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 – 60) in the reply filed on February 5, 2026 is acknowledged.
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 22, 38, 40, 44 – 55, & 60 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hogan et al. (US 2015/0218042 A1), in view of Bergh et al. (US 2019/0219882 A1).
With regard to claim 1, Hogan et al. teach a vacuum insulating glass (VIG) unit comprising a first glass substrate (2), a second glass substrate (3), a plurality of spacers provided in a gap between at least first and second glass substrates, a seal provided at least partially between at least and second substrates, the seal comprising a first seal layer and a second seal layer (Fig. 5 shown below). The gap is at pressure less than atmospheric pressure (paragraphs [0005], [0008], [0016] – [0018], [0022] – [0023], [0035]). The entire assembly of glass substrates and frits (seals) are heat strengthened or tempered (paragraphs [0010] & [0016]).
PNG
media_image1.png
230
440
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Hogan et al. teach the first frit (15a/b) (i.e. “the second seal layer”) is fuse-able to a glass substrate at a temperature of 550°C or higher. In order for a frit to be capable of fusing, the softening point must be reached (paragraphs [0019] – [0020]). The softening point of glass composition is lower than the melting point. Therefore, the melting point of the first frit must be at least 550°C or higher. Furthermore, the second frit (17a) (i.e., “the first seal layer”) melts at a temperature of not more than 400°C (paragraphs [0016] & [0019]). Therefore, melting point of the first frit is at least 150°C higher than the melting point of the second frit. At a temperature of at least has a melting point Tm at least 100°C higher than a melting point of the first seal layer.
Hogan et al. do not teach at least one of the first and second glass substrates includes an edge comprising a surface roughness (Sa) no greater than about 3.5 µm.
Bergh et al. teach glass substrates with chamfered edge and edge surface treatment via laser filamentation resulting in low surface roughness (paragraph [0031]). Laser filamentation cutting process characterized by a surface roughness of less than 5 µm rms (Sq), and more preferably less than 2 µm rms (Sq) (paragraph [0114]). Defects, such as high surface roughness, leads to unacceptable defects that reduce the overall strength of the cut class and can serve as nucleation points for larger cracks (paragraph [0007]).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Bergh et al., it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to adjust the surface roughness of the edge of at least one glass substrate through routine experimentation in order to prevent nucleation points that could form large cracks and reduce the strength of the glass. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
With regard to claims 2 – 8, as discussed above for claim 1, based on the teachings of Bergh et al., it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to adjust the surface roughness of the edge of at least one glass substrate through routine experimentation in order to prevent nucleation points that could form large cracks and reduce the strength of the glass. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
With regard to claims 9 – 11, Hogan et al. teach the glass substrates are heat strengthened and/or thermally tempered (paragraphs [0011] – [0012], [0022] – [0023], & [0043]). Heat treatment of the class occurs at least 600°C (paragraph [0050]).
With regard to claim 12, as discussed above for claim 1, based on the teachings of Bergh et al., it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to adjust the surface roughness of the edge of both first and second glass substrates through routine experimentation in order to prevent nucleation points that could form large cracks and reduce the strength of the glass. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
With regard to claims 13 – 14, Hogan et al. teach the second frit (17a) (i.e., “the first seal layer”) melts at a temperature of not more than 400°C (paragraphs [0016] & [0019]), which overlaps with Applicant’s claimed range of 380 – 420°C. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
With regard to claims 15 – 17, Hogan et al. teach the first frit (15a/b) (i.e. “the second seal layer”) is fuse-able to a glass substrate at a temperature of 550°C or higher, which includes Applicant’s claimed ranges of at least 600°C or 575 – 680°C. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
In order for a frit to be capable of fusing, the softening point must be reached (paragraphs [0019] – [0020]). The softening point of glass composition is lower than the melting point. Therefore, the melting point of the first frit must be at least 550°C or higher. Furthermore, the second frit (17a) (i.e., “the first seal layer”) melts at a temperature of not more than 400°C (paragraphs [0016] & [0019]). Therefore, melting point of the first frit is at least 150°C higher than the melting point of the second frit at a temperature of at least has a melting point Tm at least 100°C higher than a melting point of the first seal layer.
With regard to claims 18 – 21, Hogan et al. do not teach an average edge stress, measured within 2 – 3 mm from an edge contour of the glass substrate along at least one side thereof.
Bergh et al. teach forming a glass sheet with a chamfered edge can reduce or remove residual stress at the edge of the glass. The number of angles increases the edge to better approximate a pencil edge profile for reducing or removing residual stress (paragraph [0100] & Fig. 7A, shown below).
PNG
media_image2.png
412
518
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, based on the teachings of Bergh et al., it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to adjust the number angles of the chamfered edge through routine experimentation in order to reduce the residual stress at the edge of the glass. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
With regard to claims 22 & 38, Hogan et al. teach the seal layers are composed of a primer frit (“second seal layer”) comprising bismuth oxide and a sealing frit (“first seal layer”) comprising vanadium oxide (paragraphs [0034] & [0036]).
With regard to claim 40, as shown in Fig. 5 above, Hogan et al. teach the seal further comprises a third seal layer (15b), the first seal layer (17a) being located between at least the second (15a) and third seal layers (15b), and wherein frits 15a and 15b are both composed of a first frit material to serve as a primer for the second frit material 17a (paragraph [0036]). In other words, the thirds seal layer comprises the same composition as the second seal layer.
With regard to claim 44, Hogan et al. teach frits (sealing layers) that are preferably lead-free (paragraphs [0014] & [0071]).
With regard to claim 45, Hogan et al. teach the glass substrates are heat strengthened and/or thermally tempered (paragraphs [0011] – [0012], [0022] – [0023], & [0043]).
With regard to claim 46, Hogan et al. teach the seal is a hermetic edge seal of the vacuum insulating glass (VIG) (i.e., “vacuum insulating panel”) (paragraph [0018]).
With regard to claim 47, Hogan et al. teach the vacuum insulated panel of their invention is for use as a window unit (paragraphs [0016] & [0018]).
With regard to claim 48, Hogan et al. teach a vacuum insulating glass (VIG) unit comprising a first glass substrate (2), a second glass substrate (3), a plurality of spacers provided in a gap between at least first and second glass substrates, a seal provided at least partially between at least and second substrates, the seal comprising a first seal layer and a second seal layer (Fig. 5 shown below). The gap is at pressure less than atmospheric pressure (paragraphs [0005], [0008], [0016] – [0018], [0022] – [0023], [0035]). The entire assembly of glass substrates and frits (seals) are heat strengthened or tempered (paragraphs [0010] & [0016]).
PNG
media_image1.png
230
440
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Hogan et al. teach the first frit (15a/b) (i.e. “the second seal layer”) is fuseable to a glass substrate at a temperature of 550°C or higher. In order for a frit to be capable of fusing, the softening point must be reached (paragraphs [0019] – [0020]). The softening point of glass composition is lower than the melting point. Therefore, the melting point of the first frit must be at least 550°C or higher. Furthermore, the second frit (17a) (i.e., “the first seal layer”) melts at a temperature of not more than 400°C (paragraphs [0016] & [0019]). Therefore, melting point of the first frit is at least 150°C higher than the melting point of the second frit. At a temperature of at least has a melting point Tm at least 100°C higher than a melting point of the first seal layer.
Hogan et al. do not teach at least one of the first and second glass substrates includes an edge comprising a surface roughness (Sa) no greater than about 3.5 µm.
Hogan et al. do not teach at least one of the first and second glass substrates includes an edge comprising a surface roughness (Sa) no greater than about 3.5 µm.
Bergh et al. teach glass substrates with chamfered edge and edge surface treatment via laser filamentation resulting in low surface roughness (paragraph [0031]). Laser filamentation cutting process characterized by a surface roughness of less than 5 µm rms (Sq), and more preferably less than 2 µm rms (Sq) (paragraph [0114]). Defects, such as high surface roughness, leads to unacceptable defects that reduce the overall strength of the cut class and can serve as nucleation points for larger cracks (paragraph [0007]).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Bergh et al., it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to adjust the surface roughness of the edge of at least one glass substrate through routine experimentation in order to prevent nucleation points that could form large cracks and reduce the strength of the glass. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
With regard to claim 49, Hogan et al. teach a vacuum insulating glass (VIG) unit comprising a first glass substrate (2), a second glass substrate (3), a plurality of spacers provided in a gap between at least first and second glass substrates, a seal provided at least partially between at least and second substrates, the seal comprising a first seal layer and a second seal layer (Fig. 5 shown below). The gap is at pressure less than atmospheric pressure (paragraphs [0005], [0008], [0016] – [0018], [0022] – [0023], [0035]). The entire assembly of glass substrates and frits (seals) are heat strengthened or tempered (paragraphs [0010] & [0016]).
PNG
media_image1.png
230
440
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Hogan et al. do not teach at least one of the first and second glass substrates includes an edge comprising a surface roughness (Sa) no greater than about 3.5 µm.
Bergh et al. teach glass substrates with chamfered edge and edge surface treatment via laser filamentation resulting in low surface roughness (paragraph [0031]). Laser filamentation cutting process characterized by a surface roughness of less than 5 µm rms (Sq), and more preferably less than 2 µm rms (Sq) (paragraph [0114]). Defects, such as high surface roughness, leads to unacceptable defects that reduce the overall strength of the cut class and can serve as nucleation points for larger cracks (paragraph [0007]).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Bergh et al., it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to adjust the surface roughness of the edge of at least one glass substrate through routine experimentation in order to prevent nucleation points that could form large cracks and reduce the strength of the glass. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Hogan et al. do not teach an average edge stress, measured within 2 – 3 mm from an edge contour of the glass substrate along at least one side thereof, of no greater than about 5,400 psi.
Bergh et al. teach forming a glass sheet with a chamfered edge can reduce or remove residual stress at the edge of the glass. The number of angles increases the edge to better approximate a pencil edge profile for reducing or removing residual stress (paragraph [0100] & Fig. 7A, shown below).
PNG
media_image2.png
412
518
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, based on the teachings of Bergh et al., it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to adjust the number of angles of the chamfered edge through routine experimentation in order to reduce the residual stress at the edge of the glass. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
With regard to claims 50 – 51, as discussed above for claim 49, based on the teachings of Bergh et al., it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to adjust the surface roughness of the edge of at least one glass substrate through routine experimentation in order to prevent nucleation points that could form large cracks and reduce the strength of the glass. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
With regard to claim 52, as shown in Fig. 7A of Bergh et al. above, the edge is a ground edge having a substantially arcuate shape.
With regard to claim 53, Hogan et al. teach the glass substrates are heat strengthened and/or thermally tempered (paragraphs [0011] – [0012], [0022] – [0023], & [0043]).
With regard to claim 54, Hogan et al. teach the first frit (15a/b) (i.e. “the second seal layer”) is fuse-able to a glass substrate at a temperature of 550°C or higher. In order for a frit to be capable of fusing, the softening point must be reached (paragraphs [0019] – [0020]). The softening point of glass composition is lower than the melting point. Therefore, the melting point of the first frit must be at least 550°C or higher. Furthermore, the second frit (17a) (i.e., “the first seal layer”) melts at a temperature of not more than 400°C (paragraphs [0016] & [0019]). Therefore, melting point of the first frit is at least 150°C higher than the melting point of the second frit at a temperature of at least has a melting point Tm at least 100°C higher than a melting point of the first seal layer.
With regard to claim 55, Hogan et al. teach the seal layers are composed of a primer frit (“second seal layer”) comprising bismuth oxide and a sealing frit (“first seal layer”) comprising vanadium oxide (paragraphs [0034] & [0036]).
With regard to claim 60, as discussed above for claim 49, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to adjust the number angles of the chamfered edge of both the first and second glass substrate through routine experimentation in order to reduce the residual stress at the edge of the glass. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim(s) 22 – 37 & 55 – 58 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hogan et al. & Bergh et al., as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Gödeke et al. (US 2019/0177208 A1).
*Wang (“Tellurite Glass and its applications in lasers”) provided by Applicant with IDS filed 2/05/2026
With regard to claims 22 – 24 & 55 – 56, Hogan et al. do not teach a first seal layer (17b) comprising vanadium oxide and 20 – 80 wt.% tellurium oxide (by wt.%) (claim 23), more preferably 40 – 70 wt.% tellurium oxide (claim 24), wherein the Te has the largest content of any metal in the first seal layer (claim 22).
Gödeke et al. teach a vacuum insulated glass panel comprising glass panes joined by a glass paste (frit/sealant), wherein the paste comprising 40 – 61 wt% TeO2, 9 – 40 wt% V2O5, and 5 – 20 wt% Al2O3 (paragraphs [0047] – [0049]), such the composition comprises more tellurium oxide than vanadium oxide. The sealant composition allows for joining (bonding) at temperatures less than 400°C without the presence of lead (paragraph [0015]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to use the sealant composition taught by Gödeke et al. as the sealant 17b taught by Hogan et al. for bonding at low temperatures without the presence of lead.
With regard to claims 25 – 29 & 56 – 58, Gödeke et al. do not explicitly teach the first seal layer contains more TeO2 than TeO4, such that from about 60 – 95%, more preferably 70 – 90%, of Te in the first seal layer is in a form of TeO3, and from about 3 – 35% of Te in the first seal layer is in a form of TeO4, wherein a ratio of TeO4:TeO3 in the first seal layer is from about 0.05 to 0.40.
However, as evidenced by *Wang et al., with increasing temperature, a portion of the TeO4 in the composition is transformed into TeO3 and TeO3+1(pgs. 5 – 7, Fig. 1)
Therefore, when the first sealing layer taught by the combination of Hogan et al. and Gödeke et al. is heated for melting and fusion to the glass panes, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the seal layer to contain Te in the form of TeO4, TeO3, & TeO3+1. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to adjust the heating temperature of the first seal layer composition when joining the seal to the glass panes through routine experimentation in order to achieve the desired ratio of TeO4, TeO3, and TeO3+1. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
With regard to claims 30, Hogan et al. do not teach a first seal layer (17b) comprising more tellurium oxide (by wt.%) than vanadium oxide.
Gödeke et al. teach a vacuum insulated glass panel comprising glass panes joined by a glass paste (frit/sealant), wherein the paste comprising 40 – 61 wt% TeO2, 9 – 40 wt% V2O5, and 5 – 20 wt% Al2O3 (paragraphs [0047] – [0049]), such the composition comprises more tellurium oxide than vanadium oxide. The sealant composition allows for joining (bonding) at temperatures less than 400°C without the presence of lead (paragraph [0015]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to use the sealant composition taught by Gödeke et al. as the sealant 17b taught by Hogan et al. for bonding at low temperatures without the presence of lead.
With regard to claims 31 – 37, Gödeke et al. do not explicitly teach the vanadium oxide of the first sealing layer in the form of VO2, V2O3, and V2O5, and the amount of each.
Similar to the transformation taught by Wang et al., Applicant’s specification pgs. 19 – 20 teaches V2O5 also changes stoichiometry under heating. As such, the sealant comprising V2O5 taught by Gödeke et al. inherently contains a blend of V2O5, V2O3, and VO2, after the heating step for bonding the sealant to the glass panes.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to adjust the heating temperature of the first seal layer composition when joining the seal to the glass panes through routine experimentation in order to achieve the desired ratio of V2O5, V2O3, & VO2. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim(s) 39, 43, & 59 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hogan et al. & Bergh et al., as applied to claims 1, 40, 54 above, and further in view of Gong et al. (US 2024/0026729 A1).
With regard to claims 39 & 59, Hogan et al. do not teach a second seal layer comprises both bismuth oxide and boron oxide.
Gong et al. teach a vacuum insulted glazing unit formed comprising a first pane, a second pane, and a primary sealant along the perimeter for joining the first and second panes (paragraph [0008]). The primary sealant comprises 0 – 55 wt% Bi2O3 (3 – 7.5 mol%), 10 – 65 wt% SiO2 (about 8 – 50 mol%), and 2 – 30 wt% B2O3 (about 17 – 41 mol%) (paragraph [0049]), overlapping Applicant’s claimed range of 1 – 20 mol% Bi2O3, more preferably 1 – 12 mol%, and 20 – 65 mol% B2O3, more preferably from about 40 – 60 mol%, and at least two to three times more boron oxide than bismuth oxide. The primary sealant provides a hermetically sealed intermediate space between the first and second panes, and maintains low-pressure environment therein (paragraph [0007]). Gong does not teach the presence of TiO2 (0%), which is within Applicant’s claimed range of 0 – 20 mol%.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to use the composition of the primary sealant taught by Gong et al. as the primer frit (seal) taught by Hogan et al. for achieving a hermetically sealed intermediate space between the glass substrates that maintains the desired low-pressure environment therein.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d
With regard to claim 43, as shown in Fig. 5 above, Hogan et al. teach the seal further comprises a third seal layer (15b), the first seal layer (17a) being located between at least the second (15a) and third seal layers (15b), and wherein frits 15a and 15b are both composed of a first frit material to serve as a primer for the second frit material 17a (paragraph [0036]). In other words, the thirds seal layer comprises the same composition as the second seal layer. As discussed above, Gong et al. teach a primary sealant (Applicant’s second and third seal layers) comprising bismuth oxide and boron oxide content ranges that overlap with Applicant’s claimed ranges.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 42 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:
With regard to claim 42, the references cited above fail to teach for at least one location of the seal, the first seal layer has a first thickness, the second seal layer has a second thickness, and the third seal layer has a third thickness; and wherein the first thickness is greater than the second thickness and less than the third thickness. Furthermore, this claim limitation was indicated as allowable in App. Nos. 18/636,472 and 18/632,364.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICOLE T GUGLIOTTA whose telephone number is (571)270-1552. The examiner can normally be reached M - F (9 a.m. to 10 p.m.).
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.
/NICOLE T GUGLIOTTA/Examiner, Art Unit 1781
/FRANK J VINEIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights