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
Claims 1-5 and 7 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election of Group II, claims 8-14, 16-22 was made without traverse in the reply filed on May 11, 2026.
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.
Claims 8-14, 16-22 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.
Claim 8 is rejected for the following reasons. Initially, note that the terms “thick”, “thin” and “ultra-thin” in claim 8 are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The terms are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Specifically, it is unclear what thickness the prior art layer would have to have to be considered “thick”, “thin” or “ultra-thin” and meet the claim.
For examination, as long as the prior art teaches a thickness that can be reasonably considered “thin”, “thin” or “ultra-thin”, the limitations will be considered to be met.
Claim 8 is also rejected because as the x and y values are not defined in the claims or the specification, it is unclear what the values are or whether O and/or N are even required. Specifically, could x and y potentially be zero in which case the O and/or N of the recited compounds need not be present or must x and y be a positive value requiring the O and N and if so, what positive value must x and y be. The scope is simply not clear.
For examination, the limitation is considered broadly wherein x and/or y can be potentially zero and not required.
Claims 9-14 and 16-22 are rejected for being dependent on claim 8 above.
Claim 14 is also rejected because the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite due to it being unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
For examination, the claim will be interpreted as merely requiring more than one functional layer.
Claim 14 is also rejected because it is unclear whether the additional functional layer is required to be in the coating or can it be somewhere else in the glazing. Note that claim 14 merely recites the laminated glazing having more than one functional layer but it does not actually require the coating itself to have more than one.
For examination, the claim will be interpreted as the coating within the glazing including more than one.
Claim 19 is also rejected because the term “can be” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following are positively included or are they merely a listing of what the surface of the glass layers are capable of being. Note for the record that a positive recitation would be the language “the surface of the glass layers “are” selected from.
For examination, the claim will be interpreted as simply a listing of what the surface of the glass layers are capable of being.
Claim 19 is also rejected because it is unclear what is meant by “substantially” flat. The term “substantially” in the claim is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Specifically, it is unclear how much flatness a prior art glass would have to be to meet the limitation of “substantially flat”.
Claim 22 is rejected due to the limitation "the detectable amount of nitrogen dissolved in the final ZnAlOx layer" in claim 8. Initially, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as there is no “final ZnAlOx layer”, or any “ZnAlOx layer” at all previously recited in claim 8, but instead only ZnAlOxNy layers are recited, and there is there no previous recitation of detectable nitrogen dissolving into a final ZnAlOx layer.
Additionally, it is unclear what this layer even is. For instance, is the claim attempting to limit the last (over-coat) layer of ZnAlOxNy recited in the stack of claim 8 and simply calling it ZnAlOx and the recited “detectable amount of nitrogen” is referring to the Ny? Is the recited final ZnAlOx layer of claim 22 a completely different layer from that recited in claim 8 and if so, is it the last layer in the stack, a final ZnAlOx containing layer but not necessarily the final layer of the stack, etc.? The scope is simply not clear.
Even further, while the claim recites detectable nitrogen dissolved in some final ZnAlOx layer after heat treatment, given that neither claim 8 or 22 ever requires heat treatment, it is unclear whether dissolved nitrogen would even be required or whether this is a conditional limitation in which the recited detectable amount is only required after some undisclosed heating.
Due to the level of indefiniteness of claim 22 regarding what the layer is, where it is in the stack, the existence of nitrogen, etc., prior art cannot yet be applied and the Examiner urges clarification of the claim scope.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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) 8, 10, 12, 14, 16-17, 19 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1 and a2) as being anticipated by, or alternatively, under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being obvious over USPub20050042459.
Regarding claims 8 and 10: ‘694 teaches an automotive laminated glazing comprising two glass layers, each having two major faces, a PVB bonding layer between the glass layers and a solar control coating 27 over a portion of one of the glass layers in contact with the bonding layer (Fig 3).
The coating if formed by a stack of multiple layers comprising starting from the glass in the order (Figures).
TiOx 2 (first dielectric) / ZnAlOx (y=0) 7 (first under-coat wetting layer) / Ag / NiCrOx 11 (first blocking layer) / ZnAlOx (y=0) 17 (over-coat layer)/ Si3N4 (x=0) (Figures) or SiOxNy 25 (second dielectric layer) (0035)
Note for the record that the present claims do not require the recited layers to be in direct contact nor does the present claim language preclude intervening layers.
The TiOx dielectric layer has a thickness of 10-1,000A (1-100nm) (Table 2) and as this range is thick compared to thicknesses <1nm, it will be considered thick in as much as the term has been defined.
The Ag layer has a thickness of 50-250A (5-25nm) or even 80-120A (8-12nm) and as this range is thin compared to thicknesses >25nm, it will be considered thin in as much as the term has been defined.
The NiCrOx layer has a thickness of 20-50A (2-5nm) and as this range is much thinner compared to thickness much greater than 5nm, it will be considered ultra-thin in as much as the term has been defined.
The Si3N4 (or SiOxNy) dielectric layer has a thickness of 120-320A (12-32nm) and as this range is thicker than comparable layers having thickness <12nm, it will be considered thick in as much as the term has been defined.
Note for the record that the limitation that the coating is deposited by MSVD is a process limitation and it has been held by the courts that "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In the instant case, given that ‘459’s coating meets that claimed, claim 8 is met.
Regarding claim 12: The ZnAlOx (y=0) overcoat layer 17 has a thickness of 10-300A (1-30nm) and can even have a thickness of 100 A (10nm) (Table 2).
Regarding claim 14: The coating includes more than one functional layer (Figures).
Regarding claim 16: The glazing has a total visible light transmittance of at least 70% (Table 5).
Regarding claim 17: Given that ‘459’s glazing meets that claimed it would be expected to have the same properties (MPEP 2112).
Regarding claim 19: As shown in the Figures, the surface of the glass layers are flat.
Regarding claim 21: The under-coat wetting layer ZnAlOx 7 has a thickness of 40-150A (4-15nm) (Table 2).
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.
2. Claim(s) 9, 11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPub20050042459 as applied to claim 8 above.
Regarding claims 9, 11 and 13: As discussed above, ‘459 teaches the first TiOx dielectric layer having a thickness of 10-1,000A (1-100nm) which overlaps the range of claim 9 (MPEP 2144.05).
The NiCrOx blocking layer has a thickness of 20-50A (2-5nm) which overlaps the range of claim 11 (MPEP 2144.05).
The second Si3N4 (or SiOxNy) dielectric layer has a thickness of 120-320A (12-32nm) overlapping the range of claim 13 (MPEP 2144.05).
3 Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPub20050042459 as applied to claim 8 above in view of USPN9,028,956
Regarding claim 18: While ‘459 teaches the invention of claim 8, ZnAlOx layers 7 and 17 in ‘459 previously relied upon to meet claim 8 does not meet the limitation of the over and undercoat layers having x=0 in the ZnAlOxNy formula. However, ‘459’s overall coating is shown below.
PNG
media_image1.png
448
523
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As discussed in claim 8, ‘459’s coating includes first dielectric TiOx 2 which is considered thick in as much as the term is defined, Ag layer 9 which is considered thin, blocker layer 11 of NiCrOx which is considered ultra-thin and second dielectric 25 which is considered thick in as much as it is defined.
Although the above coating does not illustrate under-coat and overcoat layers of ZnAlOxNy with x=0 (i.e. ZnAlNy), it is noted for the record that ‘459 does not exclude the addition of such layers and instead, only generally teaches laminated glazings for vehicles having a solar control coating comprised of alternating Ag and dielectrics.
As ‘956, who similarly teaches glazings, such as laminated glazings for vehicles (see Col. 3, line 53 and Col. 6, line 18), with a solar control coating comprised of alternating Ag and dielectrics, teaches that it is desirable to split the Si3N4 layers below and above Ag into two Si3N4 layers interposed by a color and/or reflectivity adjusting absorber layer which can be made of one or more of Zn, Al, etc. and mixtures (alloys) thereof and which can be fully nitrided (see Col. 5-9), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of invention to modify ‘459 to include splitting their Si3N4 layers that are under and over their Ag layer into two Si3N4 layers interposed by a color and/or reflectivity adjusting absorber layer in order to adjust color and reflectivity as desired.
Initially note that ‘459 being modified as above will result in ‘459 including a color and/or reflectivity adjusting absorber layer splitting ‘459’s Si3N4 layer 4 will result in the absorber layer being between the first dielectric and first Ag layer (i.e. an under-coat layer) as well as a color and/or reflectivity adjusting absorber layer splitting ‘459’s Si3N4 layer 14 and/or 25 which will result in an absorber layer being between the blocker layer and a second dielectric layer (i.e. over coat layer) as required by claim 8.
Further, the teaching that the color and/or reflectivity adjusting absorber layer which can be made of one or more of Zn, Al, etc. and mixtures (alloys) thereof and which can be fully nitride would allow for an alloy of both Zn and Al which is fully nitrided (i.e. ZnAlOxNy, x=0) meeting claim 18.
Note for the record that given the under coat absorbing layer is the same material claimed, it would be considered to meet the limitation of being a “wetting” layer as recited from claim 8 in as much as the term has been defined. Again note that the claims do not require direct contact of any of these layers nor do the claims prohibit the presence of intervening layers.
4. Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPub20050042459 as applied to claim 8 above in view of USPN6838181.
Regarding claim 20: While ‘459 teaches the invention of claim 8, ‘459 does not recite a minimum curvature radius. However, ‘459 is directed to laminated glazings for vehicles wherein their coated glass is heat treatable.
As ‘181, who similarly teaches laminated glazings for vehicles wherein their coated glass is heat treatable, suggests it being desirable in the laminated glazing art for such glazings to have at least a portion with a radius of curvature that is less than 500nm (abstract, Col. 3, lines 55, Col. 4, lines 31-35), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of invention to modify ‘459 to include their glazing having at least a portion with a radius of curvature that is less than 500nm in order to obtain a desirable laminated glazing for vehicles.
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