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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on June 30, 2026 has been entered.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-15, 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahieu (USPub20160122237).
Regarding claim 1, 6 and 14: Mahieu teaches glazing units comprising a transparent substrate provided with a stack of layers and provides an Example having the following alternating dielectric and Ag layer sequence below meeting Applicants’ claimed sequence.
PNG
media_image1.png
444
845
media_image1.png
Greyscale
While it is acknowledged that Mahieu’s above specific Example may have a D1 total thickness of 47.6nm and a D2 thickness of 81.4nm falling outside the ranges now claimed, note that it has been held by the courts that a reference is not limited to their Examples or preferred embodiments but instead, is limited by what it teaches as a whole (MPEP 2123).
In the instant case, it is initially noted for the record that Mahieu as a whole clearly illustrates by way of the above Example an inventive stack sequence being that which meets the claimed sequence. Additionally, although the specific D1 and D2 thicknesses of Mahieu’s specific Example may fall slightly outside the individual ranges now claimed, Mahieu does not appear to limit such a three Ag layer stack sequence to only the above Example thicknesses. Instead, Mahieu as a whole, also teaches alternative thicknesses for the labeled D1 layer (see 0045 for thicknesses of the BL layer, 0051 for thicknesses of the C1 layer and 0046) overlapping Applicants (MPEP 2144.05) and D2 thicknesses (see 0047-0049 for thicknesses for the individual ZSO5 layers and SiN layers, 0051 and 0061 for thicknesses for the C2, C3, C4 and C5 layers, and 0050) overlapping Applicants (MPEP 2144.05) providing for a prima facie case of obviousness.
Similarly, while it is acknowledged that the sum of the thicknesses shown in the Example stack above for D1, D2, D3 and D4 provides for 2256 Angstroms (225.6nm) thickness which is slightly outside the maximum claimed, Mahieu does not appear to limit such a three Ag layer stack sequence to only the above thicknesses. Instead, Mahieu as a whole allows for the labeled D1 layer to have thicknesses (see 0045 for thicknesses of BL, 0051 for thicknesses of C1 and 0046), the D2 and D3 layer to have thicknesses (see 0047-0049 for thicknesses for the individual ZSO5 layers and SiN layers, 0051 and 0061 for thicknesses for the C2, C3, C4 and C5 layers, and 0050), and the D4 layer to have thicknesses (see 0053-0056 for thicknesses for the individual ZSO5 layer, SiN layer, and top oxide layer, 0052 for thicknesses for the C6 layer, and 0057), that would allow for thickness sums overlapping that now claimed (MPEP 2144.05) providing for a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding the relationship of ratios claimed, Mahieu clearly illustrates by way of the above Example suggestion to make D2 have a first ratio of a sum of thicknesses of their first layer comprising mixed oxide of zinc and tin to a thickness of the first layer comprising silicon nitride, to make D3 with a second ratio of a sum of thicknesses of the second layer comprising mixed oxide of zinc and tin to the thicknesses of the second layer comprising silicon nitride, and to make D4 with a third ratio of a sum of thicknesses of the third layer comprising mixed oxide of zinc and tin to the thicknesses of the third layer comprising silicon nitride and to make the ratios decrease from D2 to D3 to D4.
Regarding claim 4: Although not shown above, Mahieu does teach that an interlayer IL can be included in their internal dielectrics (i.e. D2 and/or D3) (0027, 0058-0059).
While Mahieu may not explicitly disclose the exact placement of the interlayer in these internal dielectrics, it is clear from reviewing Mahieu that they do not appear to place limits on placement other than suggest that placement of such additional layers should not interfere with any direct contact of layers required by the reference. For instance, see par 0027 discussing that additional layers can be added between defined layers, except when a direct contact is specified (see 0027) and par 0058 discussing that such additional interlayers can be added in the internal dielectrics, should the direct contacts between layers described as essential be respected (0058). As such, one skilled in the art would readily conclude that the additional interlayers taught by Mahieu can be placed anywhere in the internal dielectrics D2 and/or D3 as desired as long as it does not interfere with any direct contact requirement in Mahieu.
In the instant case, as the only direct contact requirement suggested by Mahieu among layers in their internal dielectrics (D2 and D3) is that each of the layers C2-C5 must contact their adjacent Ag layer, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of invention to add the interlayers anywhere in Mahieu’s internal dielectrics (D2 and D3) between the C layers therein so that direct contact between the C layer (s) and adjacent Ag layers are maintained (i.e. placing an interlayer anywhere in D2 between layer C2 and C3 and placing interlayer anywhere in D3 between layers C4 and C5).
Regarding claim 5: The interlayer can include a material as claimed (0048).
Regarding claim 7-8 and 9: Mahieu’s above stack illustrates that the D3 can have a thickness of 65.2nm and D4 can have a thickness of 34.4nm meeting the individual ranges recited in claim 7.
As discussed above, Mahieu allows for the labeled D1 layer to have thicknesses (see 0045 for thicknesses of BL, 0051 for thicknesses of C1 and 0046) and D2 to have thicknesses (see 0047-0049 for thicknesses for the individual ZSO5 layers and SiN layers, 0051 and 0061 for thicknesses for the C2, C3, C4 and C5 layers, and 0050) overlapping Applicants (MPEP 2144.05) which together with the D3 and D4 thicknesses just mentioned allows for relationships overlapping that of claims 8 and 9 (MPEP 2144.05).
However, additionally note that the illustrated stack above provides clear suggestion to make the relationship of thicknesses for D1, D2, D3 and D4 be as claimed.
Regarding claim 10-12 and 13: The above stack illustrates that the Ag1, Ag2 and Ag3 in the sequence can each have a thickness within the ranges claimed and more specifically, the Ag1 can have a thickness of 124Angstrom (12.4nm), the Ag2 can have a thickness of 118Angstrom (11.8nm) and Ag can have a thickness of 154Angstrom (15.4nm) meeting the ranges of claims 10 and 11.
The above Ag1 and Ag3 thicknesses provide for a ratio meeting that of claim 12 and the above thicknesses for Ag1, Ag2 and A3 meet the relationship required by claim 13.
Regarding claim 15: The illustrated sequence shows that the BL can have a thickness of 420Angstrom (42nm) meeting the range of claim 15.
Regarding claim 17: The illustrated stack shows that each of the above first, second and third layers comprising SiN can have a thickness within the range claimed.
Regarding claim 18: The first, second and third layers comprising ZSO have a weight ratio of Zn/Sn being 1/1 (0099).
Regarding claim 19: The above stack shows that the first and second layers comprising ZSO can each have thicknesses falling within the range claimed.
While the third layer comprising ZSO in the above sequence is shown to have a thickness of 54Angstrom (5.4nm), Mahieu does teach that the layer can be made to have a thickness of 6-25nm (0054) overlapping the range claimed (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 20: The top layer comprising metal oxide shown in the sequence above is a layer comprising titanium (T) and zirconium (Zr).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahieu (USPub20160122237) or alternatively, in view of (USPub20160002101).
Regarding claim 16: While the first, second and third layers comprising silicon nitride are illustrated in the sequence as “SiN”, it is first noted for the record that it is clear from Mahieu that SiN is merely being used as a label for the nitride layers (see par 0101 stating that the “SiN” is just representing a silicon nitride) and Mahieu is not limiting the stoichiometry to be that of SiN.
Additionally, it is noted that although the stoichiometry may not be explicitly discussed, given that Mahieu is teaching layers being silicon nitride and provides no contrary teaching of making these layers super or sub stoichiometric, one skilled in the art would reasonably expect/conclude these silicon nitride layers to be stoichiometric (Si3N4).
Alternatively, in the instance Applicants argue against the assertion above, Mahieu does not appear to place limits on the stoichiometry of their silicon nitride layers and instead, only generally teach a solar control coating comprising IR reflecting silver layers alternated with dielectrics wherein their first, second and third nitride layers are in the internal and outermost dielectric coatings.
As ‘101, from the same field of solar control coating comprising IR reflecting silver layers alternated with dielectrics, suggests the desire for silicon nitride layers used in internal and outermost dielectrics to be that of Si3N4 (see for instance 0052-0053), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of invention to modify ‘237 to include their first, second and third nitride layers in their internal and outermost dielectric coatings to be that of Si3N4 in order to obtain a desirable nitride stoichiometry for solar control coating.
Claim(s) 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahieu (USPub20160122237) in view of (USPub20160002101).
Regarding claims 2 and 3: While Mahieu does not teach an absorbing material as claimed, they do not exclude such a material and instead, only generally teach a solar control coating comprising IR reflecting silver layers alternated with dielectrics.
As ‘101, from the same field of solar control coating comprising IR reflecting silver layers alternated with dielectrics, disclose the desire to place an absorbing material such as NiCrW in a SiN layer of a second dielectric (D2) for purposes of solar absorbing (see 0052-0053, 0069 discussing three Ag layer stack with the preferred placement in the dielectric between the first and second Ag layers, and Table VIIIa illustrating placement in the SiN layer of D2), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of invention to modify ‘237 to include placing an absorbing material of NiCrW in their first SiN layer of their second dielectric (D2) for solar absorbing.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 1, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In summary, Applicants argue that Mahieu’s Example 9 including the stack of layers as claimed does not include the thicknesses of D1 and D2 being as now claimed.
This is not persuasive. While the Examiner agrees that Mahieu’s Example may not meet the now claimed D1 and D2 thicknesses, the following was discussed in the Office Action.
Specifically, Mahieu teaches glazing units comprising a transparent substrate provided with a stack of layers and provides an Example having the following alternating dielectric and Ag layer sequence below meeting Applicants’ claimed sequence.
PNG
media_image1.png
444
845
media_image1.png
Greyscale
While it is acknowledged that Mahieu’s above specific Example may have a D1 total thickness of 47.6nm and a D2 thickness of 81.4nm falling outside the ranges now claimed, note that it has been held by the courts that a reference is not limited to their Examples or preferred embodiments but instead, is limited by what it teaches as a whole (MPEP 2123).
In the instant case, it is initially noted for the record that Mahieu as a whole clearly illustrates by way of the above Example an inventive stack sequence being that which meets the claimed sequence. Additionally, although the specific D1 and D2 thicknesses of Mahieu’s specific Example may fall slightly outside the individual ranges now claimed, Mahieu does not appear to limit such a three Ag layer stack sequence to only the above Example thicknesses. Instead, Mahieu as a whole, also teaches alternative thicknesses for the labeled D1 layer (see 0045 for thicknesses of the BL layer, 0051 for thicknesses of the C1 layer and 0046) overlapping Applicants (MPEP 2144.05) and D2 thicknesses (see 0047-0049 for thicknesses for the individual ZSO5 layers and SiN layers, 0051 and 0061 for thicknesses for the C2, C3, C4 and C5 layers, and 0050) overlapping Applicants (MPEP 2144.05) providing for a prima facie case of obviousness.
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