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 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 a glazing unit comprising a transparent substrate provided with the following stack of layers meeting the claimed sequence.
PNG
media_image1.png
444
845
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Note that the thicknesses listed above are in angstroms (see 0088).
D2 has a first ratio of a sum of thicknesses of the first layer comprising mixed oxide of zinc and tin to the thickness of the first layer comprising silicon nitride (384A/350=1.097), D3 has a second ratio of a sum of thicknesses of thickness of the second layer comprising mixed oxide of zinc and tin to the thicknesses of the second layer comprising silicon nitride (222A/350=0.634), and D4 has 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 (54A/200=0.27), wherein the ratios decrease from D2 to D3 to D4.
Regarding the sum thickness of D1, D2, D3 and D4 being not more than 220nm as now claimed, the following is noted. While the sum of the thicknesses shown above for D1, D2, D3 and D4 above provide for 2256 Angstroms (225.6nm) which is slightly outside the maximum now claimed, Mahieu does allow 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 allow for thickness sums overlapping that now claimed (MPEP 2144.05).
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: The sequence above has labeled D1 having a thickness of 47.6nm, D2 having a thickness of 81.4nm, D3 having a thickness of 65.2nm and D4 having a thickness of 34.4nm meeting the individual ranges recited in claim 7 and meeting the relationships required by claims 8 and 9.
However, it is additionally it is noted that Mahieu does allow 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 overlap with the individual ranges of claim 7 and allow for relationships overlapping that of claims 8 and 9 (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 10-12 and 13: The Ag1, Ag2 and Ag3 in the above sequence each have a thickness within the range claimed and more specifically, the Ag1 has a thickness of 124Angstrom (12.4nm), the Ag2 has a thickness of 118Angstrom (11.8nm) and Ag has 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 BL in the above sequence has a thickness of 420Angstrom (42nm) meeting the range of claim 15.
Regarding claim 17: Each of the above first, second and third layers comprising SiN each 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 first and second layers comprising ZSO 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 November 24, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In summary, Applicants argue that the glazing having a sum thickness of D1, D2, D3 and D4 of not more than 220nm as now claimed has unexpected and superior results of providing a more durable stack and lowering solar factor while maintaining high light transmittance as shown by their Table A in comparing Applicants’ Example 1 and 2 with that of Comparative Example 3.
This is not persuasive. The Examiner first draws attention to the comparison of Applicants’ actual stacks of Example 1, 2 and comparative Example 3 below before commenting on the evidence.
PNG
media_image2.png
433
717
media_image2.png
Greyscale
While Applicants are arguing the criticality of sum thickness, it is noted for the record that although not shown above,
In Example 1, D2 has the sequence (spec par 0108)
PNG
media_image3.png
90
592
media_image3.png
Greyscale
with D3 having the sequence (0110),
PNG
media_image4.png
64
598
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In Example 2, D2 has the sequence (spec par 0109)
PNG
media_image5.png
58
588
media_image5.png
Greyscale
with D3 having the sequence (0110)
PNG
media_image4.png
64
598
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In Example 3, D2 has the sequence (spec par 0115)
PNG
media_image6.png
36
512
media_image6.png
Greyscale
with D3 having the sequence (spec par 0116)
PNG
media_image7.png
54
608
media_image7.png
Greyscale
In reviewing the above stacks a direct comparison to determine criticality of the sum thickness alone to obtain optical properties listed in Table A cannot be made as there are multiple things clearly changing other than thickness that would necessarily have an effect on optical properties.
For instance, Example 1 includes TZO interlayers and Example 2 includes TZO interlayers and absorbing NiCrW layers whereas comparative Example 3 does not. Further, as shown above, multiple layers thicknesses are changing including that of the Ag layers in all three Examples differing which will necessarily effect the optical properties of Table A. As such, the evidence does not make it clear that it is the sum thickness of D1, D2, D3 and D4 alone that is actually critical in arriving at the argued properties or whether it is something else.
Further, note that the Examples are not even commensurate in scope with the claimed invention as all the Examples above include very specific individual layer compositions and individual thicknesses not presently claimed and Applicants’ inventive Example 1 and 2 in which they are relying on for evidentiary support include additional layers that are not even being claimed in claim 1 (i.e. TZO, NiCrW, etc.). Note that whether unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the "objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support."
Even further, it is noted for the record that Applicants relied upon Example 1 and 2 appear to include a thickness range for individual layers instead of exact thicknesses so it is unclear what the final sum thickness of D1, D2, D3 and D4 in Examples 1 and 2 even is let alone what the criticality of the specific maximum 220nm end point is.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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