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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final office action in response to the RCE and amendment filed 7/28/2026.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 7/28/2026 has been entered.
Claim 26 is amended.
Claims 26-50 are pending and examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 26-50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The amendment to claim 26 that the coating is activatable based on information from the sensors that the glazing unit is susceptible to being in a bowing mode has not been disclosed and is new matter. The disclosure defines the glazing unit as susceptible to bowing modes(page 2, lines 22 and 28) and the sensors provide information but lacks any discussion of the sensors providing information on the susceptibility of the unit to bowing.
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.
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.
Claims 26-31 and 33-49 are rejected, as best understood, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Margalit(U.S. Pat. Appl. Publ. 2011/0133940; cited on IDS filed) in view of Ribberink(U.S. Pat. Appl. Publ. 2020/0332593; cited on IDS filed) and Reichert(U.S.Pat. Appl. Publ. 2014/0265758; cited on IDS filed).
Regarding claims 26-28, 31, 33, 38-39, 41-42 and 44, Margalit discloses a glazing unit(2, see para. [0031] and Figs. 1A-C and 2A-D) comprising:
a first sheet of glazing material/glass(4, see para. [0070]) comprising a first face and a second face;
a second sheet of glazing material/glass(8, see para. [0070) comprising a first face and a second face;
the glazing unit is susceptible to being in a bowing mode(see para. [0031])
a cavity(10) comprising a gas between the first and second sheets of glazing material(see para. [0036]);
a physically adjustable element(53) at least partially within the cavity(see Fig. 1C);
and one or more sensors(14 or 48, see para. [0083]) indicating the conditions of the cavity(see para. [0031]),
wherein the second faces of the first and second sheets of glazing material are orientated towards the cavity(see Figs. 1A-C and 2A-D).
Margalit discloses physically adjustable elements 31 and/or 33 with the adjustment of the physically adjustable element(31, 33, see para. [0057]) is reversibly restrictable based on information from the one or more sensors and a feedback device activatable based on information from the one or more sensor(see para. [0056] and [0059]) but lacks the adjustment of the physically adjustable element(53) reversibly restrictable based on information from the one or more sensors.
It would have been well within the purview of a skilled artisan to have provided the inner adjustable element(53) capable of adjustment in response to a sensor in the same manner as disclosed for the external adjustable elements(31, 33) in order to have allowed for adequate adjustment of the unit given the intended use of the unit and design requirements thereof.
Applicant's disclosure lends no criticality to the specific restricting means of the adjustment(see page 3, lines 33-35).
Therefore, the specific restriction is considered a feature best determined by a skilled artisan given the intended use of the unit and design requirements thereof.
Margalit lacks the unit having a heatable coating suitable for heating the gas.
Ribberink discloses a glazing unit(101, see Fig. 1) comprising:
a first sheet of glazing material((104, see para. [0099] and Fig. 1; see also Figs. 4-7 for variations of the number of sheets and cavities) comprising a first face(105) and a second face(106);
a second sheet of glazing material(109) comprising a first face(109) and a second face(110); one of the first sheet of glazing material and/or the second sheet of
glazing material comprise a laminated sheet of glazing material(see Figs. 4 and 7),
a cavity(112) comprising a gas between the first and second sheets of glazing material(see para. [0100] and [0102]);
a physically adjustable element(131, see para. [00103] and Fig. 1) at least partially within the cavity(see Fig. 1) and controllable(see para. [0103]);
wherein the second faces of the first and second sheets of glazing material are orientated towards the cavity(see Fig. 1), and
a transparent conductive oxide heatable coating(see paras. [0065] and [0103]) on the second face within the cavity(therefore considered suitable to heat the gas therein; Figs. 4-7 shows additional sheets and cavities and alternative placements of the heating coating, see paras. [0126] and [0139]), the heatable coating is associated with a first cavity and the physically adjustable element is associated with the same cavity, a functional coating on a surface of the sheets(see paras. [0060] and [0066]).
Reichert discloses a heated glass with a heatable coating activatable to heat the pane and thereby reversibly activatable(see para. [0028]).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the glazing unit of Margalit with a heatable coating, such as disclosed by Ribberink and Reichert, with a reasonable degree of success, in order to have heated the gas within the cavity. It would also have been obvious for a skilled artisan to have controlled the heating via the sensors provided in order to have allowed for controlled heating of the cavity given the intended use of the unit and design requirements thereof. The specific glazing material and coatings used and the placement of the coatings is considered a feature best determined by a skilled artisan given the intended use of the unit and design requirements thereof.
Applicant's disclosure lends no criticality to the specific placement of the heatable coating and physically adjustable element material (see page 10, lines 17-28).
Therefore, the specific placement of the heatable coating and physically adjustable element material is considered a feature best determined by a skilled artisan given the intended use of the unit and design requirements thereof.
Regarding claim 29, Margalit and Ribberink and Reichert disclose the glazing unit according to claim 26, wherein at least one of the one or more sensors(14) is at least partially between the first sheet of glazing material(4 and the second sheet of glazing material, at least partially within the cavity(see Fig. 1C of Margalit).
Regarding claim 30, Margalit and Ribberink and Reichert disclose the glazing unit according to claim 26, wherein the one or more sensors(14, see paras. [0031] and [0035] and Fig. 1C of Margalit) comprise: a pressure sensor; and/or a glazing material sheet deflection sensor; and/or a temperature sensor.
Regarding claim 34, Margalit and Ribberink and Reichert disclose the glazing unit according to claim 26, wherein the heatable coating comprises a transparent conductive layer(see para. [0065 of Ribberink) but lacks the layer being a noble metal.
Applicant's disclosure lends no criticality to the specific material used for the coating(see page 6, lines 10-21).
Therefore, the specific material is considered a feature best determined by a skilled artisan given the intended use of the unit and design requirements thereof.
Regarding claim 35, Margalit and Ribberink and Reichert discloses the glazing unit according to claim 26, wherein the cavity is defined in part by at least one spacer(12, se para. [0028] and Fig. 1C of Margalit).
Regarding claims 36-37, Margalit and Ribberink and Reichert disclose the glazing unit according to claim 26, wherein the physically adjustable element comprises one or more of: a roller blind; one or more slats/venetian blind(see Fig. 1C or Margalit); one or more pleats, or a combination thereof.
Regarding claim 40, Margalit and Ribberink and Reichert disclose the glazing unit according to claim 26, wherein the glazing unit comprises three of more sheets of glazing material separated by two or more cavities(see Fig. 1C).
Regarding claim 43, Margalit and Ribberink and Reichert disclose the glazing unit according to claim 26, wherein a sheet of glazing material comprises a solar control and/or low- emissivity coating, preferably a solar control and/or low emissivity coating comprising silver or a transparent conductive oxide(see solar panel in para. [0031] and solar collector in para. [0032]).
Regarding claim 45, Margalit and Ribberink and Reichert disclose the glazing unit according to claim 26, further comprising a photovoltaic element(see paras. [0032] and [0055).
Regarding claim 46, Margalit and Ribberink and Reichert disclose the glazing unit according to claim 26, further comprising an electrical controller(20 of Margalit) suitable for: receiving information from the one or more sensors(see para. [0041]); controlling the restriction of the physically adjustable element(see para. [0056]); and controlling the activation of the heatable coating(the controller controls the elements of the unit and therefore obvious for a skilled artisan to also control any coatings as discussed above).
Regarding claim 47, Margalit and Ribberink and Reichert disclose a process for manufacturing a glazing unit according to claim 26 wherein, prior to forming the glazing unit, a physically adjustable element is positioned between the first sheet of glazing material and the second sheet of glazing material(the physically adjustable element of both Margalit and Ribberink is within the cavity between the sheets and is therefore inherently performed as claimed, see at least Fig. 1C).
Regarding claim 48, Margalit and Ribberink and Reichert disclose a system comprising a glazing unit according to claim 26, further comprising an electrical controller(see para. [0056] of Margalit) suitable for: receiving information from the one or more sensors; controlling the restriction of the physically adjustable element; and controlling the activation of the heatable coating(the combination of the references is considered to result in the claim limitation).
Regarding claim 49, Margalit and Ribberink and Reichert disclose a method comprising installing the glazing unit according to claim 26 in a building(glazing units are considered inherently used in buildings) and utilizing the glazing unit to control the pressure of the gas in the cavity(the unit controls the temperature and therefore considered to control the pressure meeting the claim limitation).
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Margalit and Ribberink and Reichert, as applied to claim 31 above, and further in view of Bennington(9,328,906, cited on PTO 892).
Margalit and Ribberink and Reichert disclose the glazing unit according to claim 31, but lack the feedback device comprises a light emitting device.
Bennington discloses an assembly having a sensor activating a feedback device/LED to perform a function.
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the glazing unit of Margalit and Ribberink and Reichert with an LED, such as disclosed by Bennington, with a reasonable degree of success, in order to have provided an indicator to the used when a specific function or situation is present given the intended use of the unit and design requirements thereof.
Claim 50 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Margalit and Ribberink and Reichert, as applied to claim 349 above, and further in view of Lange(U.S. Pat. Appl. Publ. 2021/0230929; cited on PTO 892).
Margalit and Ribberink and Reichert disclose the method of claim 49, wherein the glazing unit is installed in the building with a building interior and a building environment(considered inherent to a building using a window with a blind), but lacks the specific placement of the heatable coating is between the building interior and the physically adjustable element.
Lange discloses a building(see para. [0055]) with a glazing unit with a heatable member placed in a specific location to perform a specific function(see para. 0068).
Therefore, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to have best determined the location of the elements of the unit given the intended use of the unit and design requirements thereof.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s amendment to claim 26 sets forth a limitation not disclosed, specifically, the heatable coating is reversibly activatable based on information from the one or more sensors that the glazing unit is susceptible to being in a bowing mode. The sensors are disclosed as providing information for controlling the adjustable element and heatable coating but lacks any information or control of the glazing unit and the bowing thereof. As discussed above, Margalit discloses a glazing unit capable of bowing and therefor considered, in combination with the Ribberink and Reichert references, to meet the claim limitation.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the functioning of the glazing unit with the heatable coating have been carefully considered but are moot because the claims do not contain these features. Applicant should define in claim 26 that the sensor provides information that the glazing unit is deflected in a bowing mode and activates the coating to heat the gas within the cavity allowing for the temperature of the gas in the cavity to be increased to thereby increase the pressure, reducing the imbalance between the internal and external pressures and thereby relieve, or even eliminate, the bowing mode and thereby prevent binding of the physically adjustable element to overcome the rejection.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the dependent claims have been discussed above.
Applicant should note that any limitation in an “optionally” phrase, such as claim 26, lines 13-15, is not considered a positively recited limitation of the claim.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BETH A. AUBREY whose telephone number is (571)272-1851. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8a-4:30p.
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, Brian Glessner can be reached at 571-272-6754. 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.
BETH A. AUBREY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3633
/Beth A Aubrey/
Prosecution Insights