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 – 61 & 86 – 96) in the reply filed on April 21, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 62 – 85 & 97 – 111 are withdrawn from consideration.
Examiner’s Note
Applicant is advised that should claim 13 be found allowable, claim 15 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Objections
Claim 42 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 42 recites “40 – 70% wt.% tellurium oxide.” The term “wt.%” should be in parenthesis or the first “%” sign deleted.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 – 7, 12 – 31, 39 – 40, 43 – 50, 54 – 61, 89 – 90, & 93 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hogan et al. (US 2015/0218042 A1), in view of *Choi et al. (EP 3 757 079 A1) (2018).
*EP 3 757 079 A1 was submitted by App with IDS filed 4/21/2026
**Wang et al. (“Tellurite Glass and its applications in lasers”)
***Bawohl et al. (EP 2 804 183 A1)
With regard to claims 1, 47, & 86, Hogan et al. teach a vacuum insulating panel comprising a first glass substrate (2) and a second glass substrate (3); a plurality of spacers (5) provided in a gap between at least the first and second glass substrates, wherein the gap is at pressure less than atmospheric pressure (paragraph [0035] & Fig. 5). An edge seal (15a, 15b, & 17a) is provided at least partially between at least the first and second glass substrates (2, 3).
Hogan et al. do not teach the first seal layer comprises from about 0.1 to 20 mol% copper oxide.
Choi et al. teach a vacuum insulated glass assembly comprising a first glass substrate, a second glass substrate, and a sealing composed of a glass frit (i.e., “seal layer”) comprising 30 – 50 wt.% TeO2, 30 – 50 wt.% V2O5, 0.1 – 5 wt.% Cu in the form of CuO, 1 – 5 wt.% BaO, 1 – 10 wt.% of at least one of MnO2, FeO3, SnO, MoO3, and ZnO, and 5 – 30 wt.% of an inorganic filler (paragraph [0048] & [0051]), wherein TeO2 wt.% > V2O5 wt.% (paragraph [0058]). CuO may be contained in the range of 1 – 5 wt% in order to match a CTE of a glass frit and satisfy durability. When CuO exceeds 5 wt.%, a problem that fluidity of the glass frit is lowered may occur. When CuO is less than 1 wt.%, it may not obtain a required CTE of the glass frit (paragraph [0051]).
Choi et al. do not teach the content of CuO in units of mol%.
However, based on the teachings of Choi 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 CuO (copper oxide) content through routine experimentation in order to achieve a glass frit with the desired fluidity, durability, and coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE). 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).
Choi et al. teach the ratio of V2O3/TeO2 (wt.%) < 1 (paragraph [0020]). In other words, there is a greater wt.% of tellurium oxide than vanadium oxide.
Choi et al. do not teach the amount of tellurium oxide compared to other metal oxides based on mol.%.
However, Choi et al. teach the glass frit can have an optimal ratio of V2O5 and TeO2 so that there is an effect that is capable of calcination at a low temperature and of having a low crystallization tendency even during a low temperature calcination (paragraph [0026]).
Therefore, based on the teaching of Choi 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 ratio of V2O3 and TeO2 ratio (mol%) such that the content of TeO2 is greater than the content of V2O3 through routine experimentation in order to achieve a glass frit that is capable of calcination at a low temperature of having a low crystallization tendency even during a low temperature calcination. 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).
Choi et al. teach the presence of TeO2, but does not teach the frit also comprises TeO4 and TeO3, such that the frit contains more TeO3 than TeO4.
However, as evidenced by **Wang et al., the molecular structure of pure tellurite (TeO2) glass molecules comprises TeO4 double triangular bipyramids (pg. 4). With increasing temperature, a portion of TeO4 in the composition is transformed into TeO3 and TeO3+1 (pgs. 5 – 7, Fig. 1).
Therefore, when the first sealing layer (glass frit) taught by the combination of Hogan et al. and Choi 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 tellurium in the form of TeO2, 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 2 – 4, 48 – 50, 89 – 90, as discussed above for claims 1 & 47, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to adjust the CuO (copper oxide) content through routine experimentation in order to achieve a glass frit with the desired fluidity, durability, and coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE).
With regard to claims 5 – 7, Choi et al. teach the copper oxide has a molecular formula of CuO, wherein CuOx and x = 1, which is within Applicant’s claimed ranges of x is from about 0.2 to 1.5, more preferably 0.5 – 1.4, and 0.8 – 1.2.
With regard to claims 12 – 15 & 54, as discussed above for claim 1, based on the teaching of Choi 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 amount of TeO2 ratio (mol%) through routine experimentation in order to achieve a glass frit that is capable of calcination at a low temperature of having a low crystallization tendency even during a low temperature calcination. 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 16 – 23 & 55 – 60, as discussed above for claims 1 & 47, 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 24 – 30, 61, & 93, Hogan et al. teach the first seal layer comprises vanadium oxide. As discussed above, Choi et al. teach a glass frit (seal layer) comprising vanadium oxide (V2O5).
Hogan et al. & Choi et al. do not explicitly teach the first seal layer further comprises vanadium oxide including VO2, V2O5, V2O3, and wherein more V in the first seal layer is in a form of VO2 than V2O5.
Similar to the transformation taught by **Wang et al., ***Bawohl et al. also teaches mixed oxides of tellurium or vanadium in a glass frit are inherently formed by heating (paragraph [0093]). As such, the glass frit (i.e., “first seal layer”) comprising V2O5 taught by Choi et al. inherently contains a blend of V2O5, V2O3, and VO2 after the heating step for bonding the seal layer 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 routines 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).
With regard to claim 31, Hogan et al. teach the seal layers are composed of a primer frit (i.e., “primer layer” / “second seal layer”) comprising bismuth oxide and a sealing frit (i.e., “main seal layer” / “first seal layer”) comprising vanadium oxide (paragraphs [0034] & [0036]).
With regard to claim 39, Hogan et al. teach the melting point of second frit (Applicant’s “first seal layer”) melts at a temperature of not more than 400°C (paragraph [0092] & Hogan’s claim 1), which overlaps with Applicant’s claimed range of 300 – 450°C. Furthermore, Choi et al. teach the glass frit used as sealing material such that the sealing process (i.e., melting) is possible at a temperature of less than 400°C (paragraph [0066]), which overlaps with Applicant’s claimed range of 300 – 450°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 claim 40, Hogan et al. teach frits (sealing layers) that are preferably lead-free (paragraphs [0014] & [0071]). Choi et al. also teaches the glass frits are lead-free (title, abstract, paragraph [0013]).
With regard to claim 43, as discussed above for claim 1, Hogan et al. teach the first and second substrates comprise glass substrates (paragraph [0035]).
With regard to claim 44, Hogan et al. teach the glass substrates are heat strengthened and/or thermally tempered (paragraphs [0011] – [0012], [0022] – [0023], & [0043]).
With regard to claim 45, Hogan et al. teach the seal is a hermetic edge seal of the vacuum insulating (“VIG”) panel (i.e., “vacuum insulating panel”) (paragraph [0018]).
With regard to claim 46, Hogan et al. teach the vacuum insulated panel of their invention is for use as a window unit (paragraphs [0016] & [0018]).
Claim(s) 8 – 10, 51 – 53, 88, & 91 – 92 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hogan et al. & Choi et al., as applied to claims 1, 47, 86, & 89, above, and further in view of Taigo et al. (JP 2020/081968 A1).
With regard to claims 8 – 10, 51 – 53, 88, & 91 – 92, Choi et al. do not teach the average particle size (D50) of the CuO (copper oxide) particles is from about 5 nm to 15 µm, more preferably 10 nm – 100 nm.
Taigo et al. teach a vacuum heat-insulating double-layer glass panel comprising a sealing portion (4) formed of a low melting point glass. Gas trapping material is installed in the gap between the glass pates for the purpose of trapping the gas released from the glass plate and the sealing material and maintaining the heat insulating property (pgs. 3, 5, & 6). The sealing portion low melting point glass comprises vanadium oxide, tellurium oxide, and a gas capturing material composed of a porous metal oxide, such as CuO, for supporting gas trapping material, such as silver particles (pg. 7). The (average) particle diameter of the porous metal oxide is preferably 5 nm or more (i.e., nanoparticles) and 100 µm or less for providing proper support of silver particles (pg. 8).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Taigo et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to form the CuO particles of the sealing layer (frit) having an (average) particle diameter of 5 nm or more and 100 um or less for providing desired support for gas trapping material, such as silver particles. 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).
Claim(s) 32 – 33, 41, 87, 94 – 96 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hogan et al. & Choi et al., as applied to claims 1 & 86, above, and further in view of Maloney et al. (US 2014/0026619 A1).
With regard to claims 32 – 33 & 87, as discussed above for claim 31, Hogan et al. teach the second seal layer comprises bismuth oxide. However, Hogan et al. do not teach the second seal layer also comprises boron oxide, wherein the second seal layer comprises from about 1 – 40 mol% bismuth and from about 3 – 40 mol% boron on an elemental basis, and comprises at least two times more boron than bismuth on an elemental basis in terms of mol%.
Maloney et al. teach a sealing glass (frit) between at least two solid substrates, such as glass, to form a vacuum insulated glass (VG) assembly (paragraphs [0026] – [0027]), wherein the sealing glass composition comprises 25 – 65 mol% Bi2O3, ZnO, 4 – 65 mol% B2O3, and 0.1 – 15 mol% of at least one selected from the group consisting of CuO, Fe2O3, Co2O3, Cr2O3, and combinations thereof (paragraphs [0056], & Table 2). The seals may be hermetic (paragraph [0028]) and formed by IR glass sealing for homogeneous heating of the sealing composition, avoiding potential localized heat flow issues and pigment decomposition (paragraph [0061]).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Maloney et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to use the primary (frit) seal composition taught by Maloney et al. comprising Bi2O3 and B2O3 as the primary frit (seal) taught by Hogan et al. for achieving a hermetic sealing layer formed by IR sealing for homogeneous heating and sealing, and avoiding pigment decomposition. 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 claim 41, Hogan et al. do not teach the first seal layer has an average particle size (D50) of no greater than about 20 µm.
Maloney et al. teach a sealing glass (frit) between at least two solid substrates, such as glass, to form a vacuum insulated glass (VIG) assembly (paragraphs [0026] – [0027]), wherein the seal composition comprises glass frits typically have particle sizes of about 0.1 microns (100 nm) to about 30 microns, preferably 1 – 20 microns, depending on the sealing glass application technique (method) (paragraph [0039], [0041], & [0054]). Sealing glass application techniques include screen printing, extrusion, ink jet printing, pad printing, spraying techniques, and tape casting (paragraph [0040]).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Maloney et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to form a sealing glass (frit) for a vacuum insulating glass (VIG) panel comprising particles that have a particle size in the range of about 0.1 microns (100 nm) to about 30 microns, depending on the application technique (method of deposition), such as extrusion, spraying techniques, and printing. 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 94 – 96, as discussed above for claim 86, Choi et al. teach incorporating copper oxide into a tellurium oxide & vanadium oxide based sealing layer (i.e., “first sealing layer”).
Hogan et al. teach the primer frits (15a & 15b) (second & third seal layers) comprises bismuth oxide (paragraphs [0019], [0034], & [0036]) and may comprise CTE filler (paragraph [0095]), but do not teach the second and third seal layers comprising bismuth oxide also comprises 0.1 – 20 mol%, more preferably 1 – 15 mol%, of copper oxide.
Maloney et al. teach a seal (frit) between at least two solid substrates, such as glass, to form a vacuum insulated glass (VG) assembly (paragraphs [0026] – [0027]), wherein the seal composition comprises Bi2O3, ZnO, B2O3, and 0.1 – 15 mol% of at least one selected from the group consisting of CuO, Fe2O3, Co2O3, Cr2O3, and combinations thereof (paragraphs [0039], [0056], & Table 2), preferably 1.5 – 9 mol% CuO (paragraph [0046]). CuO can be used to control flow, crystallization, and light/IR absorption characteristics of the seal glass composition (paragraphs [0042] & [0061]). Furthermore, CuO promotes bonding to soda lime silica glass substrates (paragraph [0043]).
Therefore, based on the combined teachings of Maloney et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to incorporate 0.1 – 15 mol% of a ceramic oxide additive, such as CuO, in order to control the flow, crystallization, light/IR absorption characteristics and bonding properties of the bismuth-oxide based primary glass frits (i.e., “second and third sealing layers”) taught by Hogan et al.
Claim(s) 37 – 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hogan et al. & Choi et al., as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Raskar et al. (US 2015/0243810 A1).
With regard to claims 37 – 38, the cited above fail to teach prior art fails to teach the first seal layer has a density of from about 2.8 – 4.0 g/cm3, more preferably 3.1 – 3.7 g/cm3.
Raskar et al. teach a glass frit comprising a molybdenum-containing compound for increasing the density of said frit, which results in minimal formation of gaps at the interface between a glass substrate and a silicon-containing substrate (paragraph [0018]).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Raskar et al., it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to molybdenum content in the first sealing layer through routine experimentation in order to optimize the density of the frit, and thus minimize gaps between the glass substrates. 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) 42 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hogan et al. & Choi et al., as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Luo (CN 101164942 A) (2008).
With regard to claim 42, Hogan et al. do not teach the frit (i.e., “first sealing layer”) comprising vanadium oxide and tellurium oxide also contains aluminum oxide and silicon oxide.
Luo teaches a low melting sealing glass composition comprising, based on mass %, 10 – 90% TeO2, 2 – 40% V2O5, 0 – 5% SiO2, 0 – 8% Al2O3 (abstract, pgs. 3 – 4), and copper-based alloy powder for adjusting thermal expansion coefficient (pg. 4). The high tellurium oxide and vanadium oxide content reduces the glass transition temperature. Adding silicon oxide and aluminum oxide improves the mechanical performance, devitrification resistance, and chemical stability (pg. 4).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Luo, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to form a sealing glass composition comprising based on mass %, 10 – 90% TeO2, 2 – 40% V2O5, 0 – 5% SiO2, 0 – 8% Al2O3 for achieving a sealing glass composition with the desired glass transition temperature, mechanical performance, devitrification resistance, and chemical stability. 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).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 34 – 36 are 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 34, the prior art fails to teach the seal further comprises a third seal layer, and wherein 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. 18/636472 and 18/632364.
With regard to claim 35, the prior art fails to teach the first seal layer has a density of form about 2.8 – 4.0 g/cm3, the second seal layer has a density of from about 3.0 – 4.2 g/cm3, and wherein the density of the second seal layer is at least about 0.20 g/cm3 greater than the density of the first seal layer. Furthermore, this claim limitation was indicated as allowable in App. Nos. 18/636472 and 18/632364.
With regard to claim 36, the prior art fails to teach the second seal layer has a thermal conductivity of from 1.00 to 2.00 W/mK, and the first seal layer has a thermal conductivity of from 0.75 to 1.00 W/mK. Furthermore, this claim limitation was indicated as allowable in App. Nos. 18/636472 and 18/632364.
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