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 with traverse of Group I, claims 1-17, 19 and 20 in the reply filed on April 2, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that a search for the etching composition of claim 1 would necessarily overlap the search for etching the composition of claim 18. This is not found persuasive. Initially, note that neither claim 1 or claim 18 mentions anything about “etching”. Additionally, although the composition of claim 1 may also be in claim 18, there would be burden to search both Groups as prior art found that may meet claim 1’s composition would not necessarily meet the process of claim 18 and this would require additional searching. As such, search burden exists and the requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 5 is rejected as the range of 0.044 to 0.059 weight percent CoO is already recited in claim 1 from which claim 5 depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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) 1-7, 9-16, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shelestak (USPN 6,413,893).
Regarding claims 1, 4-6, 9-16: Shelestak teaches a glass that can comprise the following which allows for overlap with the compositions claimed (MPEP 2144.05).
SiO2
66-75 wt% (Col. 2, lines 35-42)
Na2O
10-20 wt% (Col. 2, lines 35-42)
CaO
5-15 wt% (Col. 2, lines 35-42)
MgO
0-5 wt% (Col. 2, lines 35-42)
Al2O3
0-5 wt% (Col. 2, lines 35-42)
K2O
0-3 wt% (Col. 2, lines 35-42)
SO3
None disclosed (i.e. 0wt%)
Total iron (Fe2O3)
(see total referred to as Fe2O3 in Col. 3, lines 13-15)
0.5-4 wt% (Col. 17, lines 10-13)
CoO
40-500 PPM (i.e. 0.004-0.05wt%) (Col. 17, lines 10-13)
Cr2O3
15-800PPM (i.e. 0.0015-0.08wt%) (Col. 17, lines 10-13)
CuO
0-2wt% can be added with a reduction in the CoO of 1ppm for every 6ppm CuO to be added (Col. 18, line 65-67 bridged to Col. 19, lines 1-5)
redox ratio
0.2-0.4, preferably 0.22-0.35 more preferably 0.23-0.28 (Col. 17, lines 18-20)
Selenium
5-70PPM (i.e. 0.0005-0.007wt%) (Col. 17, lines 10-13)
TiO2
0.02-1wt% (Col. 17, lines 10-13)
Regarding claim 2: Given that the glass has a composition meeting that claimed, it would be expected to provide for the claimed properties (MPEP 2112).
Alternatively, Shelestak does teach that their glass can be made to have visible light transmission of up to 60% (see Col. 17, lines 8-10) at thicknesses of 1.8-5mm (Col. 18, lines 33-36) wherein transmission is measured via CIE Illum “A” across wavelengths of 380 to 770nm (see Col. 4, lines 20-23) overlapping all the requirements claimed (MPEP 2144.05).
It is noted for clarity of record that in the instance Applicants attempt to argue that “up to 60%” is much too broad to render obvious the more limited range of greater than 0 to 8 %, note that not only does the “up to 60%” overlap the claimed range but Shelestak’s Examples (for instance see Examples 1-20 in Table 1) provide additional suggestion that transmissions (LTA) falling within 0-8% are within the scope of their invention and encompassed by their “up to 60%” range.
Regarding claim 3: Given that the glass’ composition meets that claimed, it would be expected to provide for the claimed properties (MPEP 2112).
Regarding claim 7: Shelestak does suggest throughout that their glass can be used as a vehicle transparency, etc. (see for instance, Col. 18, lines 35-40).
Regarding claim 19: Shelestak suggests their glasses being used to form a laminate wherein multiple plies of glass will be laminated together using a PVB adhesive (see for instance, Col. 18, lines 38-40).
Claim(s) 8, 17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shelestak (USPN 6,413,893) as applied to claims 1 and 19 above, in view of any one of USPN7,943,246, USPub20210122145, USPub20200384739 or USPub20040028953).
Regarding claims 8, 17 and 20: While Shelestak may not disclose the glass having a coating as claimed, they do not exclude such a coating and instead, only generally teach glass to be used in vehicle glazings, laminates, etc.
As ‘246, ‘145, ‘739 and ‘953, who each similarly teach glass to be used in vehicle glazings and laminates, teach that it is desirable in the art to apply a low e coating on the glass (see entire document or ‘246; 0082 in ‘145; 0028 in ‘739 and 0023-0029 in ‘953) or even a low e coating and solar control coating on the glass with placement of such coating on surface 2 or 3 of the laminate (see 0062-0066 and 0082 in ‘145; 0065-0065 in ‘739 and 0023-0029 in ‘953), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of invention to modify Shelestak to include a low e coating or solar control coating on their glass, including placement on surface 2 or 3 in a laminate, for low e properties and/or solar control.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAUREN ROBINSON COLGAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3474. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 9AM to 5PM.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-0604. 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.
LAUREN ROBINSON COLGAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1784
/LAUREN R COLGAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights