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 elected Species B2, which is “glass removal area does not support a low-E coating”, but states Claim 44 is within the election, which recites “the glass removal area is on a glass substrate that supports a low-E coating” (Species B1). Thus, it is interpreted the election is directed to Species B1 to align with the generic/selected claims.
Applicant’s election of Species A1, B1, C1, and D1, Claims 1-12, 17-44, and 47-57, in the reply filed on 03/26/2026 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)).
Claims 13-16, 45 and 46 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species A1, B2, C2, C3, C4 and D2, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 03/26/2026.
The restriction requirement has been made FINAL.
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 7-10 and 49-54 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.
Regarding Claim 7-10 and 49-54, there is an issue of antecedent basis of “at least a portion of a surface of the glass removal area” that renders the claims indefinite.
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 1-6, 17, 37, 40, 44, and 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon (KR 20110083247 A) in view of Guardian Glass (NPL) and Asano et al. (US 6,436,493 B1).
Regarding Claim 1-6, Kwon teaches a vacuum insulated panel (Abstract; Paragraph 0023; Fig. 15) comprising a first glass substrate and a second glass substrate (Item 1a, 1b), a plurality of spacers provided in a gap between the at least first and second glass substrate, wherein the gap is at pressure less than atmospheric pressure (Paragraph 0023, 0046; Fig. 15; Item 8) and a seal provided at least partially between at least the first and second glass substrates (Items 5, 6, 7). Kwon teaches a at least one of the first and second glass substrates comprises a glass removal area where the seal is located, where a low-E coating removed and the glass is roughened with some removal. (Fig. 11-16; Paragraph 0048).
Kwon does not specifically teach the glass removal comprises a width WDR that is at least 6 mm or at least about 10 mm.
Guardian Glass teaches width WDR of a remove edge on a glass vacuum insulated panel should be 10 mm or less. (Page 3). This overlaps the claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Guardian teaches removing more will show into the visible area and create an undesired color difference. (Page 3). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to grind to the claimed range as taught by Guardian Glass to ensure the panel of Kwon does not have an undesired color difference.
Kwon does not teach at least a portion of the glass removal has a depth DR of glass removed of at least 200 nm, at least 600 nm, at least 800 nm, or at least 1000 nm, relative to another area.
Asano teaches a vacuum insulated panel comprising a glass substrate with a glass removal area, where the removal depth is 1 to 100 microns. (Abstract; Claim 2 of Asano). This overlaps the claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05). Asano teaches this roughness and depth improve the bonding force of the seal to the glass substrates. (Column 1, Lines 65-67, Column 2, Lines 1-3). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to use the claimed removal depth taught by Asano in Kwon for better bonding of the seal to the glass.
Regarding Claim 17, Kwon teaches a first seal and a second seal layer, where the second seal layer contacting the glass removal area. (Fig. 13-14)
Regarding Claim 37, Kwon does not require lead in the seal.
Regarding Claim 40, Asano teaches vacuum insulating glazings can be used as window materials. (Column 8, Lines 9-11). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to use the glazing in Kwon in a window.
Regarding Claim 44, Kwon teaches the glass removal area is on a glass substrate that supports a low-E coating (Fig. 11-16).
Regarding Claim 47, Kwon teaches only one side can have the glass removal area. (Fig. 13)
Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon, Guardian Glass, and Asano, in further view of Buckett (EP 1313674 B1).
Regarding Claim 7, Kwon does not teach the portion of the surface of the glass removal area has a sodium content greater than a sodium content of the another area where the glass has not been removed.
Buckett teaches a soda-lime composition (Abstract) suitable for use in glazings. (Paragraph 0002). Buckett teaches the glass can comprise a composition of Claim 1, which is cheaper than conventional soda-lime glass without issues in the annealing and toughening. (Paragraph 0008-0010). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to use the soda-lime glass of Buckett as the glass in Kwon due to the lower cost.
While Kwon and Buckett do not teach the portion of the surface of the glass removal area has a sodium content greater than a sodium content of the another area where the glass has not been removed, Kwon does teach the surface of the glass is also roughened/removed. In the instant Specification, this removal inherently increases the sodium content. (Paragraph 0080). Thus, Kwon and Buckett will inherently also have this higher sodium content as the glass removal area than the non-removal area.
Regarding Claims 8-10, Buckett teaches a composition of 68-75 wt% of SiO2, 6-12.4 wt% of Na2O and 10.2-17 wt% of CaO. This yield a Na content of up to 24 atomic %. This overlaps the claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05).
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon, Guardian Glass, and Asano in view of Hartig et al. (US 2007/0237980 A1) and Buckett
Regarding Claims 11-12, Kwon teaches a low-E coating that is provided adjacent to the glass removal area. (Item 2). Kwon does not teach the composition of the low-E coating.
Hartig teaches a low-E coating comprising a silver-comprising layer and a SnO2 comprising layer. (Abstract; Claim 10 of Hartig). Hartig teaches this low-E coating provides the advantage of haze reduction, leading to a more transparent window. (Paragraph 0003-0006). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to use the low-E coating of Hartig for lower haze.
Buckett teaches a soda-lime composition (Abstract) suitable for use in glazings. (Paragraph 0002). Buckett teaches the glass can comprise a composition of Claim 1, which is cheaper than conventional soda-lime glass without issues in the annealing and toughening. (Paragraph 0008-0010). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to use the soda-lime glass of Buckett as the glass in Kwon due to the lower cost.
Kwon teaches removing the low-E coating at the glass removal area and Buckett teaches a glass without Sn, then the combination of Kwon, Hartig and Buckett will not have any atomic Sn at the glass removal area.
Claims 18-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being rejected over Kwon, Guardian Glass, and Asano, in view of Gong et al. (US 2024/0026729 A1).
Regarding Claim 18-25, Kwon does not specifically teach a second seal layer with the claimed composition.
Gong teaches a vacuum insulated glazing with two seals (Abstract; Fig. 11) with the second seal layer having a composition of 0 to 55 wt% of Bi2O3, 10 to 65 wt% of SiO2 and 2 to 30 wt% of B2O3. (Paragraph 0049). These ranges overlap the claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05). Gong teaches this composition is suitable in providing a suitable hermetic seal to a vacuum insulated glazing and allows for faster production (Paragraph 0004). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to use the claimed seal composition as second seal layer in Kwon.
Claims 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon, Guardian Glass and Asano, in view of Choi et al. (US 2022/0002188 A1).
Regarding Claim 27-28, Kwon teaches the sealant layers can include a low-melting point glass. (Paragraph 0050).
Choi teaches a low-temperature glass seal for insulated glazing (Abstract; Paragraph 0002) comprising tellurium and vanadium oxide, where there is more wt% of tellurium than vanadium oxide and the wt% of tellurium oxide is 30-50 wt%. (Claim 1 of Choi). This overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05). Choi teaches this frit is lead-free and has excellent durability. (Paragraph 0012). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to use the frit of Choi as the sealant in Kwon for the durability and lead-free aspect.
Regarding Claim 35, Kwon teaches two seal layers; therefore, the first layer can be the main seal layer and the second layer is primer layer (Fig. 13-14)
Claims 38 and 41-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon, Guardian Glass, and Asano in view of Hogan et al. (US 2015/0218032 A1).
Regarding Claim 28, Kwon does not teach the first and second glass are tempered or heat strengthened glass. Hogan teaches a vacuum insulated panel where the glass substrates are heat strengthened to improve the strength of the glass. (Paragraph 0074; Abstract). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to heat strengthen the glass substrates of Kwon for improve the strength of the panel.
Regarding Claim 41-43, Kwon does not teach a two-seal layer arrangement, with the claimed width ratio.
Hogan teaches a vacuum insulated glazing, where the width of the second seal can be greater than the width of the first seal and the amount used in each seal layer allows for proper sealing (Fig. 5; Abstract). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to optimize the amount and the width of the first and second seal layers in Kwon to ensure proper sealing of the vacuum insulated glazing.
Claim 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon, Guardian Glass, and Asano in view of Bettger et al. (US 2010/0178439 A1).
Regarding Claim 39, Kwon does not specifically teach the seal are hermetic.
Bettger teaches seals for vacuum insulated glazings need to be hermetic to allow for the vacuum to be maintained, which controls the heat conductive properties of the glazing. (Paragraph 0005, 0026). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to ensure the seals of Kwon are hermetic to maintain the vacuum and heat conductive properties.
Claims 48, 52-55 and 57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon in view of Gong and Buckett
Regarding Claim 48, 52-55 and 57, Kwon teaches a vacuum insulated panel (Abstract; Paragraph 0023; Fig. 15) comprising a first glass substrate and a second glass substrate (Item 1a, 1b), a plurality of spacers provided in a gap between the at least first and second glass substrate, wherein the gap is at pressure less than atmospheric pressure (Paragraph 0023, 0046; Fig. 15; Item 8) and a seal provided at least partially between at least the first and second glass substrates (Items 5, 6, 7). Kwon teaches a at least one of the first and second glass substrates comprises a glass removal area where the seal is located and contacting the glass removal surface, where a low-E coating removed and the glass is roughened with some removal. (Fig. 11-16; Paragraph 0048).
Kwon does not teach the seal touching the glass removal area comprises a layer of boron, but does teach the seals can be low melting glass frit material.
Gong teaches a vacuum insulated glazing with two seals (Abstract; Fig. 11) with the second seal layer having a composition of 0 to 55 wt% of Bi2O3, 10 to 65 wt% of SiO2 and 2 to 30 wt% of B2O3. (Paragraph 0049). These ranges overlap the claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05). Gong teaches this composition is suitable in providing a suitable hermetic seal to a vacuum insulated glazing and allows for faster production (Paragraph 0004). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to use the claimed seal composition as second seal layer in Kwon.
Kwon and Gong do not teach the composition of the glass removal surface.
Buckett teaches a soda-lime composition (Abstract) suitable for use in glazings. (Paragraph 0002). Buckett teaches the glass can comprise a composition of Claim 1, which is cheaper than conventional soda-lime glass without issues in the annealing and toughening. (Paragraph 0008-0010). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to use the soda-lime glass of Buckett as the glass in Kwon due to the lower cost. This glass has the overlapping ranges for Na, and does not require Zn, Ti, Nb or Sn.
While Kwon and Buckett do not teach the portion of the surface of the glass removal area has a sodium content greater than a sodium content of the another area where the glass has not been removed, Kwon does teach the surface of the glass is also roughened/removed. In the instant Specification, this removal inherently increases the sodium content. (Paragraph 0080). Thus, Kwon and Buckett will inherently also have this higher sodium content as the glass removal area than the non-removal area.
Claims 49-51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon, Gong and Buckett in view of Asano et al.
Regarding Claim 49-51, Kwon does no teach the depth of the removal.
Asano teaches a vacuum insulated panel comprising a glass substrate with a glass removal area, where the removal depth is 1 to 100 microns. (Abstract; Claim 2 of Asano). This overlaps the claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05). Asano teaches this roughness and depth improve the bonding force of the seal to the glass substrates. (Column 1, Lines 65-67, Column 2, Lines 1-3). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to use the claimed removal depth taught by Asano in Kwon for better bonding of the seal to the glass.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-12, 17-44, and 47 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-55 of U.S. Patent No. 12,460,468 in view of Guardian Glass (NPL) and Asano et al. (US 6,436,493 B1).
Regarding Claims 1-12, 17-44, and 47, Patent teaches overlapping ranges for all the limitations other than the removal area. Patent does not specifically teach the glass removal comprises a width WDR that is at least 6 mm or at least about 10 mm.
Guardian Glass teaches width WDR of a remove edge on a glass vacuum insulated panel should be 10 mm or less. (Page 3). This overlaps the claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Guardian teaches removing more will show into the visible area and create an undesired color difference. (Page 3). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to grind to the claimed range as taught by Guardian Glass to ensure the panel of Patent does not have an undesired color difference.
Patent does not teach at least a portion of the glass removal has a depth DR of glass removed of at least 200 nm, at least 600 nm, at least 800 nm, or at least 1000 nm, relative to another area.
Asano teaches a vacuum insulated panel comprising a glass substrate with a glass removal area, where the removal depth is 1 to 100 microns. (Abstract; Claim 2 of Asano). This overlaps the claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05). Asano teaches this roughness and depth improve the bonding force of the seal to the glass substrates. (Column 1, Lines 65-67, Column 2, Lines 1-3). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to use the claimed removal depth taught by Asano in Patent for better bonding of the seal to the glass.
Claims 1-12, 17, 27-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-58 of U.S. Patent No. 12,467,308 in view of Guardian Glass (NPL) and Asano et al. (US 6,436,493 B1).
Regarding Claims 1-12, 17, and 27-40, Patent teaches overlapping ranges for all the limitations other than the removal area. Patent does not specifically teach the glass removal comprises a width WDR that is at least 6 mm or at least about 10 mm.
Guardian Glass teaches width WDR of a remove edge on a glass vacuum insulated panel should be 10 mm or less. (Page 3). This overlaps the claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Guardian teaches removing more will show into the visible area and create an undesired color difference. (Page 3). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to grind to the claimed range as taught by Guardian Glass to ensure the panel of Patent does not have an undesired color difference.
Patent does not teach at least a portion of the glass removal has a depth DR of glass removed of at least 200 nm, at least 600 nm, at least 800 nm, or at least 1000 nm, relative to another area.
Asano teaches a vacuum insulated panel comprising a glass substrate with a glass removal area, where the removal depth is 1 to 100 microns. (Abstract; Claim 2 of Asano). This overlaps the claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05). Asano teaches this roughness and depth improve the bonding force of the seal to the glass substrates. (Column 1, Lines 65-67, Column 2, Lines 1-3). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to use the claimed removal depth taught by Asano in Patent for better bonding of the seal to the glass.
Claims 1-12, 17-44, and 47 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-72 of U.S. Patent No. 12,377,639 in view of Guardian Glass (NPL) and Asano et al. (US 6,436,493 B1).
Regarding Claims 1-12, 17-44, and 47, Patent teaches overlapping ranges for all the limitations other than the removal area. Patent does not specifically teach the glass removal comprises a width WDR that is at least 6 mm or at least about 10 mm.
Guardian Glass teaches width WDR of a remove edge on a glass vacuum insulated panel should be 10 mm or less. (Page 3). This overlaps the claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Guardian teaches removing more will show into the visible area and create an undesired color difference. (Page 3). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to grind to the claimed range as taught by Guardian Glass to ensure the panel of Patent does not have an undesired color difference.
Patent does not teach at least a portion of the glass removal has a depth DR of glass removed of at least 200 nm, at least 600 nm, at least 800 nm, or at least 1000 nm, relative to another area.
Asano teaches a vacuum insulated panel comprising a glass substrate with a glass removal area, where the removal depth is 1 to 100 microns. (Abstract; Claim 2 of Asano). This overlaps the claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05). Asano teaches this roughness and depth improve the bonding force of the seal to the glass substrates. (Column 1, Lines 65-67, Column 2, Lines 1-3). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to use the claimed removal depth taught by Asano in Patent for better bonding of the seal to the glass.
Claims 1-12, 17-44, and 47 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-45 of U.S. Patent No. 12,391,026 in view of Guardian Glass (NPL) and Asano et al. (US 6,436,493 B1).
Regarding Claims 1-12, 17-44, and 47, Patent teaches overlapping ranges for all the limitations other than the removal area. Patent does not specifically teach the glass removal comprises a width WDR that is at least 6 mm or at least about 10 mm.
Guardian Glass teaches width WDR of a remove edge on a glass vacuum insulated panel should be 10 mm or less. (Page 3). This overlaps the claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Guardian teaches removing more will show into the visible area and create an undesired color difference. (Page 3). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to grind to the claimed range as taught by Guardian Glass to ensure the panel of Patent does not have an undesired color difference.
Patent does not teach at least a portion of the glass removal has a depth DR of glass removed of at least 200 nm, at least 600 nm, at least 800 nm, or at least 1000 nm, relative to another area.
Asano teaches a vacuum insulated panel comprising a glass substrate with a glass removal area, where the removal depth is 1 to 100 microns. (Abstract; Claim 2 of Asano). This overlaps the claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05). Asano teaches this roughness and depth improve the bonding force of the seal to the glass substrates. (Column 1, Lines 65-67, Column 2, Lines 1-3). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to use the claimed removal depth taught by Asano in Patent for better bonding of the seal to the glass.
Claims 1-12, 17-44, and 47 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-50 of U.S. Patent No. 12,442,244 in view of Guardian Glass (NPL) and Asano et al. (US 6,436,493 B1).
Regarding Claims 1-12, 17-44, and 47, Patent teaches overlapping ranges for all the limitations other than the removal area. Patent does not specifically teach the glass removal comprises a width WDR that is at least 6 mm or at least about 10 mm.
Guardian Glass teaches width WDR of a remove edge on a glass vacuum insulated panel should be 10 mm or less. (Page 3). This overlaps the claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Guardian teaches removing more will show into the visible area and create an undesired color difference. (Page 3). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to grind to the claimed range as taught by Guardian Glass to ensure the panel of Patent does not have an undesired color difference.
Patent does not teach at least a portion of the glass removal has a depth DR of glass removed of at least 200 nm, at least 600 nm, at least 800 nm, or at least 1000 nm, relative to another area.
Asano teaches a vacuum insulated panel comprising a glass substrate with a glass removal area, where the removal depth is 1 to 100 microns. (Abstract; Claim 2 of Asano). This overlaps the claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05). Asano teaches this roughness and depth improve the bonding force of the seal to the glass substrates. (Column 1, Lines 65-67, Column 2, Lines 1-3). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to use the claimed removal depth taught by Asano in Patent for better bonding of the seal to the glass.
Claims 1-12, 17-44, and 47 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-52 of U.S. Patent No. 12,434,994 in view of Guardian Glass (NPL) and Asano et al. (US 6,436,493 B1).
Regarding Claims 1-12, 17-44, and 47, Patent teaches overlapping ranges for all the limitations other than the removal area. Patent does not specifically teach the glass removal comprises a width WDR that is at least 6 mm or at least about 10 mm.
Guardian Glass teaches width WDR of a remove edge on a glass vacuum insulated panel should be 10 mm or less. (Page 3). This overlaps the claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Guardian teaches removing more will show into the visible area and create an undesired color difference. (Page 3). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to grind to the claimed range as taught by Guardian Glass to ensure the panel of Patent does not have an undesired color difference.
Patent does not teach at least a portion of the glass removal has a depth DR of glass removed of at least 200 nm, at least 600 nm, at least 800 nm, or at least 1000 nm, relative to another area.
Asano teaches a vacuum insulated panel comprising a glass substrate with a glass removal area, where the removal depth is 1 to 100 microns. (Abstract; Claim 2 of Asano). This overlaps the claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05). Asano teaches this roughness and depth improve the bonding force of the seal to the glass substrates. (Column 1, Lines 65-67, Column 2, Lines 1-3). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to use the claimed removal depth taught by Asano in Patent for better bonding of the seal to the glass.
Claims 1-12, 17-44, and 47 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-26 of U.S. Patent No. 12,442,243 in view of Guardian Glass (NPL) and Asano et al. (US 6,436,493 B1).
Regarding Claims 1-12, 17-44, and 47, Patent teaches overlapping ranges for all the limitations other than the removal area. Patent does not specifically teach the glass removal comprises a width WDR that is at least 6 mm or at least about 10 mm.
Guardian Glass teaches width WDR of a remove edge on a glass vacuum insulated panel should be 10 mm or less. (Page 3). This overlaps the claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Guardian teaches removing more will show into the visible area and create an undesired color difference. (Page 3). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to grind to the claimed range as taught by Guardian Glass to ensure the panel of Patent does not have an undesired color difference.
Patent does not teach at least a portion of the glass removal has a depth DR of glass removed of at least 200 nm, at least 600 nm, at least 800 nm, or at least 1000 nm, relative to another area.
Asano teaches a vacuum insulated panel comprising a glass substrate with a glass removal area, where the removal depth is 1 to 100 microns. (Abstract; Claim 2 of Asano). This overlaps the claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05). Asano teaches this roughness and depth improve the bonding force of the seal to the glass substrates. (Column 1, Lines 65-67, Column 2, Lines 1-3). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to use the claimed removal depth taught by Asano in Patent for better bonding of the seal to the glass.
Claims 1-12, 17-44, and 47 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-43 of U.S. Patent No. 12,409,634 in view of Guardian Glass (NPL) and Asano et al. (US 6,436,493 B1).
Regarding Claims 1-12, 17-44, and 47, Patent teaches overlapping ranges for all the limitations other than the removal area. Patent does not specifically teach the glass removal comprises a width WDR that is at least 6 mm or at least about 10 mm.
Guardian Glass teaches width WDR of a remove edge on a glass vacuum insulated panel should be 10 mm or less. (Page 3). This overlaps the claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Guardian teaches removing more will show into the visible area and create an undesired color difference. (Page 3). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to grind to the claimed range as taught by Guardian Glass to ensure the panel of Patent does not have an undesired color difference.
Patent does not teach at least a portion of the glass removal has a depth DR of glass removed of at least 200 nm, at least 600 nm, at least 800 nm, or at least 1000 nm, relative to another area.
Asano teaches a vacuum insulated panel comprising a glass substrate with a glass removal area, where the removal depth is 1 to 100 microns. (Abstract; Claim 2 of Asano). This overlaps the claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05). Asano teaches this roughness and depth improve the bonding force of the seal to the glass substrates. (Column 1, Lines 65-67, Column 2, Lines 1-3). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to use the claimed removal depth taught by Asano in Patent for better bonding of the seal to the glass.
Claims 1-12, 17-44 and 47 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-47 of copending Application No. 18/510777 in view of Guardian Glass (NPL) and Asano et al. (US 6,436,493 B1).
Regarding Claims 1-12, 17-44, and 47, Copending teaches overlapping ranges for all the limitations other than the removal area. Patent does not specifically teach the glass removal comprises a width WDR that is at least 6 mm or at least about 10 mm.
Guardian Glass teaches width WDR of a remove edge on a glass vacuum insulated panel should be 10 mm or less. (Page 3). This overlaps the claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Guardian teaches removing more will show into the visible area and create an undesired color difference. (Page 3). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to grind to the claimed range as taught by Guardian Glass to ensure the panel of Patent does not have an undesired color difference.
Patent does not teach at least a portion of the glass removal has a depth DR of glass removed of at least 200 nm, at least 600 nm, at least 800 nm, or at least 1000 nm, relative to another area.
Asano teaches a vacuum insulated panel comprising a glass substrate with a glass removal area, where the removal depth is 1 to 100 microns. (Abstract; Claim 2 of Asano). This overlaps the claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05). Asano teaches this roughness and depth improve the bonding force of the seal to the glass substrates. (Column 1, Lines 65-67, Column 2, Lines 1-3). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to use the claimed removal depth taught by Asano in Patent for better bonding of the seal to the glass.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-0358. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday: 9:30am-3:30pm, 8:30PM-10:30PM.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571) 270-1547. 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.
/Michael Zhang/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights