DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-10 and 16-17 in the reply filed on March 11, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 11-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on March 11, 2026.
The traversal is on the following ground(s)
Applicants argue that restriction is only proper if the groups are independent or distinct and there would be serious burden if restriction was not required. MPEP 803.
This argument is not persuasive because the argued requirements are only required for US practice and not in a 371 Application. Note that the present restriction is a 371 and as such, the present restriction requirement was appropriately based on lack of unity and as discussed in the requirement, unity between the groups was lacking making the restriction proper.
Applicants argue that the Examiner has not provided any indication that the content of the claims were interpreted in light of the description when considering lack of unity.
This is not persuasive because the Examiner did interpret the claims in light of the description when making the restriction requirement but note that claims are not to be read in a vacuum. In the instant case, the restriction pointed out the common feature, interpreted in light of the specification, present in each Groups and found that as this feature is taught in the prior art, it is not a contribution over the art, thereby not a “special” technical feature for unity.
Applicants argue that there is unity between Groups I-III because there is a technical relationship that involves the same special technical feature and it is this technical feature that defines the contribution which each of the groups, taken as a whole, makes over the prior art.
This is not persuasive. This is not persuasive for the same reason mentioned above.
Applicants again argue that search of all claims would not impose serious burden. MPEP 803.
This is not persuasive because serious burden is based on US
practice and the present Application is a 371.
Applicants argue that the Office has not considered the relationship between Groups I-III with respect to 37 C.F.R. 1.475(b)(1) and MPEP 806.03.
This is not persuasive. Initially, MPEP 806.03 is US practice
and the present Application is based on 371 practice.
Initially, the Office did consider the relationships between the
Groups but note that while all the relationships of Groups I-III were considered, requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression "special technical features" shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art. 37 C.F.R. 1.475(a)
In the instant case, as noted in the restriction requirement, while the common feature of a topcoat comprising a mixed nitride of silicon and zirconium on a functional coating and a thermoplastic film comprising at least 10% recycled material in a laminated glazing is present in all Groups, as this feature is taught in the prior art it is not considered a “special” technical feature and thereby, unity of invention is lacking.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
1. Claim(s) 1-8, 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischer (USPub20210018749) in view of Kobayashi (WO2018225860, rejection using corresponding English document USPN11,518,147).
Regarding claims 1-3, 16 and 17: Fischer teaches the following laminated glazing.
PNG
media_image1.png
716
725
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As shown above, the thermoplastic interlayer is a thermoplastic film layer.
While Fischer may not discuss their thermoplastic film layer being that of recycled material in the content required by claims 1-3, 16 and 17, Fischer does not place limits on their PVB material and instead, only generally teach it being that of an interlayer for laminated glass of a head up display (see entire document).
As Kobayashi teaches that an interlayer for laminated glass, including that of a head up display, can be made to be 10% or more, at least 20% at least 60% or even 100% recycled interlayer PVB material according to their invention as it is excellent in ecology, economic performance and provides a laminate with excellent transparency (see Col. 22, lines 45-50, 62-67, Col. 23, lines 45-67- Col. 24, lines 1-18, and Examples), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of invention to modify Fischer to include their interlayer film layer being that of 10% or more, at least 20% at least 60% or even 100% recycled interlayer PVB material according to Kobayashi for its excellence in ecology, economic performance and to obtain a laminate with excellent transparency.
Regarding claims 4-8: As discussed above, the thermoplastic film layer is that of PVB (polyvinyl butyral).
As shown above, the thermoplastic film is in contact with the topcoat layer of SiZrN and the functional coating comprises n IR layers of Ag and n+1 dielectric layers, with n=4, such that each IR layer of Ag is surrounded by two dielectrics.
As also shown above, the topcoat has a total physical thickness of 12.3nm and is deposited on and in contact with a layer of ZnO.
2. Claim(s) 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischer (USPub20210018749) and Kobayashi (WO2018225860, rejection using corresponding English document USPN11,518,147) as applied to claim 1, in view of Laurent (USPub20140198389).
Regarding claims 9 and 10: Fischer does not explicitly discuss the atomic ratio of Si to Zr. However, the following points are noted.
Initially, it has been held by the courts that differences in concentration will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. Specifically, "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
In the instant case, while Fischer may not discuss atomic ratios of Si and Zr in the manner claimed, Fischer’s SiZrN layer is being used as a high index layer in a solar control/IR coating stack (see Figures, 0028, Table above).
As it is well known in the art of solar control/IR coating stacks that the contents of Si and Zr in a SiZrN high index layer controls the index of the layer (see 0040 in ‘389 for instance), it would be well within the skill in the art to optimize the contents of Si relative to Zr as desired in order to obtain index desired.
Additionally, as Fischer’s SiZrN layer is functioning as a high index layer in a solar control/IR coating stack and Fischer desires for their index to be ≥2.1 (see 0032-0033 for instance), it would be well within the skill in the art during optimizing the Si and Zr content to look to the prior art to find contents deemed suitable for SiZrN high index layers that can obtain an index ≥2.1.
In the instant case, as ‘389, who similarly teaches SiZrN high index layers used in a solar control/IR coating stack, wherein the layers are made to have an index of ≥2.15, discloses that suitable and desirable contents for arriving at such an index include that of 40-80wt% Si for 25-45wt% Zr (total 100% in the target) or alternatively, if doped with Al for conductivity increase, 45-75wt% Si, 20-50wt% Zr and 1-10wt% Al (total 100% in the target) (0040-0045 in ‘389), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill with to modify Fischer to include making their SiZrN high index layers with 40-80wt% Si for 25-45wt% Zr (total 100% in the target) or alternatively 45-75wt% Si, 20-50wt% Zr and 1-10wt% Al for arriving at an index of ≥2.15.
Note that although the above contents are discussed in wt%, the ranges allow for amounts that when converted to atomic %, provide for atomic ratios overlapping those claimed (MPEP 2144.05).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAUREN ROBINSON COLGAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3474. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 9AM to 5PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Humera Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-0604. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
LAUREN ROBINSON COLGAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1784
/LAUREN R COLGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights