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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 6, line 3, “fluor” should be fluorine.
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.
Claims 1-16 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohin et al. (WO 2021/156567 A1) in view of Courtemanche et al. (US 2020/0277214 A1).
The rejection below cites to the translation of Cohin et al. that accompanies this Office action. The text from the PTO database of Cohin et al. has sporadic paragraph numbering. Therefore, the examiner added paragraph numbering in bold font (no other alterations of the translation were made). The bolded paragraph numbering will be cited below.
Cohin et al. teaches a coated glazing for use in greenhouses. See the abstract and paragraph [0025]. Figure 2 of Cohin et al. teaches a coating having the same structure as recited in claim 1:
PNG
media_image1.png
599
799
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Cohin et al. teaches that each silica coating (20) is nanoporous. See paragraph [0125].
Cohin et al. teaches that each silica antireflection coating (20) has a thickness of 50 to 150 nm. See paragraph [0022]. This range of thicknesses overlaps the claim 1 and 14 thickness ranges and overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
Cohin et al. teaches the low emissivity coating (10) includes a transparent conducting oxide. See the abstract.
The low emissivity coating system of Cohin et al. may be placed on either the tin side or the atmosphere side. See paragraphs [0028].
Cohin et al. teaches the glass may be textured (paragraph [0104]), but Cohin et al. differs from claim 1 by failing to disclose the Rsm parameter of the second surface is at most 155 µm.
Courtemanche et al. discloses a glass for use in greenhouse glazings having a texture. See the title. The glass is textured and has an Rsm of lower than 550 µm. See paragraph [0035]. Such a texture results in a diffuse transmittance and prevents hotspots on the plants in the greenhouse. See paragraph [0006]. Courtemanche et al. teaches that both surfaces of the glass may have the inventive texture. See paragraph [0067].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have provided both surfaces of the glass of Cohin et al. with an Rsm of less than 550 µm because the resultant greenhouse glazing would have a diffuse transmittance that prevents hotspots on the plants in the greenhouse.
The range of “less than 550 µm” taught by Courtemanche et al. overlaps the Rsm ranges recited in instant claims 1, 10 and 19, and overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
Cohin et al. further teaches the emissivity coating (10) may have the structure as shown in Figure 6:
PNG
media_image2.png
404
733
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Cohen et al. teaches layer 10.1 is a dielectric blocking layer and may be an oxide such as TiO2 (among others). See paragraphs [0046]-[0047]. Dielectric blocking layer 10.1 may have a thickness 10 to 50 nm. See paragraph [0139]. This layer corresponds to the claimed first dielectric layer and renders obvious the limitations related to the first dielectric layer recited in instant claims 2-5 and 15.
Cohen et al. teaches a layer 10.2 is another dielectric blocking layer and may be SiO2. See paragraph [0140]. Layer 10.2 has a thickness of 5 to 100 nm. See paragraph [0142]. This layer corresponds to the claimed second dielectric layer and renders obvious the limitations related to the first dielectric layer recited in instant claims 4-5 and 15.
Cohen et al. teaches layer 10.3 is a transparent conductive oxide (TCO) such as indium tin oxide. See paragraph [0142]. The indium tin oxide may be doped with antimony or fluorine. See paragraphs [0147]-[0149]. The transparent conducting oxide layer may have a thickness of 100-600 nm. See paragraph [0043]. This layer corresponds to the claimed transparent conducting oxide layer and renders obvious the limitations related to the transparent conducting oxide layer recited in instant claims 1, 6-7 and 16.
In each case above related to layers 10.1, 10.2 and 10.3, the layer thickness taught by Cohin overlaps the thickness limitations recited in the instant claims. Overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claims 8 and 9 recite a “Sa being at least 0.05 µm” and “Sz being at least 1 µm,” respectively. As noted above, Cohin et al. teaches the glass is textured, and Courtemanche et al. teaches has a texture and an RSM value. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the glass taught by the combination to have some amount of microscopic roughness on the surface, and the roughness would result in a Sa of at least 0.05 µm and Sz being at least 1µm.
As to claim 11, Cohin et al. teaches the antireflection layer 20 has an index of refraction of less than 1.45. See paragraphs [0124]-[0125].
Cohin et al. teaches the article has an emissivity of at most 0.3. See paragraph [0015]. This range overlaps the range recited in claims 12 and 20.
As to claim 13, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the glazing of Cohin et al. to possess the claimed durability because the reference teaches the same layers in the same order and overlapping ranges of thickness.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohin et al. (WO 2021/156567 A1) in view of Shayesteh et al. (US 2023/0271876 A1).
Cohin et al. teaches a coated glazing for use in greenhouses. See the abstract and paragraph [0025]. Figure 2 of Cohin et al. teaches a coating having the same structure as recited in claim 1 and shown above.
Cohin et al. teaches that each silica coating (20) is nanoporous. See paragraph [0125].
Cohin et al. teaches that each silica antireflection coating (20) has a thickness of 50 to 150 nm. See paragraph [0022]. This range of thicknesses overlaps the claim 1 and 14 thickness ranges and overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
Cohin et al. teaches the low emissivity coating includes a transparent conducting oxide. See the abstract.
The low emissivity coating system of Cohin et al. may be placed on either the tin side or the atmosphere side. See paragraphs [0028].
Cohin et al. teaches the glass may be textured (paragraph [0104]), but Cohin et al. differs from claim 1 by failing to disclose the Rsm parameter of the second surface is at most 155 µm.
Shayesteh et al. teaches a textured glazing for use in greenhouses. See the abstract. The glass has an RSM of 60 to 150 µm. See paragraph [0009]. The texture may be applied to each surface. See reference no’s 5-14 in table 2.
The glass of Shayesteh et al. results in an improved glazing with an enhanced light diffusion. See paragraph [0001].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have employed the textured glass substrate of Shayesteh et al. as the glass in Cohin et al. because the resultant glazing has an enhanced light diffusion.
The range of “at least 60 nm and at most 150 µm” taught by Shayesteh et al. overlaps the Rsm ranges recited in instant claims 1, 10 and 19, and overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
Cohin et al. further teaches the emissivity coating (10) may have the structure as shown in Figure 6. Cohen et al. teaches layer 10.1 is a dielectric blocking layer and may be an oxide such as TiO2 (among others). See paragraphs [0046]-[0047]. Dielectric blocking layer 10.1 may have a thickness 10 to 50 nm. See paragraph [0139]. This layer corresponds to the claimed first dielectric layer and renders obvious the limitations related to the first dielectric layer recited in instant claims 2-5 and 15.
Cohen et al. teaches a layer 10.2 is another dielectric blocking layer and may be SiO2. See paragraph [0140]. Layer 10.2 has a thickness of 5 to 100 nm. See paragraph [0142]. This layer corresponds to the claimed second dielectric layer and renders obvious the limitations related to the first dielectric layer recited in instant claims 4-5 and 15.
Cohen et al. teaches layer 10.3 is a transparent conductive oxide (TCO) such as indium tin oxide. See paragraph [0142]. The indium tin oxide may be doped with antimony or fluorine. See paragraphs [0147]-[0149]. The transparent conducting oxide layer may have a thickness of 100-600 nm. See paragraph [0043]. This layer corresponds to the claimed transparent conducting oxide layer and renders obvious the limitations related to the transparent conducting oxide layer recited in instant claims 1, 6-7 and 16.
In each case above related to layers 10.1, 10.2 and 10.3, the layer thicknesses taught by Cohin overlaps the thickness limitations recited in the instant claims. Overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
Shayesteh et al. teaches ranges of Sa and Sz in paragraphs [0010] and [0011] that overlap ranges recited in instant claims 8-9 and 17-18.
As to claim 11, Cohin et al. teaches the antireflection layer 20 has an index of refraction of less than 1.45. See paragraphs [0124]-[0125].
Cohin et al. teaches the article has an emissivity of at most 0.3. See paragraph [0015]. This range overlaps the range recited in claims 12 and 20.
As to claim 13, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the glazing of Cohin et al. to possess the claimed durability because the reference teaches the same layers in the same order and overlapping ranges of thickness.
The applied reference (Shayesteh et al.) has common inventors and a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wang et al. (EP 2 726 286 B1) teaches a glass having an Rsm value of 61 or 141 µm for use in showers or IG windows. See paragraph [0054].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David Sample whose telephone number is (571)272-1376. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 7AM to 3:30 PM.
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.
/David Sample/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784