Gödeke et al. (US 10,153,389 B2) (“Gödeke”).
With respect to claim 52, Nielsen teaches the panel of claim 37. Nielsen is silent with respect to the composition of the seal. Nielsen specifies that the seal is a low melting point solder glass material (p. 4, lines 17-18). Gödeke discloses a seal for glass panes, the seal comprising 40-90 mol.% of TeO2, the range overlapping the recited range; overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05). Gödeke is silent with respect to the tellurium oxide comprising TeO4 and TeO3, and the proportion of TeO3 and TeO4 as recited in the claim, but since in Gödeke the seal is sintered (col. 5, lines 45-57), it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the final composition of the seal satisfies claim 52. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the tube seal of Nielsen of the composition of Gödeke, as the composition of Gödeke is used for sealing a glass panel.
With respect to claim 53, Nielsen teaches the panel of claim 37. Nielsen is silent with respect to the composition of the seal. Nielsen specifies that the seal is a low melting point solder glass material (p. 4, lines 17-18). Gödeke discloses a seal for glass panes, the seal comprising 40-90 mol.% of TeO2, the range overlapping the recited range; overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the tube seal of Nielsen of the composition of Gödeke, as the composition of Gödeke is used for sealing a glass panel.
With respect to claim 54, Nielsen and Gödeke teach the panel of claim 53. Gödeke is silent with respect to the ratio of TeO4: TeO3 in the seal as recited in the claim, but since in Gödeke the seal is sintered (col. 5, lines 45-57), it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the final composition of the seal satisfies claim 54.
Regarding claim 55, Nielsen teaches the panel of claim 37, but is silent with respect to the tube seal comprising tellurium oxide and vanadium oxide, and wherein the seal comprises more tellurium oxide than vanadium oxide by wt. %. Gödeke discloses a seal for glass panes, the seal comprising 5-58 mol.% of vanadium oxide and 40-90 mol.% of TeO2, the ranges suggesting more tellurium oxide than vanadium oxide in the seal. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the tube seal of Nielsen of the composition of Gödeke, as the composition of Gödeke is used for sealing a glass panel.
Claim(s) 61 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nielsen et al. (WO 2020/141007 A1) (“Nielsen”).
With respect to claim 61, Nielsen discloses a vacuum insulating panel (abstr.) comprising a first glass substrate and a second glass substrate, a plurality of spacers provided in a gap between the first and second glass substrates, wherein the gap is at a pressure which is less than an atmospheric pressure (p. 2, lines 1-5, p. 6, lines 1-5), an evacuation tube – element 6 - extending partly into a recess – elements 4a and 4b – in the first glass substrate, the recess comprising a first support surface – corresponding to element 5b (Fig. 4b), a tube seal – element 3 – provided on the first support surface of the first glass substrate – surface corresponding to the horizontal part of element 5a - of the first glass substrate, and surrounding a periphery of the evacuation tube as viewed from above (p. 18, lines 20-31, Fig. 4b), wherein part of the outer peripheral sidewall of the tube seal forms an angle α in a range overlapping the range of from 30 to 75˚ with a lengthwise outer surface of the evacuation tube (Fig. 4b). Regarding the tube seal being bubble-shaped, Nielsen discloses the seal substantially bubble-shaped in Fig. 2c.
Regarding the tube seal being laser-sintered, the claim defines the product by how the product is made, thus, claim 61 is a product-by-process claim. For purposes of examination, product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps (MPEP 2113). In the instant case the recited steps imply the structure of claim 61; the reference teaches the structure.
Claim(s) 62 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nielsen et al. (WO 2020/141007 A1) (“Nielsen”).
With respect to claim 62, Nielsen discloses a vacuum insulating panel (abstr.) comprising a first glass substrate and a second glass substrate, a plurality of spacers provided in a gap between the first and second glass substrates, wherein the gap is at a pressure which is less than an atmospheric pressure (p. 2, lines 1-5, p. 6, lines 1-5), an evacuation tube – element 6 - extending partly into a recess – elements 4a and 4b – in the first glass substrate, the recess comprising a first support surface – corresponding to element 5b – and a second support surface – corresponding to element having diameter 2d (Fig. 4b), wherein the second support surface is configured to support the evacuation tube (p. 18, lines 1-31), a tube seal – element 3 - supported on the first support surface – surface corresponding to the horizontal part of element 5a - of the first glass substrate and surrounding a periphery of the evacuation tube as viewed from above (p. 18, lines 20-31, Fig. 4b), the tube seal contacting the evacuation tube (Figs. 4a and 4b); wherein part of an outer peripheral sidewall of the tube seal is inclined and forms an angle α in a range overlapping the range of from 30 to 75˚ with a lengthwise outer surface of the evacuation tube (Fig. 4b); and a gap between the tube seal and the second support surface of the first glass substrate, wherein the gap between the tube seal and the second support surface of the first glass substrate is positioned between a sidewall of the tube and an outer sidewall of the recess which extends from the second support surface of the first glass substrate, wherein more than 30% of volume of the gap between the tube seal and the second support surface of the first glass substrate is free of the seal material of the tube seal (Figs. 4a and 4b).
Examiner’s Note
Claim 29 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the art of record fails to teach or suggest a tube seal having a density within the recited range.
Information Disclosure Statement
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOANNA PLESZCZYNSKA whose telephone number is (571)270-1617. The examiner can normally be reached M-F ~ 11:30-8.
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, Maria 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.
/Joanna Pleszczynska/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights