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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Regarding claim 1, the term “dome-forming means” is interpreted to mean the spacer allows for either elastic or plastic deformation of the contact surfaces.
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.
Claim(s) 1-22 is/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 1 and 20, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 1 recites the limitation "deformation zone" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is assumed for purposes of examination that this is the same limitation of the previously recited “deformable deformation zone”.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "peripheral edge" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 2, it is unclear if the peripheral edge of line 7 refers to the same structural component as the peripheral edge as referenced in line 3.
Regarding claim 4, it is unclear whether or not the limitation of “which are introduced in a core material of the main body of lower deformability” must be met.
Regarding claim 5, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 5, the “coating” limitation is optional in claim 4. It is unclear whether or not this limitation must be met.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "quotient h2/H" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "height" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "highest point of the spacer" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "highest point of an edge region" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "overall height of the spacer" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites, “honeycomb-like” its unclear what encompasses “like”. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 17, it is unclear what a volume reduction of 0.01 to 0.7 refers to exactly. Is this intended to be a percentage reduction in size?
Claims 3, 7-16, 18-22 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
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) 1-3, 6, 8, 10-13, 16-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeuchi (US Pub. 2023/0141217 A1) in view of Stoffelshaus (US Pub. 2023/0383591 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Takeuchi discloses a spacer for arrangement between two panes, in particular for arrangement between two glass panes of double-glazed or multi-glazed windows or doors (Abstract, lines 1-6: “A depressurized multilayer glass panel 10 includes: a first glass plate 11; a second glass plate 12; a sealing portion forming an air gap portion 13 sealed in a depressurized state between the first glass plate 11 and the second glass plate 12; and a plurality of columns 16 disposed between the first glass plate 11 and the second glass plate 12”), comprising a main body having two axially opposite contact surfaces for contacting a respective pane (Fig. 5, contact surfaces 21).
However, Takeuchi fails to disclose as taught by Stoffelshaus, similarly drawn to a spacer disposed between multiple glass panes, wherein in that at least one deformable deformation zone is arranged between the contact surfaces, the deformation zone being assigned dome-forming means, which impart a dome shape to the contact surface (Abstract, lines 8-12: “An elastic seal (19) is provided which, seen from the pane intermediate space (11), is located in front of the primary sealant (17). The elastic seal provides sealing between the spacer (14) and a pane (15, 16)”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the spacer of Takeuchi to include the deformable deformation zone of Stoffelshaus to provide increased friction between the spacer and the panes as well as reduced probability of glass cracking.
Regarding claim 2, Takeuchi as modified by Stoffelshaus discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Takeuchi, wherein the dome-forming means guide the deformation zone at least as far as the peripheral edge of the main body and extend the dome shape of the contact surface as far as the peripheral edge in such a way that the contact surface is at least axially deformable at the peripheral edge, or in that the contact surface is spaced apart from a peripheral edge (Fig. 5, the peripheral edge of column 16 is spaced apart from the area where the column contacts the panes).
Regarding claim 3, Takeuchi as modified by Stoffelshaus discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Takeuchi, the dome-forming means are arranged symmetrically and/or regularly with respect to an axis through the center of the contact surface such that they form points which are diametrically opposite with respect to the axis and which lie on the surface of a spherical cap or on a circular arc (Fig. 5, column 16 is symmetrical about the vertical axis) with a radius of curvature, which is on average in the range of 0.5 mm to 100 mm (Pg. 3, [0030]: As another characteristic configuration, it is preferable that a radius of curvature of the contact surface and the non-contact portion be 0.3 mm or more and 20 mm or less”).
Regarding claim 6, Takeuchi as modified by Stoffelshaus discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Takeuchi, wherein the quotient h2/H of the height (h2) from the highest point of the spacer to the highest point of an edge region of the spacer and the overall height (H) of the spacer advantageously lies in the range of 0 to 0.1 (Pg. 6, [0093], lines 8-11: “The height H1 of the column 16 is 0.2 mm, and the height (thickness) H2 of the outer periphery 19 of the column 16 is 0.16 mm”. The value h2 of the instant application can be expressed as (H1-H2)/2 = (.2-.16)/2 = 0.02 from Figure 4 of Takeuchi. The ratio of h2/H is therefore 0.02/.2 = 0.1).
Regarding claim 8, Takeuchi as modified by Stoffelshaus discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Stoffelshaus, wherein in that the deformation zone comprises a coating which has a higher deformability than a core material (The spacer is described as being a metal or composite [0039]. The coating is a flexible elastic material), wherein the dome-forming means comprise coating portions which follow a radius of curvature and form a coating dome or coating peak (The elastic seal of Stoffelshaus applied to the surface of Takeuchi comprises the dome forming means), wherein the coating dome or coating peak forms an axially outermost coating portion which can be turned toward a pane (Fig. 2a, the elastic seal fully envelops the spacer).
Regarding claim 10, Takeuchi as modified by Stoffelshaus discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Stoffelshaus, wherein the deformation zone comprises a coating which has a higher deformability than the core material (The spacer is described as being a metal or composite [0039]. The coating is a flexible elastic material), wherein the dome-forming means comprise core material portions which follow a radius of curvature and form a core material dome or core material peak, wherein the core material dome or core material peak forms an outermost core material portion, which can be turned toward a pane, and wherein the coating covers and/or surrounds the core material dome or core material peak (The core of Takeuchi is dome shaped and contacts the pane).
Regarding claim 11, Takeuchi as modified by Stoffelshaus discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Stoffelshaus, wherein the coating covers and/or encloses at least one or more core material portions (See Fig. 2a).
Regarding claim 12, Takeuchi as modified by Stoffelshaus discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Stoffelshaus, wherein the dome-forming means comprise recesses which extend from a surface of the core material into the interior thereof, wherein the recesses are at least partially filled with a coating on the core material or can be filled by pressurization of the contact surface (Fig. 2a, channel 23), wherein the coating has a higher deformability than the core material (The spacer is described as being a metal or composite in paragraph [0039]. The coating is a flexible elastic material).
Regarding claim 13, Takeuchi as modified by Stoffelshaus discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Stoffelshaus, wherein recesses are in the form of bores, blind holes, hollows, cavities with a linear, circular, angular, serrated, meandering, helical, spiral, honeycomb-like or planar form, in the form of portions of said forms or in the form of mixed forms of the aforementioned forms (Fig. 2a, channel 23).
Regarding claim 16, Takeuchi as modified by Stoffelshaus discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Stoffelshaus, wherein coating is colored, electrically conductive or insulating, magnetizable, hydrophilic, hydrophobic, of the same or different density on both sides, or adhesive per se or by means of embedded particles (The elastic seal is inherently thermally insulating).
Regarding claim 17, as best understood by the Examiner, Takeuchi as modified by Stoffelshaus discloses the claimed invention except for wherein a volume reduction of the deformation zone and/or of a coating on the core material on average is in the range of 0.01 to 0.7. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to specify a volume reduction as listed so as to not overly compress the spacer, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 18, Takeuchi as modified by Stoffelshaus discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Takeuchi, wherein a diameter of the main body at its widest circumference of is on average 0.05 mm to 1 mm (Pg. 3, [0036]: “As another characteristic configuration, it is preferable that a maximum diameter of regions of the column facing the first glass plate and the second glass plate be 100 μm or more and 1000 μm or less”).
Regarding claim 19, Takeuchi as modified by Stoffelshaus discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Takeuchi, wherein the main body is formed substantially cylindrically, in the manner of a column and/or pillar and/or as a prism (Fig. 2, columns 16 are cylindrical).
Furthermore, Stoffelshaus discloses at least one of:
a) a contact surface is provided, wherein an average layer thickness of a deformable coating on a core material is higher in a central region than in an edge region, or
b) a contact surface with a peak in a central region is provided, wherein a coating having a substantially homogeneous layer thickness is arranged on a core material (Fig. 3a, elastic seal 14 has a uniform thickness around the spacer), or
c) wherein a contact surface with a peak in the central region is provided, wherein a coating with a layer thickness increased in an edge region is arranged on the core material
Regarding claim 20, Takeuchi as modified by Stoffelshaus discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Takeuchi, an arrangement comprising at least two panes, in particular glass panes (Fig. 1, glass plates 11, 12), between which a spacer having a main body with two opposite contact surfaces is arranged (Fig. 5, column 16), in particular as claimed in claim 1, wherein each contact surface lies against a pane under pressure (A vacuum is formed between the panes indicating atmospheric pressure presses against the panes and consequently the spacers).
Furthermore, Stoffelshaus discloses wherein each deformation zone is compressed and/or deformed in such a way that its respective contact surface is convexly curved or flattened such that it follows the curvature of the pane lying against it (Fig. 3a, the elastic seal 14 is pressed against the panes 15, 16 and inherently conforms due to its elasticity).
Regarding claim 21, as best understood by the Examiner, Takeuchi as modified by Stoffelshaus discloses the claimed invention except for wherein a number of spacers between two panes 1000 to 4000. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select the desired density so to as provide enough structural integrity between the panes, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 22, Takeuchi as modified by Stoffelshaus discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Takeuchi, wherein in that an end radius of curvature (R) is formed under pressure loading, which is on average > 1 mm (Pg. 3, [0030]: As another characteristic configuration, it is preferable that a radius of curvature of the contact surface and the non-contact portion be 0.3 mm or more and 20 mm or less”).
Claim(s) 4-5, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeuchi (US Pub. 2023/0141217 A1) in view of Stoffelshaus (US Pub. 2023/0383591 A1) in view of Vogel-Martin (US Pub. 2018/0238105 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Takeuchi as modified by Stoffelshaus discloses the claimed invention except for as taught by Vogel-Martin, similarly drawn to a spacer disposed between glass panes, wherein in that the dome-forming means comprise step edges and/or step surfaces and/or a course following a radius of curvature, which are introduced in a core material of the main body of lower deformability and/or in a coating of the core material of higher deformability (Fig. 1B, the top surface of the pillar 100 comprises steps approximately along a radius of curvature).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the spacer of Takeuchi as modified by Stoffelshaus to include the step edges of Vogel-Martin to provide increased resistance to compression at varying elevations.
Regarding claim 5, Takeuchi as modified by Stoffelshaus and Vogel-Martin discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the average thickness of the coating is less than or equal to 30 pm, preferably less than or equal to 20 pm. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to designate the thickness of the coating to be less than 30 pm so as not to be overly compressible, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 9, Takeuchi as modified by Stoffelshaus discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Stoffelshaus, wherein the deformation zone comprises a coating which has a higher deformability than the core material (The spacer is described as being a metal or composite [0039]. The coating is a flexible elastic material).
However, Takeuchi as modified by Stoffelshaus discloses the claimed invention except for as taught by Vogel-Martin, similarly drawn to a spacer disposed between glass panes, wherein the dome-forming means comprise core material portions which follow one another in a step-like manner and taper in their width toward a core material dome or core material peak, wherein the core material dome or core material peak forms an outermost core material portion, which can be turned toward a pane, and wherein the coating covers and/or surrounds the core material dome or core material peak (Fig. 1B, the top surface of the pillar 100 comprises steps approximately along a radius of curvature).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the spacer of Takeuchi as modified by Stoffelshaus to include the step edges of Vogel-Martin to provide increased resistance to compression at varying elevations.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 7, 14-15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENRY HOOPER MUDD whose telephone number is (571)272-5941. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-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, Joshua Michener can be reached at 5712721467. 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.
/HENRY HOOPER MUDD/Examiner, Art Unit 3642 /JOSHUA J MICHENER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642